3 ms·

BI is a change of how money is redistributed in society – it would lead to some people becoming poorer and other people becoming equally richer. I'm quite scep

BI is a change of how money is redistributed in society – it would lead to some people becoming poorer and other people becoming equally richer. I'm quite sceptical about BI because I haven't seen any analysis that would answer the question who exactly would get richer / poorer and how much. Unemployed people get money from the government in Canada – will they get more or less after implementation of BI? What about teachers, software developers, bus drivers, lawyers, etc? AFAIK, the main claimed benefits of BI are: – The system would be simpler and cheaper. True, but only negligably. – It removes disincentives to work. I'm not convinced about this, you could argue the opposite is true actually.

learc83 12y ago
Guaranteed Minimum Income and Basic Income are 2 different things (this article discusses GMI). GMI means that you will get enough money to bring your income up to X (in this case $20k.) BI means that every citizen gets Y dollars per year unconditionally. GMI is only a net benefit if you make less than X. BI is more complicated because you have to decide at what income level should the BI be income neutral, i.e., how much do you have to make before the BI you're receiving and the extra income taxes you're paying are equal. > I haven't seen any analysis that would answer the question who exactly would get richer / poorer and how much. The reason you haven't heard this is because it's completely up to the implementation details. If for example the government decided that for people making $50k a year the BI should be income neutral, then it would be a net benefit for all people under $50k and a net detriment for everyone over that. >What about teachers, software developers, bus drivers, lawyers, etc? In this hypothetical scenario some teachers, software developers, bus drivers, and lawyers would benefit, and some wouldn't. >It removes disincentives to work. I'm not convinced about this, you could argue the opposite is true actually. This is only true for BI, not GMI. GMI adds a huge disincentive to work for less than (or close to) whatever the guaranteed minimum is set at.
electromagnetic 12y ago
It depends on what type of BI is implemented. This is around current minimum wage rates, so it could easily mean doing away with basic disability, welfare, and the government pension. I would say you're naive of the costs if you think the system change would only be negligibly beneficial. There's the distribution costs, the evaluation costs, then there's the investigators to make sure people aren't scamming the system. For every system. You've got disability, welfare, unemployment and pension investigators to make sure everyone is getting what they're supposed to and to make sure no ones scamming the system. You can't scam basic income. It removes disincentives to work, in that without welfare systems there's no disadvantage to work, and there's no advantage to trying to scam the system. It does also do the contrary. It incentivized people not to work, at least for shitty employers. You can't be an assholr to a minimum wage employee when they can leave and still afford rent and food. It also provides income for people to start up businesses (this has been shown in BI trials currently ongoing in India), which when we have high unemployment rates amongst youths I can only see this as beneficial. What's better for society, an 18 year old doing busy work making coffee for people too lazy to make their own or do you want them writing apps, starting lawn care companies, etc.
arg01 12y ago
The New Zealand treasury actually did a preliminary impact paper on BI several years ago and it was noted that many of the people currently on welfare would likely end up with less money. (They use the term GMI, but it seems to be framed as a BI based on my general understanding of the concepts) http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Treasury-A-Guaranteed-Minimum-Income-for-New-Zealand%20.PDF http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Wor...

learc83 12y ago

Guaranteed Minimum Income and Basic Income are 2 different things (this article discusses GMI). GMI means that you will get enough money to bring your income up to X (in this case $20k.) BI means that every citizen gets Y dollars per year unconditionally. GMI is only a net benefit if you make less than X. BI is more complicated because you have to decide at what income level should the BI be income neutral, i.e., how much do you have to make before the BI you're receiving and the extra income taxes you're paying are equal. > I haven't seen any analysis that would answer the question who exactly would get richer / poorer and how much. The reason you haven't heard this is because it's completely up to the implementation details. If for example the government decided that for people making $50k a year the BI should be income neutral, then it would be a net benefit for all people under $50k and a net detriment for everyone over that. >What about teachers, software developers, bus drivers, lawyers, etc? In this hypothetical scenario some teachers, software developers, bus drivers, and lawyers would benefit, and some wouldn't. >It removes disincentives to work. I'm not convinced about this, you could argue the opposite is true actually. This is only true for BI, not GMI. GMI adds a huge disincentive to work for less than (or close to) whatever the guaranteed minimum is set at.

electromagnetic 12y ago

It depends on what type of BI is implemented. This is around current minimum wage rates, so it could easily mean doing away with basic disability, welfare, and the government pension. I would say you're naive of the costs if you think the system change would only be negligibly beneficial. There's the distribution costs, the evaluation costs, then there's the investigators to make sure people aren't scamming the system. For every system. You've got disability, welfare, unemployment and pension investigators to make sure everyone is getting what they're supposed to and to make sure no ones scamming the system. You can't scam basic income. It removes disincentives to work, in that without welfare systems there's no disadvantage to work, and there's no advantage to trying to scam the system. It does also do the contrary. It incentivized people not to work, at least for shitty employers. You can't be an assholr to a minimum wage employee when they can leave and still afford rent and food. It also provides income for people to start up businesses (this has been shown in BI trials currently ongoing in India), which when we have high unemployment rates amongst youths I can only see this as beneficial. What's better for society, an 18 year old doing busy work making coffee for people too lazy to make their own or do you want them writing apps, starting lawn care companies, etc.

arg01 12y ago

The New Zealand treasury actually did a preliminary impact paper on BI several years ago and it was noted that many of the people currently on welfare would likely end up with less money. (They use the term GMI, but it seems to be framed as a BI based on my general understanding of the concepts) http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Treasury-A-Guaranteed-Minimum-Income-for-New-Zealand%20.PDF http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Wor...