5 ms·

> The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case. What do you think

> The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case. What do you think the purchasing power of welfare money is? Furthermore, can you really separate the purchasing power of the money utilized in the minimum income and the income from working?

downandout 13y ago
I am not separating anything. I am saying that inflation will rise, because that's what happens when a country isn't producing anything more, but the country increases the amount of its currency in circulation. It's like a stock split - absent a rise in the actual value of the company, doubling the number of shares makes each share half as valuable. In this case, over time inflation will adjust to the point that the spending power of the basic income will approach zero. It won't actually hit zero, because markets are not 100% efficient. But it will be close.
- brazzy 13y ago
  > over time inflation will adjust to the point that the spending power of the basic income will approach zero. Through what mechanism exactly? Please also explain why this hasn't happened with other, existing forms of social subsidies. It seems like it is your understanding of money that is laughably over-simplified.
  - downandout 13y ago
    They will have to print this money, because there is nowhere else to get it. What happens when you print money but there is no additional demand for it? You guessed it...the value drops. Markets are surprisingly efficient at pricing things like this in. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that their economy will absorb this with no effect on the value of their currency?
    - brazzy 13y ago
      > because there is nowhere else to get it. Why that? Nobody's talking about abolishing taxes. Note also that the basic income would replace many other forms of social subsidies that already exist and have harmful side effects.
      - downandout 13y ago
        Why that? Because you can't tax enough to fund a basic income for every single person.
        brazzy 13y ago
        That depends entirely on how high it is, doesn't it? Ultimately, it's not about money but about productivity. If the economy is productive enough to give everyone a minimal standard of living as well as comforts and luxuries for those who earn them, it doesn't really matter how said minimal standard of living is "funded". And there is little doubt that the economies of developed countries are that productive for a reasonable minimal standard.
        desas 13y ago
        You can't tax enough to fund the current government spending either....
        randallsquared 13y ago
        You can free up ~4500 per adult in the US "just" by redirecting the "mandatory" portion of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Agriculture (which I believe is largely food subsidies, but I could be wrong about that). Drop Medica.. and tell people to spend some of their BI on insurance if they need it and you can just about double it, with no tax increases at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...
        vilhelm_s 13y ago
        Apparently the total income in the US is $13,401,868,693,000 (according to http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm), which is about $43k per person. So funding a $20k/person basic income would correspond to about 50% tax? Actually I think this is an overestimate, since the declared incomes do not cover social security and corporate taxes.
- rycho 13y ago
  basic income doesn't increase the amount of currency in circulation...
  - downandout 13y ago
    How do you propose they get this money to give to people then?
    - rycho 13y ago
      Taxes? I'm not proposing anything by the way, just explaining that mincome isn't a proposal to print a bunch of new money. I think the idea is that it replaces current welfare programs.
      - downandout 13y ago
        Whom would you tax? It isn't possible that taxes would cover all of it.
        jonknee 13y ago
        That's absurd, of course people will work. Why does anyone work right now when there are already welfare programs? By your logic there would be no sense in companies paying bonuses--if you already have a guaranteed salary why would you do anything more than the minimum?
        downandout 13y ago
        This is not welfare. This is giving money to every single person, and you cannot do that without negatively impacting the value of the currency. Reality sucks, but we still have to live in it.
        jonknee 13y ago
        How is it not welfare in your estimations? It's nearly the dictionary definition of welfare. Why would it negatively impact the value of the currency and how is that any different than the current state of welfare (where only some people receive it)?

downandout 13y ago

I am not separating anything. I am saying that inflation will rise, because that's what happens when a country isn't producing anything more, but the country increases the amount of its currency in circulation. It's like a stock split - absent a rise in the actual value of the company, doubling the number of shares makes each share half as valuable. In this case, over time inflation will adjust to the point that the spending power of the basic income will approach zero. It won't actually hit zero, because markets are not 100% efficient. But it will be close.

brazzy 13y ago
> over time inflation will adjust to the point that the spending power of the basic income will approach zero. Through what mechanism exactly? Please also explain why this hasn't happened with other, existing forms of social subsidies. It seems like it is your understanding of money that is laughably over-simplified.
- downandout 13y ago
  They will have to print this money, because there is nowhere else to get it. What happens when you print money but there is no additional demand for it? You guessed it...the value drops. Markets are surprisingly efficient at pricing things like this in. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that their economy will absorb this with no effect on the value of their currency?
  - brazzy 13y ago
    > because there is nowhere else to get it. Why that? Nobody's talking about abolishing taxes. Note also that the basic income would replace many other forms of social subsidies that already exist and have harmful side effects.
    - downandout 13y ago
      Why that? Because you can't tax enough to fund a basic income for every single person.
      - brazzy 13y ago
        That depends entirely on how high it is, doesn't it? Ultimately, it's not about money but about productivity. If the economy is productive enough to give everyone a minimal standard of living as well as comforts and luxuries for those who earn them, it doesn't really matter how said minimal standard of living is "funded". And there is little doubt that the economies of developed countries are that productive for a reasonable minimal standard.
      - desas 13y ago
        You can't tax enough to fund the current government spending either....
      - randallsquared 13y ago
        You can free up ~4500 per adult in the US "just" by redirecting the "mandatory" portion of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Agriculture (which I believe is largely food subsidies, but I could be wrong about that). Drop Medica.. and tell people to spend some of their BI on insurance if they need it and you can just about double it, with no tax increases at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...
      - vilhelm_s 13y ago
        Apparently the total income in the US is $13,401,868,693,000 (according to http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm), which is about $43k per person. So funding a $20k/person basic income would correspond to about 50% tax? Actually I think this is an overestimate, since the declared incomes do not cover social security and corporate taxes.
rycho 13y ago
basic income doesn't increase the amount of currency in circulation...
- downandout 13y ago
  How do you propose they get this money to give to people then?
  - rycho 13y ago
    Taxes? I'm not proposing anything by the way, just explaining that mincome isn't a proposal to print a bunch of new money. I think the idea is that it replaces current welfare programs.
    - downandout 13y ago
      Whom would you tax? It isn't possible that taxes would cover all of it.
      - jonknee 13y ago
        That's absurd, of course people will work. Why does anyone work right now when there are already welfare programs? By your logic there would be no sense in companies paying bonuses--if you already have a guaranteed salary why would you do anything more than the minimum?
        downandout 13y ago
        This is not welfare. This is giving money to every single person, and you cannot do that without negatively impacting the value of the currency. Reality sucks, but we still have to live in it.
        jonknee 13y ago
        How is it not welfare in your estimations? It's nearly the dictionary definition of welfare. Why would it negatively impact the value of the currency and how is that any different than the current state of welfare (where only some people receive it)?