6 ms·

Presumably this would replace Social Security and most other forms of welfare (might even replace medicare / medicaid — people would just buy insurance based on

Presumably this would replace Social Security and most other forms of welfare (might even replace medicare / medicaid — people would just buy insurance based on the basic income). Given that entitlements are ~60% percentage of federal, this might be easier than you think.

bradleyjg 13y ago
We could also trim down the single biggest welfare program we have:the military-industrial complex. That's close to $5000 per adult by itself. Edit: Back of envelope -- $3800 per adult from cutting MIC spending from $1 trillion to $200B which is still more than any other nation. $4000 per adult from eliminating Social security including disability. $4800 per adult in total health care savings from switching from our crappy system to the UK's. ---- $12,600 per adult Not quite what the Swiss are proposing but $100 more than the federal poverty line. And we get better health outcomes and fewer wars to boot.
- philwelch 13y ago
  How exactly does basic income solve the same problem as the military?
  - fleitz 13y ago
    What problems does a $1 trillion military solve that a $200 billion military doesn't. I'd hazard a guess that a $200 billion military generates significant funding cuts above and beyond because it's a bit difficult to get into unilateral quagmires at that funding level.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      The US military budget is probably not too high for the existing requirements of the US. The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world. The US military has additional moral obligations to minimize civilian casualties, as well as political obligations to minimize both time expenditure and friendly casualties. These requirements are historically unprecedented and contributes significantly to overall cost. In the 1990's, the US and NATO managed to put an end to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia through direct military action without incurring any significant casualties. In 1991, the UN-mandated Persian Gulf War incurred so few friendly casualties, it was statistically safer for coalition troops to serve in the Persian Gulf than to stay at home simply because the added casualties from combat were less than the reduced casualties from car accidents. In any case, there's a much better way of overlapping the two: require 2-4 years of national service and then designate the basic income guarantee as a veterans' benefit. (It wouldn't have to be military as there would be other options for conscientious objectors). This would increase military manpower, make it less likely to go to war unnecessarily, reduce youth unemployment, provide near-universal job training to reduce unemployment in the long run, solve the college debt problem via the GI Bill, and reduce social stratification by throwing everyone into the same situation early in life. And if you don't want to do it, then you don't get basic income and you don't get to vote. But that would never happen.
      - Egregore 13y ago
        Not Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates have been to military service, this I think allowed them to develop their companies, what will happen in case of mandatory service?
        freyr 13y ago
        I don't promote compulsory military service, but what would prevent someone from being an entrepreneur after finishing their military service? Consider that many developed nations have compulsory military service (Finland, Norway, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Switzerland, etc.), and yet people still manage to start new companies there.
        kolinko 13y ago
        On the other hand, Poland recently abandoned it's compulsory military service. If the service is obligatory for all, it means you're taking a million of people at the peak of their intellectual capabilities, and force them to do mundane tasks for half a year, or a year. Also, some people will fake their medical records to get out of this. If it's not obligatory for students (like it was in Poland), people will find some bullshit universities to skip the service. And the vision of being force to essentially be imprisoned for a year if you get thrown out of university, will not be fun for anyone. This is how it looked like in Poland. But - if I'm not mistaken - what made Poland change the law were those factors: - it's costly. you need to mantain 1% of population fed, clothed and so on for a year or so. plus you need to maintain a huge infrastructure for this. that alone would cost U.S. how much - $15k * 4M = 60 billion? a year? And that doesn't include the fact that those same people would otherwise bring in much more profit to the society - say $40k/year on average. So the hidden cost here goes another 160 billion of a hidden cost in case of U.S. - it's inefficient. the wars are not won by who has more manpower anymore. they are won by the ones who have better technology, intelligence and logistics. So that 4 million army would be blown away by 100 thousand army of better trained and better equipped soldiers. Finally - look at the countries you mentioned. They aren't exactly known for their entrepreneurial spirit, are they?

bradleyjg 13y ago

We could also trim down the single biggest welfare program we have:the military-industrial complex. That's close to $5000 per adult by itself. Edit: Back of envelope -- $3800 per adult from cutting MIC spending from $1 trillion to $200B which is still more than any other nation. $4000 per adult from eliminating Social security including disability. $4800 per adult in total health care savings from switching from our crappy system to the UK's. ---- $12,600 per adult Not quite what the Swiss are proposing but $100 more than the federal poverty line. And we get better health outcomes and fewer wars to boot.

philwelch 13y ago
How exactly does basic income solve the same problem as the military?
- fleitz 13y ago
  What problems does a $1 trillion military solve that a $200 billion military doesn't. I'd hazard a guess that a $200 billion military generates significant funding cuts above and beyond because it's a bit difficult to get into unilateral quagmires at that funding level.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    The US military budget is probably not too high for the existing requirements of the US. The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world. The US military has additional moral obligations to minimize civilian casualties, as well as political obligations to minimize both time expenditure and friendly casualties. These requirements are historically unprecedented and contributes significantly to overall cost. In the 1990's, the US and NATO managed to put an end to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia through direct military action without incurring any significant casualties. In 1991, the UN-mandated Persian Gulf War incurred so few friendly casualties, it was statistically safer for coalition troops to serve in the Persian Gulf than to stay at home simply because the added casualties from combat were less than the reduced casualties from car accidents. In any case, there's a much better way of overlapping the two: require 2-4 years of national service and then designate the basic income guarantee as a veterans' benefit. (It wouldn't have to be military as there would be other options for conscientious objectors). This would increase military manpower, make it less likely to go to war unnecessarily, reduce youth unemployment, provide near-universal job training to reduce unemployment in the long run, solve the college debt problem via the GI Bill, and reduce social stratification by throwing everyone into the same situation early in life. And if you don't want to do it, then you don't get basic income and you don't get to vote. But that would never happen.
    - Egregore 13y ago
      Not Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates have been to military service, this I think allowed them to develop their companies, what will happen in case of mandatory service?
      - freyr 13y ago
        I don't promote compulsory military service, but what would prevent someone from being an entrepreneur after finishing their military service? Consider that many developed nations have compulsory military service (Finland, Norway, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Switzerland, etc.), and yet people still manage to start new companies there.
        kolinko 13y ago
        On the other hand, Poland recently abandoned it's compulsory military service. If the service is obligatory for all, it means you're taking a million of people at the peak of their intellectual capabilities, and force them to do mundane tasks for half a year, or a year. Also, some people will fake their medical records to get out of this. If it's not obligatory for students (like it was in Poland), people will find some bullshit universities to skip the service. And the vision of being force to essentially be imprisoned for a year if you get thrown out of university, will not be fun for anyone. This is how it looked like in Poland. But - if I'm not mistaken - what made Poland change the law were those factors: - it's costly. you need to mantain 1% of population fed, clothed and so on for a year or so. plus you need to maintain a huge infrastructure for this. that alone would cost U.S. how much - $15k * 4M = 60 billion? a year? And that doesn't include the fact that those same people would otherwise bring in much more profit to the society - say $40k/year on average. So the hidden cost here goes another 160 billion of a hidden cost in case of U.S. - it's inefficient. the wars are not won by who has more manpower anymore. they are won by the ones who have better technology, intelligence and logistics. So that 4 million army would be blown away by 100 thousand army of better trained and better equipped soldiers. Finally - look at the countries you mentioned. They aren't exactly known for their entrepreneurial spirit, are they?