13 ms·

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. That's untrue. Switzerland is having a national referendum on whether to offer one, and stipends from oil or casino

by mattdw 13y ago

The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. That's untrue. Switzerland is having a national referendum on whether to offer one, and stipends from oil or casino money, while not enough to live on at this point, already exist in a few places. You may be correct that there's not enough money to give everyone enough to live on, but it's far from sci-fi. (There is plenty of money in the world, it's just tied up in things like insane finance industry salaries, or $500k/yr/person for imprisonment, etc.) And historically? People looked after their own menial tasks, where they were small enough, and where the tasks were too big for individuals (like roads, or building a town hall) the community got together and did it.

dantheman 13y ago
In switzerland it was voted down because it doesn't make economic sense. Look at the numbers, they don't work.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  What numbers, specifically? You didn't cite any and there haven't been many real-world studies or experiments to produce data on the costs/results of a basic income program. Something this complicated isn't going to be accurately modeled by a couple economists purely using estimates...
  - chiph 13y ago
    Caveat: Not a professional analysis, and not the OP. There's 248 million people ages 16 and older in the US, of which 63% are in the labor force[1]. So 156 million people are available for work (not all of whom are employed). Total population is about 330 million. If each of them were to get a basic monthly stipend (this is everyone, including infants) of $1200, that's $396 billion per month in payments. Per working individual, that's a tax burden of $2538 per month. And that's just for this program - there's also the rest of government to pay for. Military, roads, police + fire protection, and so on. This also assumes that the basic stipend replaces all other existing entitlement and welfare programs. Which isn't likely, because politics. Yes, the working individual will also receive a stipend payment, reducing their net tax burden to $1338. But for an hourly employee, that comes out to about $8.35 per hour worked that goes to tax. Even with the new $10.10 minimum wage proposal, that leaves them just $1.75/hr as incentive to work, vs. just staying home and living off the stipend. [1] http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_S2301&prodType=table http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Note also if you living on the dole, you get free housing, free healthcare, free phone, free childcare services, free education, etc. etc. All of which you'd have to pay for if you were stupid enough to work. So actual initiatives are even worse. Even now, welfare already pays more, if benefits are counted, than a minimum-wage job: Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.[1] In fact, in 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states, including California, as well as the District of Columbia, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, or more than 2.75 times the minimum wage.[2] [1] http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-wel... [2] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare Of course, there are incentives to work still, but $1200/month and accompanying tax raise may kill them for many more people than now.
      - loup-vaillant 13y ago
        Of course, a sufficiently high ABI would have welfare gotten rid of: no more free housing, schooling, nothing: just live with your ABI. To really calculate the cost of ABI, you need to subtract the cost of welfare.
        smsm42 13y ago
        That won't work. If it worked, we woudn't need free housing, schooling etc right now - giving people money would be much easier. The problem is that money is fungible - if you give people money instead of free housing, they'd just by some crap on it and then will come back to you and complain they have nowhere to live, and you're back to square one. That's why there are so many non-monetary benefits - because you can't sell free schooling and buy beer or fancy shoes or a lottery ticket on it. Some benefits - like free phones - can be sold, and they are actively abused and sold.
- 1stop 13y ago
  There is ~$45 trillion in the world[0] There is ~7 billion people. That gives ~$6500/person. That seems reasonable. Given if you distributed all money evenly worldwide the profit motive would disappear and things would be bought and sold at cost. But yes, I've gone waaay into sci-fi. But, back in the real world, Australia basically has one. So you're full of shit.[1] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [1] http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-services http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-service...
  - e1g 13y ago
    An Australian here - there is absolutely no universal basic income in Australia. We have a nurturing social safety net and it provides some minimal payments for those who are experiencing hardship. These payments are temporary and a meant to help individuals survive while they get up on their feet again. The selection criteria is quite forgiving because the system is setup to err on the side of overpayments rather than risking people in genuine need to go homeless. Therefore, there are a small group people who take advantage of the system, but it is not designed to be anything like a universal basic income.
    - 1stop 13y ago
      I think you misunderstand australian system. It is identical to a universal basic income, but it has been built with efficiency in mind (much like ALL of Australia's welfare systems). A basic income of ~$10k/year is provided to everyone (who needs it, i.e the unemployed). Depending on what kind of other needs (rent, children, school, etc) other benefits are available as well. It is not temporary, and you can live on it for your whole life if 10k/year is enough for you. It was designed EXACTLY to be like a universal basic income, it has only (in the last 15 years) been eroded to a "temporary unemployment" scheme in peoples minds. So you may be an Australian, but you seem to lack the knowledge of your own welfare system. Tell me, if it isn't a universal basic income, then who is not 'eligible' for it? (Excluding people who already earn more than the basic income of course).
      - 13y ago
- ansimionescu 13y ago
  Okay, now I am 100% that you're just trolling indiscriminately. There have been at least a couple real-world experiments done, have you even had the decency to look it up on Google? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=basic+income+experiment https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=basic+income+experiment
  - ansimionescu 13y ago
    (apologies for the harsh tone, I was tired and grumpy)
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    Small-scale experimentation on the effects on a small subset of recipients is not quite the same as understanding how it would affect the entire economy of a nation.
  - harryh 13y ago
    He's not trolling. Really it doesn't work and the math is simple. There are ~310M Americans. To give them even 10k each per year that's 3.1 Trillion which is more that the US gov't collected in taxes last year.
    - jaydz 13y ago
      Requirements could help make the math work. For example, only adult citizens with no income may participate in the program.
      - harryh 13y ago
        Sure, but we already have that.
        lilsunnybee 13y ago
        not really. i'm unemployed and don't qualify for any financial aid that i'm aware of. Thank goodness for my family taking me in, or i'd definitely be homeless.
- atmosx 13y ago
  So what? Do the Medicare numbers work for anyone? Health insurance in the USA is the worst in the world and costs more than anyone's else. USA citizens still use it and actively fight any substantial towards a more rational scheme that will offer more and cost less (ultimately). This as the basic income, is not about math - it's about politics. NOTE: I don't mean politics in the negative sense, I mean it in the sense of ones beliefs/experiences/political-stance/etc.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > So what? He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere, and any money a government has at its disposal comes from: 1) extortion (ie. taxation), 2) printing, 3) borrowing. Those are the three options, and none of them are a sustainable way to fund UBI, because the amount of money needed is so massive. You can't get something from nothing, and everyone can't get something from everyone else.
    - atmosx 13y ago
      > He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. I believe it is, only a real world example will convince me and Switzerland IMHO is the perfect country to run this experiment. The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
      - whatevsbro 13y ago
        > I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences. > The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me. True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now. No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay.
- nkoren 13y ago
  No, Basic Income hasn't been voted on yet in Switzerland. You're probably thinking of the 1:12 pay scale referendum. And yes, the numbers do work. You just need relatively high tax rates (>= 50%) to support the Basic Income -- but no higher than already exist in many European countries.
  - gaius 13y ago
    Well, only kinda. For example here in the UK we could scrap our welfare system and give every man, woman and child in the country £3000/year no questions asked no strings attached, for what the welfare system costs now. A family of 4 could live on £12000/year not luxuriously but with the basics, somewhere like Wales. A single person could not live on £3000/year in London.
    - pekk 13y ago
      Why should anyone be subsidized to live in London? Let them live someplace cheap, or work to cover their expenses for living in an expensive place.
      - gaius 13y ago
        I agree, but that isn't the "spirit" of basic income.
        ronaldx 13y ago
        I think it is in the spirit of basic income. Basic income allows people to better choose their own destiny. I can move from London to Wales, or move from Wales to London, knowing in both cases that I'll at least have a basic income to cover moving costs and minimum expenses while I set myself up. That nets me a different quality of life in each place, exactly as it should. Choosing to live in London means you share the resources with a much higher population density and take the (many) positive and negative consequences of that. You still need to work, but you have more freedom to negotiate; at least, you have gained a decent Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) - if things go horribly wrong you can still move to Wales :)
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Has it in fact been voted on? Last I had heard it hadn't even been scheduled for a vote, and a search isn't turning up any updates. Give a citation, or stop making shit up. As it happens, I'm also skeptical of the numbers working out in the Swiss proposal, but they're crazy high.

by mattdw 13y ago

dantheman 13y ago

In switzerland it was voted down because it doesn't make economic sense. Look at the numbers, they don't work.

kevingadd 13y ago
What numbers, specifically? You didn't cite any and there haven't been many real-world studies or experiments to produce data on the costs/results of a basic income program. Something this complicated isn't going to be accurately modeled by a couple economists purely using estimates...
- chiph 13y ago
  Caveat: Not a professional analysis, and not the OP. There's 248 million people ages 16 and older in the US, of which 63% are in the labor force[1]. So 156 million people are available for work (not all of whom are employed). Total population is about 330 million. If each of them were to get a basic monthly stipend (this is everyone, including infants) of $1200, that's $396 billion per month in payments. Per working individual, that's a tax burden of $2538 per month. And that's just for this program - there's also the rest of government to pay for. Military, roads, police + fire protection, and so on. This also assumes that the basic stipend replaces all other existing entitlement and welfare programs. Which isn't likely, because politics. Yes, the working individual will also receive a stipend payment, reducing their net tax burden to $1338. But for an hourly employee, that comes out to about $8.35 per hour worked that goes to tax. Even with the new $10.10 minimum wage proposal, that leaves them just $1.75/hr as incentive to work, vs. just staying home and living off the stipend. [1] http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_S2301&prodType=table http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Note also if you living on the dole, you get free housing, free healthcare, free phone, free childcare services, free education, etc. etc. All of which you'd have to pay for if you were stupid enough to work. So actual initiatives are even worse. Even now, welfare already pays more, if benefits are counted, than a minimum-wage job: Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.[1] In fact, in 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states, including California, as well as the District of Columbia, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, or more than 2.75 times the minimum wage.[2] [1] http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-wel... [2] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare Of course, there are incentives to work still, but $1200/month and accompanying tax raise may kill them for many more people than now.
    - loup-vaillant 13y ago
      Of course, a sufficiently high ABI would have welfare gotten rid of: no more free housing, schooling, nothing: just live with your ABI. To really calculate the cost of ABI, you need to subtract the cost of welfare.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        That won't work. If it worked, we woudn't need free housing, schooling etc right now - giving people money would be much easier. The problem is that money is fungible - if you give people money instead of free housing, they'd just by some crap on it and then will come back to you and complain they have nowhere to live, and you're back to square one. That's why there are so many non-monetary benefits - because you can't sell free schooling and buy beer or fancy shoes or a lottery ticket on it. Some benefits - like free phones - can be sold, and they are actively abused and sold.
1stop 13y ago
There is ~$45 trillion in the world[0] There is ~7 billion people. That gives ~$6500/person. That seems reasonable. Given if you distributed all money evenly worldwide the profit motive would disappear and things would be bought and sold at cost. But yes, I've gone waaay into sci-fi. But, back in the real world, Australia basically has one. So you're full of shit.[1] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [1] http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-services http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-service...
- e1g 13y ago
  An Australian here - there is absolutely no universal basic income in Australia. We have a nurturing social safety net and it provides some minimal payments for those who are experiencing hardship. These payments are temporary and a meant to help individuals survive while they get up on their feet again. The selection criteria is quite forgiving because the system is setup to err on the side of overpayments rather than risking people in genuine need to go homeless. Therefore, there are a small group people who take advantage of the system, but it is not designed to be anything like a universal basic income.
  - 1stop 13y ago
    I think you misunderstand australian system. It is identical to a universal basic income, but it has been built with efficiency in mind (much like ALL of Australia's welfare systems). A basic income of ~$10k/year is provided to everyone (who needs it, i.e the unemployed). Depending on what kind of other needs (rent, children, school, etc) other benefits are available as well. It is not temporary, and you can live on it for your whole life if 10k/year is enough for you. It was designed EXACTLY to be like a universal basic income, it has only (in the last 15 years) been eroded to a "temporary unemployment" scheme in peoples minds. So you may be an Australian, but you seem to lack the knowledge of your own welfare system. Tell me, if it isn't a universal basic income, then who is not 'eligible' for it? (Excluding people who already earn more than the basic income of course).
    - 13y ago
ansimionescu 13y ago
Okay, now I am 100% that you're just trolling indiscriminately. There have been at least a couple real-world experiments done, have you even had the decency to look it up on Google? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=basic+income+experiment https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=basic+income+experiment
- ansimionescu 13y ago
  (apologies for the harsh tone, I was tired and grumpy)
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  Small-scale experimentation on the effects on a small subset of recipients is not quite the same as understanding how it would affect the entire economy of a nation.
- harryh 13y ago
  He's not trolling. Really it doesn't work and the math is simple. There are ~310M Americans. To give them even 10k each per year that's 3.1 Trillion which is more that the US gov't collected in taxes last year.
  - jaydz 13y ago
    Requirements could help make the math work. For example, only adult citizens with no income may participate in the program.
    - harryh 13y ago
      Sure, but we already have that.
      - lilsunnybee 13y ago
        not really. i'm unemployed and don't qualify for any financial aid that i'm aware of. Thank goodness for my family taking me in, or i'd definitely be homeless.
atmosx 13y ago
So what? Do the Medicare numbers work for anyone? Health insurance in the USA is the worst in the world and costs more than anyone's else. USA citizens still use it and actively fight any substantial towards a more rational scheme that will offer more and cost less (ultimately). This as the basic income, is not about math - it's about politics. NOTE: I don't mean politics in the negative sense, I mean it in the sense of ones beliefs/experiences/political-stance/etc.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > So what? He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere, and any money a government has at its disposal comes from: 1) extortion (ie. taxation), 2) printing, 3) borrowing. Those are the three options, and none of them are a sustainable way to fund UBI, because the amount of money needed is so massive. You can't get something from nothing, and everyone can't get something from everyone else.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    > He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. I believe it is, only a real world example will convince me and Switzerland IMHO is the perfect country to run this experiment. The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      > I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences. > The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me. True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now. No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay.
nkoren 13y ago
No, Basic Income hasn't been voted on yet in Switzerland. You're probably thinking of the 1:12 pay scale referendum. And yes, the numbers do work. You just need relatively high tax rates (>= 50%) to support the Basic Income -- but no higher than already exist in many European countries.
- gaius 13y ago
  Well, only kinda. For example here in the UK we could scrap our welfare system and give every man, woman and child in the country £3000/year no questions asked no strings attached, for what the welfare system costs now. A family of 4 could live on £12000/year not luxuriously but with the basics, somewhere like Wales. A single person could not live on £3000/year in London.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Why should anyone be subsidized to live in London? Let them live someplace cheap, or work to cover their expenses for living in an expensive place.
    - gaius 13y ago
      I agree, but that isn't the "spirit" of basic income.
      - ronaldx 13y ago
        I think it is in the spirit of basic income. Basic income allows people to better choose their own destiny. I can move from London to Wales, or move from Wales to London, knowing in both cases that I'll at least have a basic income to cover moving costs and minimum expenses while I set myself up. That nets me a different quality of life in each place, exactly as it should. Choosing to live in London means you share the resources with a much higher population density and take the (many) positive and negative consequences of that. You still need to work, but you have more freedom to negotiate; at least, you have gained a decent Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) - if things go horribly wrong you can still move to Wales :)
dllthomas 13y ago
Has it in fact been voted on? Last I had heard it hadn't even been scheduled for a vote, and a search isn't turning up any updates. Give a citation, or stop making shit up. As it happens, I'm also skeptical of the numbers working out in the Swiss proposal, but they're crazy high.