4 ms·

It is an outright fraud. 1. Premise: "Basic income of X units of money is sent to everyone in population". 2. Basic income comes from where? Either from taxes

It is an outright fraud. 1. Premise: "Basic income of X units of money is sent to everyone in population". 2. Basic income comes from where? Either from taxes, or from printed money. Either way, purchasing power is being taken from some people in proportion to their savings/income. 3. There's always a difference in income and amount of savings. If everyone was making the same amount of money, doing "basic income" wouldn't change much (except feed some bureaucrats in the process). 4. Therefore, some people will be taxed less than "basic income" they receive. And some people will be taxed more that the income they receive. 5. Therefore, some people do not really receive any extra income. They are getting deprived of a portion of their purchasing power instead. 6. Therefore promoting it as "everyone gets it, no strings attached" is a total lie. If they said "we want to take from some people and give to others" it would be honest and true. But it doesn't sound as fair as "everyone gets", isn't it? Note: I'm not debating taxation itself. Even if you think it's okay to tax and redistribute wealth, the description of this law is a total lie. EDIT: I guess downvoting folks are too busy redistributing people's wealth to point out a logical flaw in my comment.

gojomo 13y ago
Everyone of consequence understands it has to be paid for, and thus it's not a net income win for everyone. So you're refuting an obtuse interpretation of "everyone gets it" that only the very naive might believe. The point of "everyone gets it" is to simplify administration, soften the stigma, and eliminate the sort of marginal-disincentive cliffs that patchwork 'progressive' benefits often create.
- oleganza 13y ago
  "soften the stigma" is the problem here. It's false, dishonest advertisement which means to produce a psychological effect when the practical effect is different. That's why it is called fraud: you say one thing, but sell another, and you know it in advance.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    A basic income may or may not be a good policy, but people like Milton Friedman and Charles Murray weren't trying to perpetrate a dishonest fraud (or convince people it's a "free lunch") when they outlined its potential benefits over alternate existing patchwork systems of redistribution. "Everyone gets it" means to avoid the complexity, corruption, and gaming that comes with an eligibility-testing bureaucracy. "Softens the stigma" means the marginal incentives, especially for the working poor and near poor, aren't muddied by taboos around other welfare programs. (And "softens the stigma" is a honest way to describe that part of the rationale, as well... because some listeners will consider the stigma a good thing, while others see it as a barrier to the policy's intended effects. Universal eligibility does, in actual fact, alter the stigma associated with receiving government income – and people can still argue about whether that's a good thing or not, without allegations of bad-faith fraud.)

gojomo 13y ago

Everyone of consequence understands it has to be paid for, and thus it's not a net income win for everyone. So you're refuting an obtuse interpretation of "everyone gets it" that only the very naive might believe. The point of "everyone gets it" is to simplify administration, soften the stigma, and eliminate the sort of marginal-disincentive cliffs that patchwork 'progressive' benefits often create.

oleganza 13y ago
"soften the stigma" is the problem here. It's false, dishonest advertisement which means to produce a psychological effect when the practical effect is different. That's why it is called fraud: you say one thing, but sell another, and you know it in advance.
- gojomo 13y ago
  A basic income may or may not be a good policy, but people like Milton Friedman and Charles Murray weren't trying to perpetrate a dishonest fraud (or convince people it's a "free lunch") when they outlined its potential benefits over alternate existing patchwork systems of redistribution. "Everyone gets it" means to avoid the complexity, corruption, and gaming that comes with an eligibility-testing bureaucracy. "Softens the stigma" means the marginal incentives, especially for the working poor and near poor, aren't muddied by taboos around other welfare programs. (And "softens the stigma" is a honest way to describe that part of the rationale, as well... because some listeners will consider the stigma a good thing, while others see it as a barrier to the policy's intended effects. Universal eligibility does, in actual fact, alter the stigma associated with receiving government income – and people can still argue about whether that's a good thing or not, without allegations of bad-faith fraud.)