8 ms·

> a) no country has ever tried it, really, so there isn't a real-world experience case to look at yet, Brazil is trying, it's called "Bolsa Família". It's an a

> a) no country has ever tried it, really, so there isn't a real-world experience case to look at yet, Brazil is trying, it's called "Bolsa Família". It's an attempt to assure a minimum base income, stop child labor and develop the economy on places far away from the big centers. It works by putting money directly into the hands of poor families and letting they decide how to use it, as opposed to more specific welfare programs. I guess that's as close as you can get to socialism, and there's a lot of controversy surrounding it, since brazilian government is provenly corrupt. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia

polarix 13y ago
Bolsa Familia is not a basic income. It fails to fix the fundamental problem with current welfare: that it is a disincentive to reemployment. A proper basic income is fucking trivial to implement. Give every member of society X amount of money per T time period. This has nothing to do with socialism. The means of production do NOT change ownership.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  > Bolsa Familia is not a basic income. It fails to fix the fundamental problem with current welfare: that it is a disincentive to reemployment. I don't think it's disincentive to reemployment in this case, because being unemployed is not a requirement to receive the money, just being below a certain level of income per family member. Those families can both receive the benefit and work, as the program has the potential to stimulate the local economy and create business opportunities or jobs that didn't existed before. > This has nothing to do with socialism. Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
  - consonants 13y ago
    Genuinely curious, at what point does taxation become socialism?
    - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
      There are many ways to spend tax money that aren't directly related to welfare: military, infra-strucure for the private sector (docks, airports), industry, research... I believe that a state that taxes and redistributes wealth is enforcing some level of common ownership, so acting under socialist principles. A state that uses tax money and reverts back into public services though is more often said to be only a welfare state.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Sounds like, in short, taxation to help the poor is socialism, while taxation to help the rich is not. Which I suppose is true, but not exactly a reason to avoid socialism.
      - consonants 13y ago
        Okay, that puts this into perspective: >> This has nothing to do with socialism. >Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic. >I believe that a state that taxes and redistributes wealth is enforcing some level of common ownership, so acting under socialist principles. This doesn't follow. If they were abolishing property rights, then yes you might have a point, but this is nothing new. It doesn't erode away any of the problematic power relations in a pre-socialist economy. It's like equating the following: >There are many ways to spend tax money that aren't directly related to welfare: military, infra-strucure for the private sector (docks, airports), industry, research... with fascism. It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort. I'm also curious as to why you don't classify the above corporate welfare as socialism as well.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  > A proper basic income is fucking trivial to implement. Give every member of society X amount of money per T time period. Just like that, huh? Pray tell, where does the money come from? Magic money pixies just conjure up limitless amounts of money and sprinkle it everywhere, and the only effect that has is that now everyone has money! > This has nothing to do with socialism. The means of production do NOT change ownership. Oh, a Marxist.
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    The money could come from a number if sources, like all existing welfare programs, or public pensions, which are already incredibly high, and could be substantially lowered. Or we could cut our ridiculous military budget by a tiny fraction.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      Have you looked at some numbers? Here's a start: 300 million people * $1500/month = $5.4T per year. It seems the total US tax revenues are around $2.9T in 2013. So with these numbers, all they'd need is to.. roughly double their revenues. In other words, the US would need to forcefully confiscate almost twice as much money as they do now. This is why statements like "A proper basic income is fucking trivial to implement. Give every member of society X amount of money per T time period" are somewhat annoying, and we haven't even gone into the consequences of raising taxes by even half.
      - bobwaycott 13y ago
        Try using some real numbers if you're going to actually try dismissing an argument with an appeal to numbers. Are we talking about guaranteeing that every child has $1,500/mo, too? I don't think so. Based on Census data, there are about 240 million adults ... so $4.3T, using your $1500/mo figure. Basing this off existing tax revenues is somewhat foolhardy as that system is gamed like crazy. Forcefully confiscate? No. The US would have to alter tax code to increase revenue by closing all the loopholes used by those who exploit them to avoid taxation of their incomes and assets. Beyond that, this would not be a simple program to implement--which, I think, is actually your point. For starters, BGI would have to adjust based on where a person lives--someone in NYC or LA has a higher basic income need than someone in the smaller, cheaper Southern and Midwestern towns. This makes a bit more difficult equation for determining exactly how much this would cost, but there's enough Census data available that we could roughly estimate it with a bit of effort. The tax system would have to be modified, making appeals to current tax revenues a rather moot point. So, you're right that it's not a trivial proposal, and it's unfortunate the other commenter suggested such a trivial solution. However, we do just give every member of society X amount of money per T time period in the form of various tax breaks and write-offs, etc. So, the other commenter is not too far off that it can be as trivial as agreeing and deciding to just do it--and then get on with the hard work of figuring out how to implement it.
f055 13y ago
Thanks for pointing out Brazil. And as for the OP, I would also point out History! I mean what is this bullshit - basic income guarantee has been in practice for 50 years in almost every communist state around Russia, my Poland included. It wasn't called that way, but the policy was that everyone has to have a job and receive a specified wage. And everyone did. You know what happened? Money was useless because there was no supply. Everybody had money, nobody was poor, the problem was - you can't eat paper. You know what would happen in the US, where there is supply? It would drive spending nuts, demand would grow, prices would grow, therefore inflation would grow and the dollar would lose its value, effectively diminishing the basic income benefits. Because life ain't fair, it never will be unless we live in utopia where everyone is good and there is no evil. So why not try it? Because there was a guy who wrote it all down. His name was Marks. And you know who used his theories in practice? Lenin. And you know what happened next? The Red Revolution. Seriously, such ideas for the US… "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  > I mean what is this bullshit - basic income guarantee has been in practice for 50 years in almost every communist state around Russia, my Poland included. It wasn't called that way, but the policy was that everyone has to have a job and receive a specified wage. But is it really the same thing? A basic income guarantee is the same as having a basic (food/healthcare/public services/whatever) guarantee (basically, state welfare already implemented in many countries) - the difference is the government is paying in money instead of trying to provide the services themselves. The way I see it, it's quite different than everybody getting the same income. It has the potential to improve public service efficiency and foster the economy away from big production centers (decreasing city population density, which causes a lot of problems on it's own, like homelessness or poor housing conditions, traffic, health and environmental issues, all of which are problems the government has to waste money on already).
- scarmig 13y ago
  "basic income guarantee has been in practice for 50 years in almost every communist state around Russia, my Poland included" This type of statement betrays a total lack of understanding of what a basic income guarantee even is. Plenty of deeply anti-communist thinkers--including probably the most effective one in history--have supported a basic income. Why did your native Poland fall far short of its productive potential? As you yourself say, it wasn't for lack of money: it was because the things people wanted to consume were not being produced. The root cause of that was broken capital markets: special interests (or foreign special interests, in the case of Poland) captured political control of the economic resources of Poland and used non-market decision making to allocate capital. If people who completely deprioritize popular standard of living control capital, then, yes, unsurprisingly other things--military, party functionaries, foreign invaders--will end up getting their demand met. Also: "Because life ain't fair, it never will be unless we live in utopia where everyone is good and there is no evil. So why not try it? Because there was a guy who wrote it all down. His name was Marks. And you know who used his theories in practice? Lenin. And you know what happened next? The Red Revolution." It's abundantly clear that, for all his faults, you don't even have a passing acquaintance with Marx. He's wrong on virtually everything, but you're not even wrong.
dnautics 13y ago
I would hardly call "basic minimum income" socialism. Socialism is top-down control of the economy by the state; this is just an (extremely) liberal (in the european sense) welfarism. You could argue that it's less socialistic than the US' welfare system, which imposes lots of behaviour controls on its recipients.
gizmo686 13y ago
>I guess that's as close as you can get to socialism, and there's a lot of controversy surrounding it, since brazilian government is provenly corrupt. I would say that is as close as you can get to capitalism (while having welfare). In the current welfare systems, the government funds specific programs to provide for the public. With a BI, the government gives money to individuals, and allows the market to arrange itself to provide for the public.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  Actually, that's what I meant. It's as close as you get to socialism (redistribution of wealth is a form of common ownership of the country's GDP) without rendering money useless (having the government provide everything for everybody).

polarix 13y ago

Bolsa Familia is not a basic income. It fails to fix the fundamental problem with current welfare: that it is a disincentive to reemployment. A proper basic income is fucking trivial to implement. Give every member of society X amount of money per T time period. This has nothing to do with socialism. The means of production do NOT change ownership.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
> Bolsa Familia is not a basic income. It fails to fix the fundamental problem with current welfare: that it is a disincentive to reemployment. I don't think it's disincentive to reemployment in this case, because being unemployed is not a requirement to receive the money, just being below a certain level of income per family member. Those families can both receive the benefit and work, as the program has the potential to stimulate the local economy and create business opportunities or jobs that didn't existed before. > This has nothing to do with socialism. Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
- consonants 13y ago
  Genuinely curious, at what point does taxation become socialism?
  - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
    There are many ways to spend tax money that aren't directly related to welfare: military, infra-strucure for the private sector (docks, airports), industry, research... I believe that a state that taxes and redistributes wealth is enforcing some level of common ownership, so acting under socialist principles. A state that uses tax money and reverts back into public services though is more often said to be only a welfare state.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Sounds like, in short, taxation to help the poor is socialism, while taxation to help the rich is not. Which I suppose is true, but not exactly a reason to avoid socialism.
    - consonants 13y ago
      Okay, that puts this into perspective: >> This has nothing to do with socialism. >Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic. >I believe that a state that taxes and redistributes wealth is enforcing some level of common ownership, so acting under socialist principles. This doesn't follow. If they were abolishing property rights, then yes you might have a point, but this is nothing new. It doesn't erode away any of the problematic power relations in a pre-socialist economy. It's like equating the following: >There are many ways to spend tax money that aren't directly related to welfare: military, infra-strucure for the private sector (docks, airports), industry, research... with fascism. It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort. I'm also curious as to why you don't classify the above corporate welfare as socialism as well.
anoncowherd 13y ago
> A proper basic income is fucking trivial to implement. Give every member of society X amount of money per T time period. Just like that, huh? Pray tell, where does the money come from? Magic money pixies just conjure up limitless amounts of money and sprinkle it everywhere, and the only effect that has is that now everyone has money! > This has nothing to do with socialism. The means of production do NOT change ownership. Oh, a Marxist.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  The money could come from a number if sources, like all existing welfare programs, or public pensions, which are already incredibly high, and could be substantially lowered. Or we could cut our ridiculous military budget by a tiny fraction.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    Have you looked at some numbers? Here's a start: 300 million people * $1500/month = $5.4T per year. It seems the total US tax revenues are around $2.9T in 2013. So with these numbers, all they'd need is to.. roughly double their revenues. In other words, the US would need to forcefully confiscate almost twice as much money as they do now. This is why statements like "A proper basic income is fucking trivial to implement. Give every member of society X amount of money per T time period" are somewhat annoying, and we haven't even gone into the consequences of raising taxes by even half.
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      Try using some real numbers if you're going to actually try dismissing an argument with an appeal to numbers. Are we talking about guaranteeing that every child has $1,500/mo, too? I don't think so. Based on Census data, there are about 240 million adults ... so $4.3T, using your $1500/mo figure. Basing this off existing tax revenues is somewhat foolhardy as that system is gamed like crazy. Forcefully confiscate? No. The US would have to alter tax code to increase revenue by closing all the loopholes used by those who exploit them to avoid taxation of their incomes and assets. Beyond that, this would not be a simple program to implement--which, I think, is actually your point. For starters, BGI would have to adjust based on where a person lives--someone in NYC or LA has a higher basic income need than someone in the smaller, cheaper Southern and Midwestern towns. This makes a bit more difficult equation for determining exactly how much this would cost, but there's enough Census data available that we could roughly estimate it with a bit of effort. The tax system would have to be modified, making appeals to current tax revenues a rather moot point. So, you're right that it's not a trivial proposal, and it's unfortunate the other commenter suggested such a trivial solution. However, we do just give every member of society X amount of money per T time period in the form of various tax breaks and write-offs, etc. So, the other commenter is not too far off that it can be as trivial as agreeing and deciding to just do it--and then get on with the hard work of figuring out how to implement it.

f055 13y ago

Thanks for pointing out Brazil. And as for the OP, I would also point out History! I mean what is this bullshit - basic income guarantee has been in practice for 50 years in almost every communist state around Russia, my Poland included. It wasn't called that way, but the policy was that everyone has to have a job and receive a specified wage. And everyone did. You know what happened? Money was useless because there was no supply. Everybody had money, nobody was poor, the problem was - you can't eat paper. You know what would happen in the US, where there is supply? It would drive spending nuts, demand would grow, prices would grow, therefore inflation would grow and the dollar would lose its value, effectively diminishing the basic income benefits. Because life ain't fair, it never will be unless we live in utopia where everyone is good and there is no evil. So why not try it? Because there was a guy who wrote it all down. His name was Marks. And you know who used his theories in practice? Lenin. And you know what happened next? The Red Revolution. Seriously, such ideas for the US… "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
> I mean what is this bullshit - basic income guarantee has been in practice for 50 years in almost every communist state around Russia, my Poland included. It wasn't called that way, but the policy was that everyone has to have a job and receive a specified wage. But is it really the same thing? A basic income guarantee is the same as having a basic (food/healthcare/public services/whatever) guarantee (basically, state welfare already implemented in many countries) - the difference is the government is paying in money instead of trying to provide the services themselves. The way I see it, it's quite different than everybody getting the same income. It has the potential to improve public service efficiency and foster the economy away from big production centers (decreasing city population density, which causes a lot of problems on it's own, like homelessness or poor housing conditions, traffic, health and environmental issues, all of which are problems the government has to waste money on already).
scarmig 13y ago
"basic income guarantee has been in practice for 50 years in almost every communist state around Russia, my Poland included" This type of statement betrays a total lack of understanding of what a basic income guarantee even is. Plenty of deeply anti-communist thinkers--including probably the most effective one in history--have supported a basic income. Why did your native Poland fall far short of its productive potential? As you yourself say, it wasn't for lack of money: it was because the things people wanted to consume were not being produced. The root cause of that was broken capital markets: special interests (or foreign special interests, in the case of Poland) captured political control of the economic resources of Poland and used non-market decision making to allocate capital. If people who completely deprioritize popular standard of living control capital, then, yes, unsurprisingly other things--military, party functionaries, foreign invaders--will end up getting their demand met. Also: "Because life ain't fair, it never will be unless we live in utopia where everyone is good and there is no evil. So why not try it? Because there was a guy who wrote it all down. His name was Marks. And you know who used his theories in practice? Lenin. And you know what happened next? The Red Revolution." It's abundantly clear that, for all his faults, you don't even have a passing acquaintance with Marx. He's wrong on virtually everything, but you're not even wrong.

dnautics 13y ago

I would hardly call "basic minimum income" socialism. Socialism is top-down control of the economy by the state; this is just an (extremely) liberal (in the european sense) welfarism. You could argue that it's less socialistic than the US' welfare system, which imposes lots of behaviour controls on its recipients.

gizmo686 13y ago

>I guess that's as close as you can get to socialism, and there's a lot of controversy surrounding it, since brazilian government is provenly corrupt. I would say that is as close as you can get to capitalism (while having welfare). In the current welfare systems, the government funds specific programs to provide for the public. With a BI, the government gives money to individuals, and allows the market to arrange itself to provide for the public.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
Actually, that's what I meant. It's as close as you get to socialism (redistribution of wealth is a form of common ownership of the country's GDP) without rendering money useless (having the government provide everything for everybody).