3 ms·

I strongly suspect that the Basic Income Guarantee would receive increases in excess of the rate of inflation, as politicians use it to buy votes. I think the

by chiph 13y ago

I strongly suspect that the Basic Income Guarantee would receive increases in excess of the rate of inflation, as politicians use it to buy votes. I think the $10k/yr figure that was quoted is unrealistic - that would cover food expenses with not much left over for housing costs. Even in a low-cost part of the nation, they'd have to perform work of some kind to earn more.

kyllo 13y ago
I think the $10k/year proposal was per person, not per household. Although that begs the question, at what age should the benefit start? $10k/year is $833/month. $500/month rent and $333/month (about $11/day) for food is pretty basic subsistence for a single person. Yes, you'd have to work if you wanted anything more than basic nutrition and shelter, or wanted to live in a high-cost urban center, but the idea here is just that you shouldn't face homelessness/starvation just because you can't find gainful employment.
- chiph 13y ago
  If per-person, population of the US is currently about 330 million. Doing the math, that's $3.3 Trillion per year in payments to be made. Social Security expenditures in 2008 were about $615 billion. There are obviously other programs that people qualify for, and I'm specifically excluding Medicare/Medicaid because they're health programs, not living-expense programs. Even so, if the income guarantee program were implemented, expenditures in this arena would go up by about a factor of 4 to 5.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
k-mcgrady 13y ago
That's a crazy amount of money to spend on food. Does that figure include buying food for multiple people? As a single person that's more than 5X what I spend on food. In fact $10K would completely cover my food and rent for a year with a small bit left over. Obviously this will differ from place to place and person to person.
pyoung 13y ago
Ideally, increases would get tied to the CPI, or some other index. I also wouldn't mind a provision that would automatically adjust payments to ensure solvency. Regarding the amount, it should be small enough to make it difficult to live off of. I don't think it would be a good idea if we created a class of BI dependents. There should still be fairly strong incentives to work. I think the main purpose of the BI would be to alleviate the need to rely on corporate america as a de facto social welfare provider. If you look at what happened to Detroit, for example, after the car industry tanked, the local economy went down with it. At the very least, BI would have provided a stabilizing force, slowing down the decline, and possibly giving residents a chance to re-build the local economy.
- kyllo 13y ago
  I think the main purpose of the BI would be to alleviate the need to rely on corporate america as a de facto social welfare provider. Exactly. In America we still have social welfare benefits, we just get them mostly from our employers rather than from our government, because at some point, for some reason, we decided that we don't want the government to provide them. The implicit assumption being that people without jobs don't deserve them. Social welfare benefits really should be in the scope of the government's responsibility, not private corporations'. They shouldn't be tied to a particular place of employment, especially as job positions get scarcer and shorter.

by chiph 13y ago

kyllo 13y ago

I think the $10k/year proposal was per person, not per household. Although that begs the question, at what age should the benefit start? $10k/year is $833/month. $500/month rent and $333/month (about $11/day) for food is pretty basic subsistence for a single person. Yes, you'd have to work if you wanted anything more than basic nutrition and shelter, or wanted to live in a high-cost urban center, but the idea here is just that you shouldn't face homelessness/starvation just because you can't find gainful employment.

chiph 13y ago
If per-person, population of the US is currently about 330 million. Doing the math, that's $3.3 Trillion per year in payments to be made. Social Security expenditures in 2008 were about $615 billion. There are obviously other programs that people qualify for, and I'm specifically excluding Medicare/Medicaid because they're health programs, not living-expense programs. Even so, if the income guarantee program were implemented, expenditures in this arena would go up by about a factor of 4 to 5.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

k-mcgrady 13y ago

That's a crazy amount of money to spend on food. Does that figure include buying food for multiple people? As a single person that's more than 5X what I spend on food. In fact $10K would completely cover my food and rent for a year with a small bit left over. Obviously this will differ from place to place and person to person.

pyoung 13y ago

Ideally, increases would get tied to the CPI, or some other index. I also wouldn't mind a provision that would automatically adjust payments to ensure solvency. Regarding the amount, it should be small enough to make it difficult to live off of. I don't think it would be a good idea if we created a class of BI dependents. There should still be fairly strong incentives to work. I think the main purpose of the BI would be to alleviate the need to rely on corporate america as a de facto social welfare provider. If you look at what happened to Detroit, for example, after the car industry tanked, the local economy went down with it. At the very least, BI would have provided a stabilizing force, slowing down the decline, and possibly giving residents a chance to re-build the local economy.

kyllo 13y ago
I think the main purpose of the BI would be to alleviate the need to rely on corporate america as a de facto social welfare provider. Exactly. In America we still have social welfare benefits, we just get them mostly from our employers rather than from our government, because at some point, for some reason, we decided that we don't want the government to provide them. The implicit assumption being that people without jobs don't deserve them. Social welfare benefits really should be in the scope of the government's responsibility, not private corporations'. They shouldn't be tied to a particular place of employment, especially as job positions get scarcer and shorter.