41 ms·

It Is Time For Basic Income

• FD3SA 13y ago
  Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society, which accounts for inherent human limitations and behaviors. Evolution is an extremely feckless game, and thus far we've been trapped by its whims, endlessly struggling in a free-for-all battle for survival. In order to transcend and escape our evolutionary origins, we will first and foremost need to understand ourselves. How we came to be, what behaviors we're prone to, and what impact these have on our societies. Second, we will need technology which allows us to liberate ourselves from extreme labor, giving us free time to engage our societies in a calm, rational matter without our survival on the line. If these two conditions are met, then I believe humanity will transcend into a new golden age. As of this writing, I think we're made incredible progress on the second point, but are very far behind on the first. Furthermore, the US is an extremely complex nation, with a history that makes unity almost impossible except against foreign entities. The US needs to make an incredible amount of progress on the first point in order to even consider radical ideas like basic income. In fact, it is currently dialing back its SNAP (food stamps), which is part of its social assistance program. This is in the context of an already weak social safety net, by far the weakest of any western nation. Sadly, the US has a very long way to go. The commonwealth and Nordic countries, by comparison, are much further along.
  • ekianjo 13y ago
    > Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society Not sure, but wouldn't basic income induce increased prices for commodities? If disposable income increases for everyone, then there is an incentive to increase prices everywhere (including accommodation which is a significant part of monthly expenses), thus negating the positive effects of basic income. Then you know what would happen next... people asking for an increased basic income, and the thing would spiral to the end.
    • saraid216 13y ago
      Whether or not that's true, that doesn't actually respond to the part you're quoting. Unless you're arguing that an empirically ethical society is not possible?
      • dinkumthinkum 13y ago
        Well if it causes inflation then it calls into question whether it really is a "first step."
    • jgj 13y ago
      Free from wage slavery, citizens receiving basic income could spend time producing their own commodities. They could learn trades not to use in a career, but to reduce their dependency on others. I also think the premise that prices would rise and create a GBI death-spiral is far from guaranteed. With a GBI behind them, citizens could potentially be more likely to start their own businesses, increasing competition and productivity and keeping prices well within reasonable range.
      • bcheung 13y ago
        Free from wage slavery? Technology is so much further along than it was 1000 years ago people barely have to work to have the same living standard as they had then. People generally only work for 8 hours a day. They can't spend the rest of their time doing that right now? Everyone is free to start a business. Tons of people do it while working a full time job. Tons of people go to college while they have a full time job. Those who are lazy won't and I see no reason why I should reward such behavior with my tax dollars.
        • orthecreedence 13y ago
          This is the type of attitude that hinders progress, and for no apparent reason. News flash: you're already rewarding people who sit around doing nothing with your tax dollars. GBI does the same, but at reduced overhead. Starting a business is hard. Starting a business while working full time is near impossible. It's not about laziness or incompetence. You just don't get the same business opportunities you do when working a full time job as you do when you're able to network and market yourself during regular hours. It can be done but it's really, really fucking hard. Also, working a full time job while in college isn't a good thing. Our country needs to provide education more universally if it wants to stay ahead of the curve. Saying "you can either live in indentured servitude to your student loans, work a full time job while in college, or be born with rich parents" doesn't really cut it. Sure, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and all that bullshit, but let's get serious here...the country doesn't work like it did in the 50s. GBI makes it possible for your average person to take an idea from conception to reality a lot easier. I'd say for all the companies I've started, the largest overhead was by far salaries and making sure the founders were able to put food on the table. With GBI, our businesses would have been 10x more successful, because investment capital would last 10x longer! This is good for business. Yes, you'll have lazy people who take advantage. But I'm willing to bet for every lazy person who just wants to sit around all day eating Little Debbies cake rolls, there are 100 who get bored and decide to actually do something with their lives. Let's also take art into account. Sure it's useless and stupid because the free market doesn't approve, but imagine a world without it. GBI would provide for those who thanklessly and actively make our country a more beautiful place.
  • marcosdumay 13y ago
    It's not that easy to escape from Evolution. We can delay it for a time, if we keep our exponential growth going. Unfortunately, not for a really long time, unless we discover some way to grow beyond our galaxy. Anyway, basic income is important for this century we are on. For our lifetime. Things will get very ugly very fast if we automate everything and don't have some functional redistributing program before.
    • Nzen 13y ago
      The centralizing power of automation is much more pronounced now than it has been in the past. This stems from the current focus on knowledge work tasks rather than repetitious, small problem-space labor. IBM's watson will price out radiologists and their pattern finding ilk. I found Martin Ford's [lights in the tunnel](http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/) enlightening and concerning. He too suggests a basic income.
  • javajosh 13y ago
    >...I believe humanity will transcend into a new golden age. I was amused by my brain which, perhaps inevitably, read "golden age" with a distinct Alpha Centauri voice.
  • Pinatubo 13y ago
    > empirically ethical society Did you mean "ethics informed by empirics" or something like that? "Empirically ethical" is a logical contradiction.
• krazydad 13y ago
  I am not at all an economist, but I wonder: if everyone had the same amount of fixed income (in addition to whatever else they made from their jobs), wouldn't there be continual inflation, rendering that money worthless? Wouldn't the fixed income become the new zero income? Also: How does Macdonalds work in this situation, if the fixed income "replaces" minimum wage. Does Macdonalds pay on top of this wage? Do they double it? Do they pay zero? If they pay zero, what incentives workers to work at Macdonalds?
  • robobenjie 13y ago
    It replaces minimum wage in that McDonalds is welcome to offer a job flipping burgers for $1 an hour if they want. However, because no one _needs_ a job to live (because they can just live on the basic income) someone would only take that job if it was worth it/fulfilling to them.
    • _august 13y ago
      Or alternatively, it could cause the wage to increase, as people won't be as desperate for just any job, driving down the demand for such jobs. It would start to make financial sense for McDonalds to invest in automating several tasks which are currently cheaper for McDonalds to hire someone for. Imagine if you order and pay through a machine (I saw one of these at Jack in the Box already). The person behind the counter could instead be working on their dreams of being a musician, artist, studying for college, etc.
    • jaredgeorge 13y ago
      And this is why the model would not work. I don't believe that there are enough people who would find fulfillment in flipping burgers, unclogging toilets, roofing in AZ in July...
      • dragonwriter 13y ago
        > And this is why the model would not work. I don't believe that there are enough people who would find fulfillment in flipping burgers, unclogging toilets, roofing in AZ in July... I think you missed the "worth it" part, which substitutes for the "fulfilling" part. Unattractive but low-skill jobs would see higher wages (and, thus, greater incentives to find labor-saving alternatives) until the utility people doing those jobs provided to others was reflected in the reward people doing those jobs received.
• jdreaver 13y ago
  I am always wary of supporting a basic income guarantee. Although it sounds much better than the current welfare mess we have, the actual implementation will probably be an addition rather than a replacement.
  • d357r0y3r 13y ago
    Yeah, somehow I don't see the IRS and the various other federal institutions than have grown up around revenue collection closing their doors any time soon. The good thing about guaranteed basic income is that it has the positives of welfare without the negative incentives (i.e. if I make over X amount, my check stops coming). If you implement minimum income without replacing the current provisioning system, then you haven't really solved any problems.
  • opendais 13y ago
    It was successful when trialed in Canada so I'd say its viable. But ya, I don't trust our politicians to be sensible and cut spending to pay for a new program. [e.g. Use this to remove the most inefficient $ for $ welfare related programs so more of it ends up in the hands of the people that need it]
    • adambard 13y ago
      It's important to note that the "Mincome" experiment provided a Guaranteed Minimum income, not a Basic Income. The distinction being that the former started to drop off if the recipients earned more than some threshold (at a rate of $0.50 less per $1 earned, so as not to serve as a disincentive).
      • bryanlarsen 13y ago
        This is similar to most basic income or negative income tax proposals. Most finance themselves through progressive income taxes, generally scaled so that those of average income see their taxes increase the same amount as what they receive from BI.
  • rjtavares 13y ago
• brunooo 13y ago
  Tom Streithorsts excellent piece also was published yesterday: http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/road-to-recovery http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/road-to-recovery
• gregcrv 13y ago
  Another missed advantage: it moves the job market from demand/supply type of market to easy/difficult type of market: the highest paid jobs will be the ones nobody wants to do.
  • ryandrake 13y ago
    That would mean the CEO would be the lowest paid employee at every company.
    • dllthomas 13y ago
      I'm not sure if this is intended as snark at CEOs, criticism of the notion that a shift would occur, criticism of the notion that a shift should occur, or just general extrapolation. Personally, I expect we would see unpleasant jobs become more expensive than they currently are, and pleasant jobs become less expensive than they currently are. I think it's tremendously unlikely that this effect would be so dramatic that "the CEO would be the lowest paid employee at every company", even accepting the implicit assumption that CEO is the least unpleasant job (which seems false).
• lukasm 13y ago
  bureaucratic overhead with proper tech is close to zero. Basic Icome is too a big leap in social and political context. I am very much in favour of Minimal Activity proposition. It's way more easier to implement.
  • Adam503 13y ago
    There is no way to reduce corruption in society without regulations and bureaucracy.
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    "I am very much in favour of Minimal Activity proposition." Could you define this?
• ceocoder 13y ago
  just an aside - this is the first time I've seen a TLD this long actually being used... interesting.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• benched 13y ago
  The idea that you absolutely must work hard in exchange for the necessities of your life, is so deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness, like a fundamental law of conservation, that it seems a lot of people cannot conceive otherwise.
  • avmich 13y ago
    Twenty years ago a lot of people couldn't see themselves using a cellphone or an Internet.
    • enraged_camel 13y ago
      I think this is different, though. They did not have any moral objections to cellphones or Internet. They simply lacked imagination.
      • MacsHeadroom 13y ago
        What if said moral objections stem from a lack of imagination?
        • rescripting 13y ago
          Cellphones and the Internet were adopted on a person by person basis. It became easy to imagine yourself with them once the neighbour got it. Basic Income takes much more buy in from more people to get off the ground. I like the idea of it being attempted on the city level though, I'd never thought of that. It's likely the smallest scale that would work with the least amount of individual buy in required.
          • llamataboot 13y ago
            It has been: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-povert...
    • 13y ago
• a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  If anything like basic income happens expect immigration to be halted and birthright citizenship grants to be ended. The value and meaning of citizenship will rapidly change and tolerance for outsiders taking a slice of the pie will rapidly plunge. I think there will be a lot of ramifications like this that most people probably aren't considering.
  • dlubarov 13y ago
    But the pie grows larger as more people enter the economy (though it may be sublinear).
    • julespitt 13y ago
      Definitely true, it's just that people don't know that or want to believe it.
      • a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
        Every attempt at analyzing this for the US economy I have seen concludes that immigration is at best a wash for the people who were already US citizens. It does, however, have the effect of worsening income disparity. Capital benefits while low income wages are driven down. Of course one also has to consider environmental costs.
    • MBlume 13y ago
      The pie grows larger as people enter the economy who were brought there by the desire to get a free income? I support the proposal, but come on
  • avmich 13y ago
    Really?.. I think BI per se might change the landscape somewhat - and that depends on its scale - but "rapidly change" - no, you don't principally differentiate strangers with passports from strangers without.
  • derefr 13y ago
    Alaska has its Permanent Fund Dividend, which is a kind of basic income coming from state oil sales. How hard is it to get Alaskan citizenship?
• belleruches 13y ago
  I'm in favor of this. Do we have any examples where this has worked before?
  • tim333 13y ago
    You could argue the system in the UK provides similar payments and could be called a basic income system if you rebrand it. Basically the system comes out roughly as: Zero earned income. You get about £60-200 from the state per week so lets call this a £60 basic income. Typical unemployed. Annual income £12K. No tax and no subsidies. We could rebrand as £60/wk basic income = 3K/yr and and 25% tax on the 12K. Typical minimum wage earner. Income £50k. Roughly £35K in your pocket, £15K tax. Rebrand as 18K tax less 3K minimum income. The system kind of works. One of the main problems is that there is a very steep effective marginal between zero income and minimum wage - a lot of people end up about equally well off in the short term whether they do nothing or flip burgers. This would be better under a straight basic income system. I think you could improve the basic income set up by something like karma points where you get a bit more money if you are productive even if it's doing something unpaid like charity work or writing poems and less if you are criminal etc.
    • nirnira 13y ago
      Sorry, you must have misread Belleruches' post. He asked for examples where this has worked. Last I heard the UK was a depressed shithole with a stagnant economy. Hardly a glorious example of the success of such policies.
    • lazyjones 13y ago
      > The system kind of works. Isn't it actually radically different in that you are not allowed to choose to stay unemployed, i.e. you have to be at least trying to look for work in order to be eligible for such benefits? In other countries there are similar systems but before you get "basic income" like benefits, your property will have to be used up / sold.
• ericHosick 13y ago
  Real questions because I'm not an economist. If I have money does that mean I am assured that the goods required to fulfill my basic needs exist and can be purchased by that money?
  • Klinky 13y ago
    No. Simply having money means nothing. This is true for all economies. It's entirely up to society accepting the currency you have to produce the goods you desire. In a basic income society, the amount received should be based off of indexes for items/services deemed necessary to meet some basic quality-of-life thresholds. If the private sector cannot provide items/services to meet those thresholds, then the government should step in to provide them, until the private sector can provide it more efficiently(if possible).
• Adam503 13y ago
  I agree. Unemployment runs no lower that 70% among disabled people in the best of times. Anyone that is not literally perfect (beautiful, slim, brilliant, healthy, emotionally well centered) faces huge obstacles from the powers that be in our society.
  • stcredzero 13y ago
    Don't forget, in some cases, young.
• ethana 13y ago
  So what should the basic income be? $10k/yr? 20k? 50k? 100k?
  • benched 13y ago
    It should be tied to some indexes that reflect the cost of living. If it's impossible to actually live a very minimal life on the basic income, there's not much point, as you'll still have to work and be under stress about making ends meet.
    • ethana 13y ago
      So basic income is the minimum living cost? What if minimum cost of living increase every year as it does? What if you live in San Francisco where the standard of living is crazy high? Do the citizens of S.F get a higher basic income than say Milwaukee?
      • Klinky 13y ago
        This is an issue with the concept of basic income. Likely the most equitable solution would be for government to step in and provide housing directly or limit rents in some areas. The federal basic income level would likely be based off of a national averages for cost of living, with state/city governments stepping in to provide greater subsidies if they feel it's needed. People may still need to pay more for convenience, but should have other options available, even if it means moving an hour or two away from the trendy metro areas.
      • orthecreedence 13y ago
        The point of a universal/general basic income is that it's the same for everyone. SF's cost of living is significantly higher, but nobody's stopping you from getting a job there still on top of your GBI. If on top of having a job and getting GBI you still can't live in San Francisco, then you'd move to a cheaper area of the state/country. What's interesting is that a lot of people flock to urban areas for the increased opportunity, but with a GBI, this may not be the case as much because there's less of a strain to make ends meet. This could reduce the cost of living in urban areas.
• softatlas 13y ago
  I once stumbled upon a YouTube video consisting of a woman who received ~$1,400/mo entirely supplied by Government Assistance Programs. I once saw a job posting for a Web Developer/Python position where the client stated: "$1,000/mo is enough in Belarus." I stopped to think for a bit: "I hardly made $800/mo when I was freelancing, and I was happiest when I was not working." I think the biggest argument for Basic Income is to normalize what is already an existing systemic exploitation of a broken system. Professional exploiters and accidental/system-justifier exploiters need to be cut off, which might motivate professionals and invalids to assess our system as more just. I'm sure a positive network effect will follow. Why not just try it? Why not stop arguing these speculative points and just try it? It only works if you test.
  • bcheung 13y ago
    You actually raise a good point about testing it. If you have heard of the Sea Steading Institute they are proposing that we establish a bunch of "startup" style countries to examine which policies and solutions will work and which won't. The problem with basic income though is that it relies on captive individuals (value producers who pay tax) and given the choice they are most likely going to move to somewhere that doesn't force them to pay as much tax. I can't see how socialism can survive without forcing people against their will.
    • ende 13y ago
      This assumes that a basic income is funded through income taxation. Instead, fund it through a land value tax (a rent on land ownership paid to society). The LVT is just the cost of investment, like any business owner renting space to run their business on.
  • softatlas 13y ago
    $1,000/wk* is enough in Belarus.
• whyme 13y ago
  Obviously this is not a new idea... Twenty years ago I sat around with college mates, in Canada, listing the merits of the "Guaranteed Income" and quite frankly I still support the idea today. If you took all the salaries, property and operations cost associated with distributing old age security, welfare, disability, unemployment wages etc etc, it would probably pay for much of the cost associated with the Guaranteed Income (even if you had a small group dedicated to counter fraud abuse). I could list out the many benefits and the nay-sayer objections with counter arguments, but after twenty years I've come to realize money distribution is not the problem. The problem is money = power and society is hell bent on gaining power. The real solution is to move to a resource managed economy that eliminates money all together. But quite frankly we as a society are not there yet and I doubt we will be in my lifetime.
  • baddox 13y ago
    Surely the only society that could stably operate as a "resource managed economy that eliminates money all together" would be a post-scarcity society.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • justinmk 13y ago
    > The real solution is to move to a resource managed economy that eliminates money all together So, rationing? I wonder if that's been tried before. Money is a repesentation of resources. And resources cannot be allocated efficiently by central authority, because of the calculation problem[1]. But maybe some college dorm discussions will bear some other solution. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
    • thebooktocome 13y ago
      "Resource-managed economy" does not imply a centralized authority, which is where your snide rejoinder comes off the rails.
• sukuriant 13y ago
  I've read this thread; and I think my biggest hope here is the realization in the bureaucrats that are afraid of losing their job ... that they'll be getting money anyway because the basic income will provide their money now.
  • Adam503 13y ago
    The only means by which corruption can fought and reduced all involve bureaucracy by definition.
• ethana 13y ago
  Basic income already exist for some people, it's extended unemployment checks + food-stamps.
  • Adam503 13y ago
    If a person were getting 10x the amount a person gets on unemployment + food stamps, you might be able to call that basic income. Please show us all how a person living in a US city could survive on food stamps, ethana.
    • ethana 13y ago
      this guy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568109/Unemployed-beach-bum-uses-food-stamps-eat-lobster-drives-Escalade-says-help-make-millions.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568109/Unemployed-b...
      • brenschluss 13y ago
        anecdotes != data
        • ethana 13y ago
          The 47 millions food-stamp recipients disagree with you.
          • boomlinde 13y ago
            I am glad that someone is speaking up on their behalf, but I don't get your point. Have you spoken to each of these 47 million individuals? Are you one of them? Are you just letting your butt do the talking? We'll never know.
      • dhmholley 13y ago
        Aside from the fact that the Daily Mail is a tabloid which makes its money primarily from inflaming right-wing sensibilities while misreporting or fabricating stories, this seems like a particularly ludicrous assertion considering that it would imply a far higher rate of welfare fraud than actually happens. Could you tell us how much money it's possible to claim from the system, and how much a realistic minimal standard of living might actually be? If you do your research honestly, you might find it illuminating.
• gfodor 13y ago
  I don't consider myself very liberal but basic income makes sense to me just from a simplicity perspective. The amount of complexity right now in the welfare state almost certainly introduces all kinds of bizarre unintended effects. With basic income, you push all that onto the (hopefully fairly efficient) market. It would also let me sleep well at night knowing that nobody could game the system, since everyone, from the rich down to the poor, get their basic income. I guess the biggest question with it is what is the differential in outcomes for people. What % of people who work now out of fear of living on the street would stop working if they could be sure they would have the bare minimum to survive. I can't imagine many. Everyone always wants more for themselves and their children. If people choose to not work, basic income puts a cap on how much of a "drain" they are on society. There are a lot of nice properties to this concept and it would be interesting to hear well-founded opposition arguments. Unfortunately I have to assume that almost all of the arguments are going to be along the lines of "doing this will encourage people to be lazy" without any real evidence that this is the case.
• tomphoolery 13y ago
  Providing a basic income for all people, regardless of their merit to the society as a whole, is problematic. It's not enough to just hand over a couple hundred dollars to someone and say "have fun". We need to ensure everyone is getting the proper basic services, first. I'm talking about shelter, food, water, and a basis for living comfortably. We have the resources to do this, today. We just don't have the distribution infrastructure. Money should be something you spend purely on things you want, not things you need. Given that we built a distribution infrastructure of some kind to automatically and evenly distribute the total food resources of the country, we would see a dramatic change in how money is looked upon and how we use it. No longer will we require money, instead, money is something you earn and use for things you wish to do. We can focus all of our time and energy on furthering our technology, our minds, and the human race in general.
  • MartinCron 13y ago
    I agree. Meeting basic human needs through other means seems to be a necessary prerequisite to basic income.
    • sesteel 13y ago
      I kindly disagree. I would prefer a system where a basic income is distributed (simply for the efficiency) and those that receive it are educated on how to spend it to meet their basic needs. This could be integrated into school curriculum, online courses, etc.
      • MartinCron 13y ago
        That makes sense, though I keep thinking about people who are (for various reasons) fundamentally non-rational actors. Those with mental illnesses or drug abuse issues, etc.
        • orthecreedence 13y ago
          I think you'd find that drug abusers are much less likely to commit crimes once they have a steady flow of money. "Well now we're paying people to do drugs!" But we're doing that in the first place, through welfare and food stamps, etc. And if we don't pay enough, they steal. So in one instance we ignore the problem and it ends up costing us, in another instance we accept that there are people who are going to withhold contributing to society and we give them their check anyway because they'd just end up taking it. As far as mental illness goes, that is an interesting problem I don't think GBI would solve. Sure you can give a schizophrenic person a check, but are they going to cash it? Or would you still have some sort of public facility for mentally disabled people? I would hope so.
• drawkbox 13y ago
  I agree there are immense benefits but it fails to recognize that markets rule the world. Once there would be a Basic Income, that is when market prices would go up to cancel out the benefit. You underestimate the rulers of the world (wealthy) to hold onto their advantage. I see it as many times better than welfare or unemployment since it is distributed equally to everyone. If there is a limit it will eventually be too low, so even rich people would get it, they would have to or it would be destroyed. Social security is an insurance policy really that doesn't hit wealthy wallets much beyond what everyone pays, but people still want to destroy it and this is against workers directly paying in their whole lives for a subpar investment, yes small businesses pay the full 15%ish and social security returns 2% annually and also props up our dollar big time with investment in t-bills. So even benefits like that are too social for many. But a Basic Income distributed to everyone would lose the current perception of welfare/unemployment being bad when really these are helpful to keep the low end propped up and in the end I believe it saves money. You'd have to keep moving it up like minimum wage as the effects are normalized, it really is a travesty that minimum wage hasn't gone up as well. People in America really don't like helping one another so this and other programs with even a hint of social aspects will not catch on. But if someone gets a benefit that the complainer also gets, they would probably be ok with it. However this does not redistribute and would eventually be cancelled out in pricing.
  • bryanlarsen 13y ago
    Why would prices go up? It's a money redistribution scheme, not a money creation scheme. The poor have more money, the rich have slightly less, the middle class have about the same, and the bureaucrats and parasitical corporations that live off administering the welfare system have a lot less. Goods generally purchased by the poor might go up slightly, but BI should shift the poor into the low end of lower middle class. In other words, putting them in a situation comparable to that of the majority of the American population, so the effect on the demand curve should not be large.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Why would prices go up? Because the propensity to consume is not equal across the economic spectrum; downward redistribution increases expected consumption and, therefore, overall price levels. The idea that this would eat up the beneficial effects of BI is hard to justify, but the idea that some increase in overall price level is likely is pretty easy to justify.
• cordite 13y ago
  I support the idea, but there are other things that have to go with it in order to really work and not end up like the broken economy that Argentina had to put up with when doing something similar. It would need serious tax reform, changes to how business are treated locally and internationally. One suggestion for tax reform is to apply taxes strictly on only sales tax, not income tax. Certain property taxes may still be effectful, but it's really a huge mess that will really function if not taken all together. I suppose an analogy is when it comes to extreme programming, you can't just take what you like and get all the benefits--not that basic income specifies these other things, but I believe there is a bigger package that has to be considered.
  • mulligan 13y ago
    Can you explain what you see as the problem and why the solution to that problem is not to tax income?
    • cordite 13y ago
      I am not stating that it is _the_ solution, but here are some thoughts as to why it would help. We spend billions just paying accountants to fool around wit millions of rules that most people do not understand. Sales tax is very simple. Rich people get out of paying taxes by doing inefficient things like tax shelters. Now, the sales tax would need to be refunded for those in the basic income bracket, especially on food, housing, etc.. Remember that HN article about "We'll not incorporate in the US" by some Danish group? What needs to happen is to encourage businesses to run locally, and part of that is simplifying the entire structure to represent what the economy is closest to--consumption.
• dicroce 13y ago
  Here's the thing: I believe that millions of years of evolution have baked into every living thing a deep need to work, and we'll feel bad if we don't (because for millions of years lazyness meant death). We need to struggle. Further, I think we need to bad times to help us recognize the good times and a basic income would do much to soften those bad times... I worry that Basic Income is in the long term practically unavoidable, but at the same time will create new levels of depravity in mankind.
  • baddox 13y ago
    > I believe that millions of years of evolution have baked into every living thing a deep need to work, and we'll feel bad if we don't (because for millions of years lazyness meant death). We need to struggle. I think there is a difference between "work" that fulfills our desire to dedicate time and effort toward challenging endeavors and "work" that creates sufficient net value to keep oneself alive (or in the case of a redistributive society, to keep society as a whole alive). And yes, I think this even applies to people who do jobs that align very closely with their passions, like many computer programmers. My argument isn't that passionate programmers wouldn't continue programming if they had no need for a wage, but rather that they would do precisely the parts of programming they enjoy.
    • tempestn 13y ago
      It's not like the economic incentive to work will be completely gone though. Presumably BI would be, at least to start, roughly the bare minimum required to survive. Any luxuries would still require earned income. Also, given hedonic adaptation, humans are rarely content with any given level of luxury. While there are certainly negatives to that, it does mean that most (or at least many) people would continue to attempt to earn as much as possible even with a basic income. Finally, the money does have to come from somewhere. I expect that the system would be designed so that it begins net neutral for the middle class. And I can't see most middle class people suddenly deciding to give up half their income just because there's suddenly a softer landing. For the rich, the effect would obviously be even less pronounced.
• MrZongle2 13y ago
  So let's assume this was implemented. Some citizens, with their guaranteed basic income, will spend it wisely to cover their needs...as envisioned by proponents of this approach. Others, however, will waste their income and again find themselves short of what is necessary to cover their needs. What then? Simply increase the amount of basic income awarded, and hope that by throwing more money at the symptoms of poverty, the cause will be addressed? And where does this money come from? Not immediately, of course, but 5-10 years down the road once society has been changed by this policy's implementation? Why would the financial engines of today, which could theoretically fund such an endeavor, continue to run as efficiently in the future?
  • noenzyme 13y ago
    Actually the basic income creates new business models. If you can't take care of yourself you can sign up with a company that takes your basic income and provides 3 hots, a cot and an allowance. Can't image it will be the nicest accomidations but it will be there if you need it...
    • bitkrieg 13y ago
      As a side note, businesses, in general, could significantly reduce their labor costs if a BI was in place.
      • redler 13y ago
        This might not work out the way you think. With more money in everyone's pocket, for example, people in subsistence circumstances working minimum-wage second jobs while their children sit alone at home would no longer be compelled as strongly to take or keep such jobs. Some would stick with them, but surely there would be a cohort for whom it's no longer necessary, or who could now afford to be pickier about the nature of that second job. And the movement of this margin, however slightly, in favor of the employee, would place upward pressure on the wages at those types of jobs. There are businesses whose profitability and business model assume a steady supply of takers of these sorts of jobs at the lowest possible wage. How would basic income affect that supply?
• afhsfsfdsss88 13y ago
  I want to live in a society of people who are working together to make human existence meaningful. What I don't want is the pseudo-free market designed to further despotism and self-interested behavior which we have today. That said, I'm not for giving someone food, shelter, water, and health care for falling out of a uterus. You have to contribute in some measurable way. Also I believe that we should provide, specifically these things...NOT currency/income. I've seen too many examples of people having children for well-fare checks.
• donkeysmuggler 13y ago
  Make economic inheritance tax 100% with allowances for personal, sentimental items etc. Distribute the resources amongst public works projects and personal resource funds for each citizen.
• rubyfan 13y ago
  Get a job.
• evjim 13y ago
  Thomas Paine makes a good point for citizen's dividend in his pamphlet "Agrarian Justice". http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html Now that we live in a civilized state and people own all the property, it makes it impossible for one to live in a natural state. So, he argues property owners owe a tax to everyone reaching maturity. That way everyone has a chance to acquire property, education, or what not to live successfully in a civilized state.
• ThomPete 13y ago
  There are three major advantages of unconditional basic income. 1) It will always be beneficial to work. I.e. even for a couple of hours. 2) Society wont have to waste money controlling whether someone should have the money or not. The frees millions of people and billions of not trillions of control. 3) It removes most argument around inequality and it makes sure there always is customers.
• briantakita 13y ago
  Basic Income the only way to prevent the black market from taking over for many people.
• donkeysmuggler 13y ago
  Additionally, as well as 100% Inheritance tax with exceptions for personal items (inheritance is the biggest game breaker in a fair system), another very practical and fair idea would be no VAT/sales tax (disproportionately affects the poor) and vastly reduced business taxes; however Progressive personal income taxation that works like the effects of relativity on the speed of light (no tiny group of bands that end at a middling percent and allow capital gains but rather a direct calculation from the income; the more non-charitably allocated income, the even higher the tax rate approaching 90+% in the stratospheric levels, encouraging investment in business, employment, public good projects etc, just like the old rich guys in the early 20th century building all those public libaries. All of these resources held in the public trust (as well as complete citizen ownership of natural resources and most land; nobody should have rights to important earth resources because their daddy had a piece of paper they got from their slave plantation) used for basic income & investment in automation as well as myriad other public good projects.
  • PeterisP 13y ago
    100% inheritance tax is a bit ridiculous - if I'd die today in a car accident, my family already would lose it's main income and suffer; and you'd suggest taking away my savings from my widow&toddlers at that point? And even if you'd really want this, it's feasible only if you also have a 100% tax on gifting stuff - otherwise any old/sick person would simply gift their wealth to whoever he wants to leave (generally taxed at the normal income tax rate) or buy/sell stuff at very advantageous terms for the same effect; or take an expensive life insurance policy that'd pay out as much as he'd like to his relatives.
    • donkeysmuggler 13y ago
      The amount of revenue gained in a near 100% system would guarantee basic income for all, including children. This is my point. Take away gifting and nepotism and automatically assign an equal amount of potential resources to each child from birth.
      • PeterisP 13y ago
• Meekro 13y ago
  People becoming "unemployable" because of robots is one of the most common arguments in favor of this, and that argument is nonsense because actual skilled jobs are not going away. Will a robot fix your car when it breaks? Will it be designing new and better cars? Will it even design the automation systems that let those new cars be built more efficiently? Will those robots provide legal advice to the companies that operate them? Will they provide medical care to your kid when he breaks a bone? Will they provide him with counseling when he's struggling emotionally? Will they give him a lesson on algebra, and then work with him one-on-one to make sure he understands it? Will robots patrol the streets and keep you safe from crime? Will they prosecute people who hurt others, or preside over those trials to make sure everyone's rights are protected? Will robots invent the next Google or Facebook, and will they code it up and design a nice-looking and intuitive interface for it? Will they entertain you from a stage or a movie set? Will they write new jokes for a stand-up act, write an original novel, or provide an author with advice on how to make his characters more lifelike? Maybe McDonald's fry cooks will eventually be replaced with robots, but "labor" isn't going anywhere.
  • sukuriant 13y ago
    But the number of people that want / need to do those visionary / human-centric jobs (though I would not consider all of those jobs as necessarily human) is lower than the number of people that would be seeking employment without a system for basic income; and, as long as it's pennies to get a person to do those low-income jobs, they're not likely to be automated away
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  • ahomescu1 13y ago
    > Will robots patrol the streets and keep you safe from crime? Will they prosecute people who hurt others, or preside over those trials to make sure everyone's rights are protected? Hah, that's exactly Robocop (in Detroit 2029).
  • angersock 13y ago
• jimktrains2 13y ago
  Aside: I don't know how I feel about all these new TLDs...
  • johnduhart 13y ago
    http://fucking.domains/ http://fucking.domains/
    • jimktrains2 13y ago
      <3 that the Google Analytic script (in-page, not even counting the download) is larger than the content.
• Taek 13y ago
  If a basic income was implemented, would we also be comfortable getting rid of minimum wage? And, if we attempted to go for this in the US, how much struggle would there be to both implement the minimum wage and also remove all of the other programs such as welfare, food stamps, disability? The system is very well established and you couldn't just remove each part in a single step. Each program that gets removed would need to be eliminated one by one. Overall, I think that a basic income is the cleanest, fairest, least game-able way to help the lower class. I just don't see it happening in our current political climate.
• jgalt212 13y ago
  The real problem is all the tax loopholes that almost exclusively benefit the upper/upper end of the income spectrum. I am looking at you carried interest loophole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest And the low rate dividends are taxed at. Dividends should be deducted at the corporate level as a cost, and taxed at the shareholder level as regular income.
  • drcode 13y ago
    Hey! This thread isn't meant for ideas that are sane and would actually improve things. Please move on to another thread.
    • jgalt212 13y ago
      b/c making the tax code more fair/logical would not improve things? your comment does not make sense.
      • drcode 13y ago
        I agreed with your statements. Since they are sane and would improve things, you are in the wrong comment thread.
        • jgalt212 13y ago
          sorry, I misunderstood. It's very difficult to detect sarcasm on message boards.
• alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  US specific: * 2014 total US gov't spending: $6.3T (36.4% of GDP) * # of Americans: 314m (2012) * Cost to provide $10,000 per year to everyone: $3.14T * Current US military spending: $0.8T * Current US education spending: $1T * Basic income + education + mil = $4.94T * $4.94T vs $6.3T [1]http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
  • lazyjones 13y ago
    > Basic income + education + mil = $4.94T What's the point of this? Do you think all government spending except military and education is obsoleted by basic income?
    • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Basic income (replacing pensions, welfare, healthcare), military, education are the three most expensive government functions.
  • IgorPartola 13y ago
    What about Medicare/Medicaid? Those are pretty much essential at this point and the $10k will not even begin to cover insurance premiums for the elderly. Also don't forget that a huge number of the people work for the federal government and the budget you are citing includes their salaries. For a large percentage of the population, your proposal would mean poverty. Simple math like this does not work on a system as complex as this. While I agree with the premise, your calculation is off.
    • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      1. Firing government workers in droves does not in fact lead to poverty. Example: Release of hundreds of thousands of conscript soldiers after WWII. Many economists predicted catastrophe. This did not happen. 2. Elderly health care: You legalize private cheap insurance for the elderly. The poor elderly can use that. The non-poor elderly can get fancier coverage should they so choose.
• im_a_lawyer 13y ago
  At the moment, >90% of our population is still employed. How can you people take all those projections that half of us will be replaced by robots in a decade seriously? I would be surprised if we even reach <80% employment in my lifetime.
• zaidos 13y ago
  Wouldn't businesses just raise prices to offset the basic income, rendering it useless?
  • lilsunnybee 13y ago
    Only if they were colluding with one another. Lower prices remain attractive to consumers even when they have extra cash to spend. Reasonably priced goods would still win out in volume of sales over unnecessarily high-priced goods.
    • paulhauggis 13y ago
      "Only if they were colluding with one another" If everyone knows they can get basic income for doing nothing, the majority will not choose a job that pays less than or equal to the basic income. This means businesses will have to increase wages (and costs of goods and services). No colluding necessary..just economics.
      • cdash 13y ago
        You don't lose your basic income just because you get a job. Everyone gets it.
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Wouldn't businesses just raise prices to offset the basic income, rendering it useless? Assuming a competitive market, which is a decent assumption overall though clearly there are good for which it doesn't work, an increase in demand (which is what more money going to people more likely to spend it does) should result in an increase in price smaller in proportion than the increase in income and an increase in the quantity of goods sold. So, yes, you'd expect some inflation, but not so much (at any level) as to render the increased income useless.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• shurcooL 13y ago
  I really really support this. IMO it would make this world so much more fun to live in.
• fishtoaster 13y ago
  I haven't read much on BI, so I'm sure this has already been answered already, but: how do the numbers add up? The US poverty line for a single person is $11k. For simplicity, let's say BI gives everyone in the US $10k per year. Times 313.9 million, that's $3.1 trillion per year. The US government spent, overall, $3.45 trillion in 2013. How would we be able to afford basic income?
  • gjm11 13y ago
    More tax. More specifically, an amount of extra tax that for a typical person would roughly balance out the extra (say) $10k/year in basic income, so that the net effect on government finances would be small.
  • sergiosgc 13y ago
    The US social security budget is 1.3trillion, so diverting all of it to BI would get people 30% of the way towards the goal of reaching the poverty line. It may be that getting everyone above the poverty line is infeasible. It may be that the poverty line may be sidestepped, say, by relocating to a poorer (less costly) region of the country. Food for thought. I haven't really formed an opinion on it, really. The numbers don't look that off, at first inspection. Reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_State...
  • gizmo686 13y ago
    I can think of three sane approaches. First, BI does not necessarily need to be above the poverty line. We can also go to a progressive BI, which may better be describe as a negative income tax, where the poor get more than the rich. And we can increase taxes.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > We can also go to a progressive BI, which may better be describe as a negative income tax, where the poor get more than the rich. That's called a "means-tested social benefit program", and is one of the thing BI advocates see it as replacing (we have plenty of those now) -- one of the main problems they see is that such programs create perverse incentives, since they reduce the marginal value of additional income to the poor, since the additional income reduces the benefit from the social benefit program. That perverse incentive is one of the things BI is proposed to cure.
• kalvin 13y ago
  I think if you could see close-up how these systems work now, you'd be convinced that it's completely not worth the cost in practice to try and figure out who "deserves" each of the many, many special benefits/allowances/exemptions available (plus it's incredibly difficult for potential recipients to figure out what they're eligible for, plus it imposes those costs on the people who aren't eligible, but end up having to jump through all the same hoops.) This is just my experience after working for ~1000 hours on healthcare.gov w/other YC alumni (relatively nonideological-liberal-or-libertarian engineer bias), but I think it's become increasingly clear to all of us that the implementation of well-meaning policies intended to separate the deserving from the undeserving ends up adding an incredible amount of complexity and overhead, along with unintentional side effects, edge cases, and bad incentives. (This isn't why healthcare.gov had major issues, it's just another problem.) That said, there's no way politically a basic income is going to fly anytime soon. So since this is HN... is there any way to get to an MVP without having a sovereign state to experiment with? Or is this solely in the realm of public policy?
  • jiggy2011 13y ago
    I'm not convinced that Basic income would necessarily deal with edge cases all that much better. A simple basic income implies that you provide everybody with the same minimum income and they cut back on public services etc to the minimum since in theory people can now buy what they want. But there are problems in that not everyone can live off the same amount of money. This is especially true with disabled or very ill people who are the most likely to be unable to obtain employment. They also require more money to maintain the same living standard, often much more in the case of people who require full time care etc.
    • jgj 13y ago
      In the mystical future world where a GBI has been implemented charity still exists, and much of the capital once dedicated to assisting those in poverty-absent-illness can now be directed to those who need help in addition to the GBI.
      • 13y ago
• Eleutheria 13y ago
  Everything that goes against liberty is doomed to fail. Miserably.
  • orthecreedence 13y ago
    Are you equating liberty to redistribution of wealth, or liberty to "I'M NOT PAYING MORE TAXES SO FREELOADERS CAN SIT AROUND WATCHING TV?" I don't see what you're trying to add.
    • nirnira 13y ago
      Liberty means allowing people to make their own decisions about how they live and use their resources, as long as they're not infringing on the liberty of others. It's a universal concept, not just tied to your vilification of wealthy conservative people. Thanks for the nasty stereotype though.
      • orthecreedence 13y ago
        > Thanks for the nasty stereotype though. Sure, anytime.
• aalpbalkan 13y ago
  Totally off-topic: What a domain name...
• blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  I have a proposal. Those who favor basic income should pick one or two recipients who are deserving of assistance, and open their own pockets and provide the money. The recipients will be glad and thankful, the donors will feel they have moved society toward utopia, and the rest of us can just get on with our lives without suffering the burdens that an additional entitlement would impose. I say this not to incite a flame war or partisan jibes. I just feel that it's the most honest and ethical way to provide basic income; those who believe in this approach are free to contribute, while those who don't are free not to. Seems fair to me.
  • yourapostasy 13y ago
    That would only seem workable if the donors could offset the amount of donation from their tax liabilities. Also, most BI discussions I've seen are about how to replace the existing benefits delivery infrastructure with BI, and not as an additional entitlement.
    • nirnira 13y ago
      Blisterpeanutes: "People who support blind charity should put their money where their mouth if they think it's such a great idea." Yourapostasy: "Hey great idea, even better why don't we give them all the money they give back so they don't actually have to make a sacrifice at all for their beliefs!"
      • yourapostasy 13y ago
        If you want a bifurcated benefits distribution program, where BI and "conventional" taxes exist side-by-side, to see which program is more effective in an open competition, then telling supporters of BI "you not only have to pay the taxes you already pay, but you also then pay beyond that for BI" would handicap the results in favor of the existing "conventional" taxation system. I personally think advocates of BI are committing the Soros reflexivity mistake, which pretty much most of the field of economics sins against as well. Without a near-free energy source, I doubt BI works over the long-haul. But that doesn't mean when someone advocates testing BI by telling supporters to dig into their pockets even deeper after they have paid taxes they currently are liable for, that I will idly stand by and let that pass for a fair challenge. Operationally, unless there is some strong way (like via DNA) to identify benefits recipients of one system over another to avoid double-dipping and similar negative externality behavior, I don't think side-by-side systems are actually feasible.
• bcheung 13y ago
  1) When people don't need to produce value to live in the world, they will cease to produce value. 2) Ultimately it is not income that is needed to survive but resources properly organized. The cost of survival is getting cheaper and cheaper at an exponential rate. You wouldn't know that though because they keep raising the bar on what it means to "survive"—big screen tv, air conditioning, car, etc. The amount of work required to live according to living standards 100 years ago is rather minimal. 3) Where does this "basic income" come from? If you are taking it from others who produce value then how are you any better than a slave owner? The only difference is that instead of owning and taking the livelihood of an individual you are taking it from everyone collectively in smaller amounts. The moral principle is the same. 4) Why would people work if they can just take from others? Everyone will do the least amount possible because everyone else is just going to take their profits so why bother. Communism didn't work so why are you proposing it now? 5) You can't protect people from being stupid. Unless you are physically handicapped or retarded, in which case there is charity and family, it's really pathetically easy to survive in today's world. You aren't being chased by tigers. Agricultural yields are 100x than they were just a short time ago. The Internet provides a vast amount of resources to better yourself. There are greater abundances than ever before and people are generally charitable towards others. If you can't survive under those conditions there is something wrong with you. 6) I find it offensive and an attack on my personal liberty that you would demand that I sacrifice my livelihood so that another doesn't have to work hard and make wise decisions.
  • iopq 13y ago
    Well, it's the only way to be able to dissuade people from programs like welfare and food stamps. Practically, it's the only program that can succeed in doing so in the US. You don't think it would be a better system than we have now where making past a certain amount has a NEGATIVE effect on your income if you're a single mother? It's better to make closer to $30,000 as a single mother rather than $50,000 - you'll get to keep more of it because you qualify for more government programs. I think it's easier to disassemble these really perverse incentives if you replace it with something simpler. Then you can reduce social security benefits because of this, then turn to alimony and child support (no longer needed), etc. You can't do that without first giving an alternative to the status quo
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• xenophanes 13y ago
  It Is Time For Basic Economic Literacy
  • nirnira 13y ago
    It's been time for a while, unfortunately.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    I don't know whether you're saying "supporting a Basic Income is entailed by basic economic literacy" or "basic economic literacy precludes a Basic Income".
    • xenophanes 13y ago
      sorry. basic economic literacy precludes a Basic Income see Ludwig von Mises
      • dllthomas 13y ago
        'k, well, I'm going to go with "Milton Friedman was not economically illiterate", whether or not he was actually correct...
        • xenophanes 13y ago
          My position: Milton Friedman had basic economic literacy but chose to ignore it at times, caring more about some other things (like moral and social issues – an area where he made some serious mistakes). Many other people don't have economic literacy in the first place – and if they did have it, some of them would change their minds about Basic Income and other issues, rather than ignore economics to focus on their social-moral philosophy. One reason that would happen is plenty of people don't have a very strong social-moral philosophy in the first place, don't care about it much. And some would even change their social-moral philosophy itself, for the better, if they understood basic economics. Spreading basic economics isn't a total cure-all alone, but it's a great step. Many people would notice the conflicts between economics and some of their other ideas. Some of those people would then have some success resolving the conflicts and reaching reasonable economically-informed conclusions.
• Mistone 13y ago
  off topic but by far the most interesting comment thread I've read on HN in a long time.
• tsotha 13y ago
  Instead of a basic income, let's have a guaranteed minimum wage job, where people can pick up trash and do landscaping on public property. You can have your basic income, but you have to work for it.
  • jsmeaton 13y ago
    There aren't enough jobs for EVERYONE to be employed though. The number of unskilled jobs is going to shrink as automation and efficiency increases. Also, not everyone is capable of working, like the disabled etc.
    • tsotha 13y ago
      There will always be enough jobs if the government is paying. It may not be something that's worth what the recipient is getting paid, but there's always something to do. Picking up trash, road work, landscaping, sorting trash for recycling, etc. Also, most of the disabled are capable of doing something. A guy in a wheelchair can man the desk at a library, for instance.
• adekok 13y ago
  I'm reading the comments, and surprised at what's missing. What happened to the business approach? The US government is delivering a large number of products with wildly varying costs, efficiencies, and price points. e.g. unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. There is a proposal is to replace those products with only one. The new product fills (mostly) the same need as the existing ones. It will do so at less cost, with more efficiency (less bureaucracy, administration, fraud, etc.). Previous market studies show that it works. So... what's the problem? As a non-US person, this looks a lot like previous discussions on health care. France pays about $10 per person per day for universal health care. The UK pays about $10. Japan pays about $10. Canada pays about $10. The US (before Obomacare) ? About $20, for care that isn't universal. You guys are getting ripped off. Yet the bulk of the population sticks their fingers in their ears, and complains about people who may not "deserve" it. Or they complain about fraud. Who the hell cares about random welfare guy ripping off the system? If you're making over $40K per year, you're getting ripped of by the system. By your system, that you demand to keep in place. You can get rid of the checks and balances, and just absorb the cost of fraud. And as a bonus, a simpler system is harder to game, which leads to more detectable fraud, and therefore less of it. This won't happen in the US for a number of reasons. One of which is that the bureaucracy won't voluntarily reduce. Another (as seen here) an unwillingness to deal with these issues in a business-like manner. Yes, I'm from a socialist country advocating for more capitalism. Not unfettered, but more.
  • cbhl 13y ago
    It's worth noting that Ontario spent a lot of money to introduce photo health ID, because of the fraud under the old system (including people who would border-hop to take advantage of OHIP while living primarily in the US).
  • orthecreedence 13y ago
    > bureaucracy won't voluntarily reduce I think that's one of the big ones. Bureaucracies tend to become living, breathing organisms who's sole purpose is to self-preserve and grow. A basic income in the US would threaten so many different agencies and organizations within (and without) the government, that the response would be fierce, assuming you could even get it anywhere near the government. With people's anti-communist attitude here, it's hard to get any ideas out there that don't fall in line with the current capitalist-imperialist system. Even if something isn't anywhere near communism, you get fox news calling it communism and in a few short minutes half the country hates it. I think the only way this will ever happen in the US is if a bunch of other countries do it first, successfully. Then, after maybe 20 years, the US will implement a shittier, watered down version that accomplishes 1/10 of the original idea but with staggering overhead.
• izerop 13y ago
  What a stupid idea. Try again commie.
• mynameishere 13y ago
  Every time a post like this comes up it gets hundreds of people supporting the idea. The problem is that most of the readers of HN have been in the Upper Middle Class or higher their entire lives. Friends, family, co-workers, all UMC, and so you don't know, you've never experienced, the pathologies typical of poorer people. Or, you pretend those pathologies can be solved with a new variation on welfare. Giving out checks is going to create millions of people who do nothing but 1) Watch television and eat potato chips or 2) Spend the checks on drugs/alcohol, and steal whatever they need until the first of the next month. Worse, many of those people are the same who used to clean your toilets and take out your garbage. Not mine--yours. That's just reality. I'm guessing that the main reason why conservatives like Charles Murray support basic income is because it focuses the menagerie of handouts into one policy, which will allow for easier metrics into how increases are harmful.
  • aianus 13y ago
    What's wrong with 1)? I'd rather have robots clean the toilets and free these people to watch TV and eat chips or get high or whatever they would prefer to spend their lives doing.
• ekianjo 13y ago
  > While people could theoretically survive off the charity of others, advanced artificial intelligence and robotics are likely to increase the portion of the population who are unemployable. We've been hearing this kind of arguments for literally centuries (the steam engine is going to put people out of work, cars and trucks will create unemployment, oh no Silicon valley is going to kill all manual work out there through automation, and then robots will take over the world and there will be no more jobs for people). This is really, really old and tiring. If anything, technologies increase the amount of economic growth through increased opportunities, and so far the market has clearly demonstrated that it's providing a lot more jobs to way more people than when we were still 1 billion on this planet.
  • psbp 13y ago
    Let assume that these kinds of investments actually lead to something: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/21/zuckerberg-musk-invest-in-artificial-intelligence-company-vicarious/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/21/zuckerberg-musk-inves... Maybe not immediately, but 10, 20, 50 years? Good luck.
• javajosh 13y ago
  BI is required if we ever went to a flat tax, which I firmly support.
• ghx 13y ago
  This sounds kind of like the earned income tax credit, which is basically a reverse tax (if you don't make enough to pay taxes, you get a subsidy instead): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit Expanding EITC substantially would be politically easier than attempting to do this, since it already exists and has bipartisan support (as opposed to raising the minimum wage). You need some sort of job for the EITC, though.
• mamcx 13y ago
  This will not break, for example, because everyone know that everyone must be able to pay higher rents? Where I live (Colombia) if the basic income become 5% at the start of the year then everything is 5-10% more costly. If I get (fixed) 100/month and everyone else too, then the rent will be (surely) X+100. This is happening now, the economy is accelerating and everything is rising up.
• NoPiece 13y ago
  Question for the liberals who support this. Would you honestly be willing to get rid of social security, welfare, unemployment, earned income tax credit, food stamps, student loans, pell grants, and all the other entitlement programs? If so, I might support it, even if it cost more, just to get rid of all the government social engineering.
  • krapp 13y ago
    If the end result made access to jobs, education, medical care and basic utilities more equitably distributed, then yes.
  • nirnira 13y ago
    Since when did "liberal" mean someone who supports coercive redistribution by states? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
  • dredmorbius 13y ago
    NB: Social Security is arguably fairly close to how a basic income system might work: • It's not means-tested. It's available to (nearly all) citizens. Exceptions include some workers classified under the Railroad Retirement Act, and the self-employed. • It's funded from taxes assessed over your working life. Actually, BI would likely take this one step further, as there's an income cap to SSI contributions. Lifting that cap would make SSI more BI-like. As to the rest of your points: with universal healthcare, you'd eliminate the need for means-tested medical assistance. With universal higher education, you'd eliminate PELL Grants (already pretty limited -- most college financial aid is now in the form of loans, with their own class of problems). BI would directly address the goals of welfare and food stamps, and EITC is effectively BI in limited dress. I'd be open for programs which do address specific remaining needs: say, treating drug addiction as a public health, not a criminal, problem (though drugs trafficking might still fall under the latter in cases), and other programs addressing those with specific needs (health, disability, etc.). But yes, you'd be wiping out a large class of present means-tested programs.
• rdl 13y ago
  It would be fun to start this with an epsilon per year per person basic income (maybe global, and higher ones per nation or other group). Add to it as you wish.
• demoncore 13y ago
  I just spent a year living in South Western France which is the most socialist part of France. (I'm a US citizen based here most of the time and I'm a CEO). If you want to see the result of wealth redistribution, go check it out yourself. You'll meet young men and women in the prime of their lives who spend their entire day in a coffee shop and later a bar, sipping a beverage discussing art, culture, poetry, how business - all business exploits the proletariat, and how government owes them even more than the roughly $25K per year they get for doing nothing. Then go talk to the entrepreneurs in the same district and learn where those wages originate and what it costs business both in taxes and their ability to find and retain staff. I can assure you that the restful classes are alive and well and are waiting for this idea to take root and flower into contempt for innovation, entrepreneurship and hard work with a massive drain on those who do contribute.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    I realize I'm supposed to be horrified, but that actually sounds better than the current situation in America. Can you give more details? What are rates of childhood malnutrition like? How hard is it for the sub-middle-class (or, God forbid, the unemployed) to get medical care?
  • ende 13y ago
    I agree with you. So don't tax the innovators and entrepreneurs. Leave their income alone. Tax the land owners who generate wealth for themselves while contributing nothing to society. Tax the unproductive rent-seeking wealth of those who attain their position not through innovation but through dependence on and manipulation of the political class. Institute a land value tax and leave productive incomes free from taxation. Let the landlords pay rent to society in the form of a basic income for all. Also, ban French.
    • stcredzero 13y ago
      Tax the unproductive rent-seeking Underlying your position is the assumption that society can properly arbitrate what is "unproductive rent-seeking" versus "socially destructive entitlement culture." Depending on your circumstances, your opinion on what these things are will differ, and in a democracy, the whims of the majority will win out, regardless of economic reality.
• ArkyBeagle 13y ago
  "What are people for?" - Kurt Vonnegut, "Player Piano", 1952. 1952, people. Sigh
• stasy 13y ago
  If this were the case, many people would just not work, and rely on the monthly checks.
• Oculus 13y ago
  >>It is the most efficient possible form of wealth redistribution because there is no bureaucratic overhead needed. More money reaches the poor directly. Unfortunately, the exact opposite will occur with an entirely new three letter agency being responsible for the distribution.
• abraham_s 13y ago
  I have been thinking about the long term effects of automation (as in self driving car/trucks etc) and I think such a scheme will become necessary in the near future. How many job losses will be there in near future if all the vehicles become self-driven. Number of truckers is estimated at In 2006, the U.S. trucking industry as a whole employed 3.4 million drivers. Another 233,900 cab driver. Maybe 2X number in supporting jobs, like waiters etc. Can a society survive with so many jobless people with the current unemployment schemes? Edit: spelling
• jpeg_hero 13y ago
  I would like it if my children could peruse poetry... If you know the quote.
• ende 13y ago
  Replace income tax with land value tax. Then it's not redistribution of income. The argument for a land value tax is Georgist: land is not property because it is not the product of one's own labor. Therefore land 'owners' should pay rent to society in the form of the land value tax (though not on the property built on the land). That rent is then paid to society as a universal basic income. (And to preempt those who might question why anyone would both owning land: because like any investment there is a cost that can be exceeded by profit.)
  • bcheung 13y ago
    I didn't know it was called that. I was actually thinking along the same lines. Make that the only tax. Everything else could be optional fees for services or premiums for insurance products.
  • dredmorbius 13y ago
    How does a lands tax comport with the fact that some acres are hugely more productive (or extractive) than others? It's not in the US, but the First Oil Well in Bahrain, which has been providing oil since June 2, 1932. For much of its life at 70,000 bbl/day, more recently at about half that rate, 35,000 bbl/day. That's roughly $3.5 million per day in productivity. There was a time, and Henry George came well after it, when the agricultural productivity of land was in fact the basis of virtually all wealth (some contributions from the sea, as well as water and wind power). Since the large-scale exploitation of coal, oil, and gas, starting in the mid 18th century, that hasn't been the case. It eventually likely will be again, but I've not read enough of the Georgist view to see how the huge variances in land productivity would be addressed. Even if mere ag output is considered.
    • boomlinde 13y ago
      If it's not a "lands tax" but a "land value" tax, if some acres are hugely more productive they are also hugely more valuable, and at best they are taxed accordingly.
      • 13y ago
• ozten 13y ago
  If you have a hard time overcoming your gut reaction to this proposal, I'd recommend the book Debt: the first 5000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_first_5000_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_first_5000_Years
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• grondilu 13y ago
  I'd love the idea of a basic income as a replacement for all the bureaucratic nightmare of various state subsidies and benefits, but we all know this is not what is going to happen. They'll give basic income but soon they'll establish exceptions for some categories of people that will receive something more. Then an othe category, then an other. In the end it will be exactly like before, except it will cost much more.
• grondilu 13y ago
  As a owner of shares in the stock market, all I can say is that hopefully the first politician who will try to pass such a law will get a bullet in the head.
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    That is a horrific sentiment and you are a bad person.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• yetanotherphd 13y ago
  No, it's time for something proven: Australian style welfare. Maybe in 50 years time, it will be time for basic income. The problem with giving people free money, is it reduces the incentive to work. Australia, and other countries, have introduced systems with minimal requirements for receiving welfare: making an effort to find a job, based on simple objective criteria.
  • dredmorbius 13y ago
    Links / details?
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    "Australia, and other countries, have introduced systems with minimal requirements for receiving welfare: making an effort to find a job, based on simple objective criteria." That's more or less the situation in the US at present, as I understand it. We all want people doing useful things, but this kind of system 1) means that the benefit of finding that job (for those at the bottom) is substantially less than it is under BI, and 2) we're requiring people focus not on their job search or on preparing themselves for work but on documenting their job search and jumping through bureaucratic hoops - hopefully there is substantial overlap but when do we ever measure exactly what we intend to?
• nirnira 13y ago
  A truly insane and stupid idea befitting an insane and stupid political culture. And lo and behold! Embraced with open arms by the Hacker News community. What a surprise.
  • izerop 13y ago
    Agreed. People want money for nothing, which will inevitably amount to nothing. Chosing to do nothing, that's no concern of mine. Should I be punished for the stupidity of others? Giving a paycheck to those who are rendering themselves useless to society? Suprised you didn't get negative Karma for your comment like I did. Ha.
• dola 13y ago
  This is actually a very current topic right now in Switzerland. There will a national vote to decide if every Swiss citizen should get a basic income of 2500 swiss francs (approximately 2700$) a month. Some interesting details can be read in this (kind of) recent article (most other ones are in German) http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/swiss-pay-basic-income-2500-francs-per-month-every-adult.html http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/swiss-pay-basic-income-2...
• nnq 13y ago
  One problem with BI is the potential future overpopulation problem making it unsustainable even for rich countries. The solution is quite simple though, but I don't guess people would accept it: if you have more than two children per family, you loose the BI (forever, for live, you are never eligible for it again, even if your children die). A bigger one is the global context: the retoric in poorer countries could very easily get to "those rich smucks with their strong army and everything have so much money they can even pay the slackers who do nothing! while we are milked by their corporations and can't even afford clean water for all!" and then you know what happens next...
• bcheung 13y ago
  You can't have wealth without creating it through labor. You can see this when you isolate the abstractions society has and go to the core semantics. Take a population of people. Stick them on a remote island. Then institute this measure. Where does this income come from? If you just print money, what is there to buy if nobody has produced it? If it is from taxation, then if you produce something and others just take it why would you bother producing when it is much easier just to take from others like everyone else? I would argue, and history seems to show this. That a society prospers as a whole the more they reward hard work and allow the people to enjoy the fruits of their own labors.
• Kiro 13y ago
  If the incentive to work at McDonald’s decreases to a point where they either need to raise the wages or automate large parts of their process, won't that lead to a possibility where McDonald’s ceases to exist or becomes a luxury item? It's not very unlikely that they won't be able to automate their business and the only option is to raise the wages. With raised wages they will need to increase their prices.
  • jsmeaton 13y ago
    They won't need to raise their wages though. BI takes care of the minimum amount to survive, and McDonalds wages provides "extra" money. BI essentially takes over as the "minimum" part of the minimum wage, and low wage jobs become a lot more attractive (than they are currently).
• Dale1 13y ago
  This would be akin to dumping a load of cash into the economy, driving inflation to the point where the extra cash had absolutely no difference to anyone especially the poor. It's a lovely idea but the working wage is a much better one!
• Fasebook 13y ago
  Seems like a good idea to me, lets do it. We can always change it back if it doesn't work out.
• sunseb 13y ago
  I think that digital currencies is the way to go to test this idea.
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    Perhaps, but I'm not convinced they help as much as it appears. The biggest difficulty is the need to establish uniqueness of an individual to the network, which is really difficult without some centralization.
• muuh-gnu 13y ago
  > What are the definite benefits of Basic Income? > It is the most efficient possible form of wealth redistribution So it is just another deceptive label for outright communism, directly out of Marx/Mao/Stalin's playbook. Nice.
• euroclydon 13y ago
  I think we are severely overestimating the panacea that is the future. When we run out of gas to fuel automobiles and natural gas to make fertilizer from, it will make us all poorer. Our problem is not just that we need to transition to electric automobiles or sustainable agriculture, rather it's that we have no replacement for the free portable liquid and gas energy that we take out of the ground every day. We'd be better off planning for the reduction in carrying capacity of the human race that will ensue as fossil fuels wane, instead of trying to find more efficient ways to distribute all of our newfound wealth and production.
• msh 13y ago
  I wonder why none of the calls for basic income considers how inflation and prices would be affected.
• j1z0 13y ago
  It seems to me it's just a matter or priority. The line share of US Gov spending is Healthcare (+ medicare / medicare) covert that to a BI + take a bit out of defines and "income protection / veteran benefits" and you wouldn't have to raise taxes at all. The question is would it be more effective than "specialised" programs, and all the literature I have read seems to say yes (although, it's all based on educated guesses). So switch all the "specialised" programs to BI plus take a bit extra from defense and your there. What's more important? Total domination of all oceans in the world, or peoples happiness? (Assuming that BI actually works as described in the article)
• makosdv 13y ago
  Let's just discourage people from earning a living even more....
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    For those at the margin currently receiving conditional support, a transition to unconditional support discourages people from earning a living substantially less.
• platform 13y ago
  I do not agree that "Combining income redistribution and decentralizing spending would solve poverty today. " I would argue more individual wealth that's based on a) cumulative and legal earnings b) penalty-free inheritance c) a system that rewards individual greed d) a system that rewards equal opportunity would solve poverty today. For that to work, though -- those have to be world wide rules. Making an individual country as a test ground will not produce repeatable results. The above also has one more built in assumption -- vast majority of the people are 'good to other human beings' and act 'rationally'. The definition of 'legal' is of course vague, but must be uniform across the world (not in individual country) and would include things like a) equivalence of genders/race/religions/ethnic/disability/political/financial/marital/law-enforcement status in the eyes of a law and competitive bidding b) law of contract c) uniformly standardized legal language around contracts that does not require legal council to initiate and resolve disputes e) criminal penalty system that treats qualified threat of a physical or financial harm, with 80% of equivalence to posterior event (this it to prevent wide spread racketeering ) f) criminal system that requires non-cirmustantial/independently verifiable evidence to result in conviction g) largely uniform across country criminal law
• jokoon 13y ago
  I think everyone should go first debate what Milton Friedman proposed: the negative income tax. The negative income tax has the virtue of at least restart the debate on how much taxes should companies pay. Why aren't taxes progressive ? Why are there still oil subsidies ? Why are many companies still able to dodge taxes ? The basic income cannot happen if the government cannot pay for it. Maybe s very low basic income at something like $3000 or $5000 per year would be nice to experiment, but until then, politically with that congress, and considering the electorate and how hated the poor are, it's just impossible.
• Thiz 13y ago
  It is time for basic government.
• discardorama 13y ago
  I'm curious: has there been any study done on how much money is spent on the bureaucracy surrounding the myriad social programs?
• kosei 13y ago
  Pardon my ignorance, but how does this differ from an earned income tax credit? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/buffett-minimum-wage-tax-credit_n_4889519.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/buffett-minimum-wag...
  • sstrudeau 13y ago
    The EITC and a basic income are actually very similar in effect. The difference is largely in the mechanism of distribution. With a basic income, every citizen gets a check every month. With an EITC you get it in a lump with your tax refund, if you qualify for it.
• stevenwagner 13y ago
  http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com
• stevenwagner 13y ago
  http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com
• stevenwagner 13y ago
  see georgeoughttohelp.com
• stevenwagner 13y ago
  see georgeoughttohelp.com
• stevenwagner 13y ago
  see georgeoughttohelp.com
• stretchwithme 13y ago
  I encourage fans of this idea to experiment with it. Find a complete stranger and give him a guaranteed income if he abstains from government programs. Come back in five years and share your results. As for me, I don't wish to be forced into running your experiment.
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    Experiments have been done, and have shown good results. I've no objection to further experimentation, but at some point we should implement the policy that looks best. There is, mathematically speaking, clearly some non-empty set of optimal values for a Basic Income. How confident are you that $0 is in that set, even in the face of argument (from not just the modern left, but also Thomas Paine and Milton Friedman and some modern Libertarians) and experiment?
    • stretchwithme 13y ago
      Go for it then. Hope its worth your money.
      • dllthomas 13y ago
        Yeah, I think you're aware of why you're full of it, here...
• drblast 13y ago
  I'm baffled by the logic of people who recoil at the idea of a basic income because it's "socialist", but if you were to ask many of them if lowering taxes for nearly everyone by X% is a good idea, they'd scream "YEAH! Money is much more efficient in people's hands!" Maybe if you don't call it a basic income and call it a guaranteed tax rebate instead we'd get everyone on board.
• JonFish85 13y ago
  I may be missing something important, but at a glance there are about 140M jobs in the US. If we gave each of the ~320M US citizens $20k/yr, that comes out to roughly $6.4T/year as mentioned elsewhere in this thread. If there are roughly 140M jobs, presumably there are 140M people working those jobs, meaning that there are approximately 140M people who must cover that $6.4T, which works out to be ~$46k/yr for each working person. If we assume we can completely wipe the following off the books: Social Security ($773M), Income Security ($541M) and Medicare ($471M), the net cost per year drops to $4.6T/yr, which works out to be ~$33k/yr for each working person. Total federal income tax[1] in 2013 was around $1.3T (Individual) + $273B (Corporate) = $1.59T. An increase from $1.59T to $6.2T is about a 290% net increase. I did some very rough spreadsheet-math with [2] and [3] and came up with the following. If we didn't tax the $20k at all, and left everything the same as last year, the bottom 77% would be a net negative of ~$1.2T assuming all of their income tax went directly to pay for the $20k. I assumed that the number of people in the top 2% made the same average salary as the top 1% in [4], and came up with the top 2% of income tax payers as being a net positive of $1.4T. I made that assumption just to make the math easy and to err on the side of optimism. The 78-98 percentile come out to be a net positive of approximately $350B. Looking back at the $1.3T federal income tax total for individuals, this would mean that after the $20k/person was paid for, the total federal income tax dollars would be roughly $600B (Individual income tax) + $273B (Corporate income tax) = $873B. Looking at [5], it seems that there was a $3.803T - $2.902T = $901B deficit last year. If we knock off the difference in income tax revenues ($1.59T - $873B = $717B), then suddenly we have a $901B + $717B = $1.618T deficit again. This all assumes that jobs stay constant, of course. I realize that all of these numbers are very rough, but I had some fun doing spreadsheet math so I figured I would share! [1] http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_schedule_(federal_income_tax) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_schedule_(federal_income_t... [4] http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...
  • bertil 13y ago