5 ms·

> 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, wher

> 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.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      I didn't mean my numbers to be accurate. That's why I referred to them as a start. Yes, there would be considerations such as the differences between rental prices in NYC vs Idaho, or whatever. But more importantly, what happens if there's a hefty increase in taxes? -A lot of businesses will shut down or get the fuck out, and then the tax burden is just that much heavier on everyone who's left, and then they're even more motivated to shut down or get out. It's a feedback loop of higher taxes.
      - blisterpeanuts 13y ago
        A voice of reason in the wilderness. These people (or is it all one person with multiple accounts?) disinter tired, old socialist notions that have no basis in reality. Indeed, let's just close all the tax "loopholes" and redistribute $2T to the least productive people and see what happens. What a great idea! Excuse me, but I have to get back to the real world, now. Enjoy eating the goose, but don't complain tomorrow when you run out of golden eggs!
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        Yep. They have no clue. I've come to the conclusion that trying to get people to see reason is futile, but old habits die hard.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > to the least productive people BIG goes to everyone. It replaces (among other things) programs which go to the "least productive people". So your criticism seems misplaced.
      - bobwaycott 13y ago
        > I didn't mean my numbers to be accurate. That's why I referred to them as a start. Typically, when discussing a start, I'd expect people to not be starting with a number that is over $1T higher than what we would actually be discussing right now. $1T is a lot of overage for a start, even considering that you apparently did not care to be accurate when trying to so definitively dismiss the attainability of a better economic platform for everyone. > But more importantly, what happens if there's a hefty increase in taxes? -A lot of businesses will shut down or get the fuck out, and then the tax burden is just that much heavier on everyone who's left, and then they're even more motivated to shut down or get out. It's a feedback loop of higher taxes. You're purely speculating here. Running a business ought not make anyone some kind of special entity more valued than all the workers they depend on. There is a seriously systemic social problem in America where too many people look at businesses as something that ought not be obligated to the same expectations of social responsibility as normal citizens and the state itself. Don't want to pay taxes? Fuck off Business Person, we don't need you. If what you're doing is really that valuable and the market wants it, someone else will find a way. And if nobody else does, we still don't fucking need you. Establishing a fair, just, and reasonably equitable society is far more important than counting the number of businesses we have. When the system is stacked in favor of those who want to evade taxes, or threaten they will shut down or get the fuck out, and constantly caters to this bullshit, we can't improve our institutions meaningfully. Moreover, the cult of endless economic growth that so dominates our cultural narrative is working against us and reality itself. It's unsustainable. We keeping moving toward more bullshit jobs and less meaning for people, as if job titles and salaries are the only measure of human worth and the only means to happiness. Everybody treats the economy and the complex systems that transact within it as if it's some kind of set of laws built into the universe itself, instead of something we fashion ourselves and have the ability to direct.
nbouscal 13y ago
>> This has nothing to do with socialism. The means of production do NOT change ownership. > Oh, a Marxist. Not necessarily a Marxist, just someone who actually knows the meaning of the word socialism. Depressingly uncommon, that.
mrow84 13y ago
From what I have read basic income is often suggested to be combined with a single land value tax. This means the only direct taxes are on the unimproved value of land, which is fairly easy to administer in a country like the United Kingdom, for example. That tax is then passed on to people who consume the output of the land, be that actual produce, like vegetables, or more intangible things, like crossing the land in a train. The land value tax can be scaled to match the requirements of the basic income, plus additional government costs (e.g. defence). I suppose in a libertarian interpretation of that system the additional government costs would be minimal. Personally I would favour more social spending, but I could imagine less being necessary than under systems where basic provision is lower, or has more strings attached.

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.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    I didn't mean my numbers to be accurate. That's why I referred to them as a start. Yes, there would be considerations such as the differences between rental prices in NYC vs Idaho, or whatever. But more importantly, what happens if there's a hefty increase in taxes? -A lot of businesses will shut down or get the fuck out, and then the tax burden is just that much heavier on everyone who's left, and then they're even more motivated to shut down or get out. It's a feedback loop of higher taxes.
    - blisterpeanuts 13y ago
      A voice of reason in the wilderness. These people (or is it all one person with multiple accounts?) disinter tired, old socialist notions that have no basis in reality. Indeed, let's just close all the tax "loopholes" and redistribute $2T to the least productive people and see what happens. What a great idea! Excuse me, but I have to get back to the real world, now. Enjoy eating the goose, but don't complain tomorrow when you run out of golden eggs!
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        Yep. They have no clue. I've come to the conclusion that trying to get people to see reason is futile, but old habits die hard.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > to the least productive people BIG goes to everyone. It replaces (among other things) programs which go to the "least productive people". So your criticism seems misplaced.
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      > I didn't mean my numbers to be accurate. That's why I referred to them as a start. Typically, when discussing a start, I'd expect people to not be starting with a number that is over $1T higher than what we would actually be discussing right now. $1T is a lot of overage for a start, even considering that you apparently did not care to be accurate when trying to so definitively dismiss the attainability of a better economic platform for everyone. > But more importantly, what happens if there's a hefty increase in taxes? -A lot of businesses will shut down or get the fuck out, and then the tax burden is just that much heavier on everyone who's left, and then they're even more motivated to shut down or get out. It's a feedback loop of higher taxes. You're purely speculating here. Running a business ought not make anyone some kind of special entity more valued than all the workers they depend on. There is a seriously systemic social problem in America where too many people look at businesses as something that ought not be obligated to the same expectations of social responsibility as normal citizens and the state itself. Don't want to pay taxes? Fuck off Business Person, we don't need you. If what you're doing is really that valuable and the market wants it, someone else will find a way. And if nobody else does, we still don't fucking need you. Establishing a fair, just, and reasonably equitable society is far more important than counting the number of businesses we have. When the system is stacked in favor of those who want to evade taxes, or threaten they will shut down or get the fuck out, and constantly caters to this bullshit, we can't improve our institutions meaningfully. Moreover, the cult of endless economic growth that so dominates our cultural narrative is working against us and reality itself. It's unsustainable. We keeping moving toward more bullshit jobs and less meaning for people, as if job titles and salaries are the only measure of human worth and the only means to happiness. Everybody treats the economy and the complex systems that transact within it as if it's some kind of set of laws built into the universe itself, instead of something we fashion ourselves and have the ability to direct.

nbouscal 13y ago

>> This has nothing to do with socialism. The means of production do NOT change ownership. > Oh, a Marxist. Not necessarily a Marxist, just someone who actually knows the meaning of the word socialism. Depressingly uncommon, that.

mrow84 13y ago

From what I have read basic income is often suggested to be combined with a single land value tax. This means the only direct taxes are on the unimproved value of land, which is fairly easy to administer in a country like the United Kingdom, for example. That tax is then passed on to people who consume the output of the land, be that actual produce, like vegetables, or more intangible things, like crossing the land in a train. The land value tax can be scaled to match the requirements of the basic income, plus additional government costs (e.g. defence). I suppose in a libertarian interpretation of that system the additional government costs would be minimal. Personally I would favour more social spending, but I could imagine less being necessary than under systems where basic provision is lower, or has more strings attached.