2 ms·

The main problem I see is that basic income would require a much richer society. If you want to have a system that gives a livable income to all unemployed peop

The main problem I see is that basic income would require a much richer society. If you want to have a system that gives a livable income to all unemployed people PLUS gives a significant income bump if someone gets employed, you need lots of money.

scarmig 13y ago
You don't need a significantly richer society. Today, everyone consumes the necessary amount to survive. If they didn't, they'd be, well, dead. I guess the relevant point is that few people, at least in Western countries, are dying of starvation or exposure (and those who do usually have severe mental illness). This means that even with the particular kinds of capital arranged in the particular way we do today, we can produce enough goods so that everyone consumes enough to survive. It's just a question of financing. Most people at the lower end end up financing the consumption either through personal debt or through imposing negative externalities on society, be it theft, drawing down the resources of friends or family, or soaking up charity dollars that could be more effectively used as capital investment. And personal debt just kicks the externalities toward the future, with the additional option of bankruptcy, which increases lending costs for all borrowers, itself a costly externality. A basic income makes these externalities legible and puts the finances on the books instead of off of them. In addition it gives psychological security and improves the negotiating power of everyone.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  The points you raise are good ones, but the question raised wasn't the cost of covering those at the bottom, it's the cost of also distributing it to the rest. Of course, if you couple basic income with an additional flat tax (that is, add X% to all tax brackets) that covers it, you would - net - be giving a lot of improvement to those at the bottom, asking a lot of money from those at the top, helping those just below the mean a little, and asking just a little more from those just above the mean. Of course, there's all the usual concerns around changes in tax rates (including tax evasion) still apply...

scarmig 13y ago

You don't need a significantly richer society. Today, everyone consumes the necessary amount to survive. If they didn't, they'd be, well, dead. I guess the relevant point is that few people, at least in Western countries, are dying of starvation or exposure (and those who do usually have severe mental illness). This means that even with the particular kinds of capital arranged in the particular way we do today, we can produce enough goods so that everyone consumes enough to survive. It's just a question of financing. Most people at the lower end end up financing the consumption either through personal debt or through imposing negative externalities on society, be it theft, drawing down the resources of friends or family, or soaking up charity dollars that could be more effectively used as capital investment. And personal debt just kicks the externalities toward the future, with the additional option of bankruptcy, which increases lending costs for all borrowers, itself a costly externality. A basic income makes these externalities legible and puts the finances on the books instead of off of them. In addition it gives psychological security and improves the negotiating power of everyone.

dllthomas 13y ago
The points you raise are good ones, but the question raised wasn't the cost of covering those at the bottom, it's the cost of also distributing it to the rest. Of course, if you couple basic income with an additional flat tax (that is, add X% to all tax brackets) that covers it, you would - net - be giving a lot of improvement to those at the bottom, asking a lot of money from those at the top, helping those just below the mean a little, and asking just a little more from those just above the mean. Of course, there's all the usual concerns around changes in tax rates (including tax evasion) still apply...