12 ms·

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 in

by 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.
      - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
        > You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic. I'm giving my definition, as someone who knows what goes on inside this country. The program was put in practice under a left-wing government, whose president was the head of the worker party and went to jail during the right-wing, US-supported, military dictatorship we had in Brazil from 1964 to 1986. So even though the program looks like "just" welfare, there's a strong socialist doctrine behind it, revolving around redistribution of wealth and the maintenance of the left-wing in power. Mind you, the same party that implemented the program won all four subsequent elections for presidency. > It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort. Nothing of the sort? It's pretty close a description of where the US government invests it's tax money, and there are quite a few people who classify it as a fascist government. The fact it's a military power, ran by a two-party system where both sit on the same axis of the political spectrum, with a strong nationalism sentiment and martialist culture are often given as indicators.
  - iopq 13y ago
    At the point at which it's mandatory.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    The moment you do something useful to society with the tax revenue.
- allochthon 13y ago
  Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of centralized government of all kinds, through the medium of taxation. And governments of all kinds already redistribute wealth in pursuit of social goals, whether they are socialist or not.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  > 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. Well, I personally know people that refuse to work because they get the benefit, and even a minimum salary would make them ineligible. Bolsa Familia is fixing several people into poverty.
  - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
    I'm sorry, but for some reason I can't believe you. The program currently pays per family, tops, R$ 306. Minimum wage is more than double. I don't see why mentally and physically capable people would refuse the opportunity of doubling their income.
    - rubinelli 13y ago
      Some can make more by taking informal jobs, which they don't have to report. With that, they are locked into a local maximum. And I've heard anecdotes from social workers of people who do prefer taking the "free" money to working. When you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of families, there will always be a few outliers.
  - hamai 13y ago
    Minimum salary won't get you out of poverty either. It means 2-4h in a packed bus, work for someone else, see your kids only when they're sleeping, have no alternative but public health and education, which usually is hellish.
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.

by polarix 13y ago

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.
    - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
      > You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic. I'm giving my definition, as someone who knows what goes on inside this country. The program was put in practice under a left-wing government, whose president was the head of the worker party and went to jail during the right-wing, US-supported, military dictatorship we had in Brazil from 1964 to 1986. So even though the program looks like "just" welfare, there's a strong socialist doctrine behind it, revolving around redistribution of wealth and the maintenance of the left-wing in power. Mind you, the same party that implemented the program won all four subsequent elections for presidency. > It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort. Nothing of the sort? It's pretty close a description of where the US government invests it's tax money, and there are quite a few people who classify it as a fascist government. The fact it's a military power, ran by a two-party system where both sit on the same axis of the political spectrum, with a strong nationalism sentiment and martialist culture are often given as indicators.
- iopq 13y ago
  At the point at which it's mandatory.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  The moment you do something useful to society with the tax revenue.
allochthon 13y ago
Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of centralized government of all kinds, through the medium of taxation. And governments of all kinds already redistribute wealth in pursuit of social goals, whether they are socialist or not.
marcosdumay 13y ago
> 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. Well, I personally know people that refuse to work because they get the benefit, and even a minimum salary would make them ineligible. Bolsa Familia is fixing several people into poverty.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but for some reason I can't believe you. The program currently pays per family, tops, R$ 306. Minimum wage is more than double. I don't see why mentally and physically capable people would refuse the opportunity of doubling their income.
  - rubinelli 13y ago
    Some can make more by taking informal jobs, which they don't have to report. With that, they are locked into a local maximum. And I've heard anecdotes from social workers of people who do prefer taking the "free" money to working. When you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of families, there will always be a few outliers.
- hamai 13y ago
  Minimum salary won't get you out of poverty either. It means 2-4h in a packed bus, work for someone else, see your kids only when they're sleeping, have no alternative but public health and education, which usually is hellish.

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.