5 ms·

I really enjoyed this article (in a sad sort of way). I read an article in the NYT that was sort of similar about a month ago (just looked it up: http://www.nyt

by canadev 12y ago

I really enjoyed this article (in a sad sort of way). I read an article in the NYT that was sort of similar about a month ago (just looked it up: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-is-a-hard-life-inherited.html?ref=opinion http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kr...). Now, I really don't know a whole lot about these subjects, but it strikes me that a basic income system would serve society as whole very well here. In fact, I've always had a theory that the best way to do things would be what I call a "relaxed meritocracy." Basically: everyone has access to housing, food, medical care, and education at a decent standard -- the bare minimums for life, plus a little bit on top so that it's not horrible. (Like living at a dorm room in university.) Then, capitalism on top. Incentive to do well, and the freedom to experiment with stuff that may just crash-and-burn. And nobody is ever well-and-truly left behind. Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea?

Vjdjcjdjfhc 12y ago
As long as the patricians view those below them as subhuman failures, they will never allow it. They think that if someone is not just like them, it must be because of some grievous personal fault.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Or, you know maybe we could have a working example first, in a tiny country like Sweden.
  - afafsd 12y ago
    Or how about remote Aboriginal communities in Australia? If you want to see what giving people just enough money to live on looks like, check out our remote Aboriginal communities where the government hands out enough money to live (mediocrely) on to everybody, so what's their incentive to get a job? What's their incentive to do anything? The results? Well the worst one is massive substance abuse problems. If they can't get booze, they sniff petrol. Actually for the most part they sniff petrol and drink booze. Highly educated creative-class people are the minority who can deal with free money without getting sapped of initiative, because (a) we tend to get satisfaction from work and (b) we can earn substantially more by working than by not working. But for someone at the bottom end of society who couldn't earn more than minimum wage anyway, granting them minimum wage for doing nothing is probably the worst possible thing you can do to them. Even if some choose a life of honest toil for slightly more money, vast numbers will choose a life of idleness and substance abuse.
    - jpatokal 12y ago
      Not entirely sure why you're picking on the Aboriginals here, their well-known problems are caused by much more than just getting 'free' money every now and then. In Australia everybody is entitled to unemployment benefits for an indefinite length of time (as long as you're "looking for work", which doesn't mean much). The payments max out at around $1200/mo, which is still below the poverty line, but it is "just" enough to live on and many people do live on it. Political rhetoric about "dole bludgers" aside, the country has yet to collapse as a consequence. http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-how-does-australia-stack-up/ http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-ho...
    - innguest 12y ago
      Let's say for the sake of argument that Basic Income results in 70% of the population sniffing petrol and drinking booze. Who are you to tell them they are doing anything wrong? If they're not harming anyone, they have the right to make their choices and harm themselves if they want to. Why do you care? At least you are free (as they are) to do as you want. It all comes down to people thinking they know what is best for other people. You can't force other people to contribute to your idea of society. If you want something big, find a group of people that believe the same and do it. Don't force others into your idea of how life should be.
      - logicchains 12y ago
        They are indirectly forcing people to follow their idea of how life should be, by forcing everyone to give them money to spend on sniffing petrol and drinking booze. They are indirectly harming people; if you trade with someone else without giving a portion of the proceeds of your trade to the non-workers, they'll throw you in jail, or kill you if you resist. Somebody has to make the petrol and booze. If you say the people making these products should give them to the non-workers against their will, you're telling them to live their lives how you want them to, not how they want to.
        logicchains 12y ago
        To whoever downvoted, care to present a rebuttal? I understand there are arguments that coercive redistribution by the state is necessary in the name of some 'greater good' or utilitarian outcome, but I have never encountered a cogent argument that redistribution doesn't involve any coercion.
Haul4ss 12y ago
The question becomes: how do you provide those minimums in a scalable and affordable way? Taxes of course, but who do you tax? Not the people making the minimum.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  There you go, you've almost got it. You're doing great, just complete that thought...
  - Chinjut 12y ago
    Alright, I phrased this snarkily, but let me expand on it: Who do you tax? As you said, the tax contributions funding this cannot come from those making the minimum; accordingly, they must come from those making more than the minimum. Just as, currently, those who make a lot of money owe taxes while those who make very little money do not owe taxes. If we wished to accomplish the basic income purely through income taxation, all we would need is some function f mapping pre-tax to post-tax income such that over the whole population, income and f(income) have the same average [for convenience, I am separating out for now all other income taxation we may wish to engage in; consider it to be applied before or after this tax], while f is everywhere increasing (so there is always an incentive to work) and f(0) is the basic income we seek. We likely would also want our taxation to be progressive (as in the current system); this amounts to asking for the differential of f to be decreasing. Within these constraints, there are a multitude of choices we can make. (Yes, this is simply a form of redistribution. And why not, to the extent we can afford it? As already argued, this particular form of redistribution could unleash a host of societal benefits.)
    - Haul4ss 12y ago
      Admittedly I have not run the numbers, but I suspect the amount of tax revenue you would have to raise is in excess of what is practical to glean from income taxes alone. People who earn money want to keep their money. In the U.S. we have a deep-rooted sense of mistrust about government. We're inconsistent about where/how we place that trust, and it can manifest itself in strange ways, but there it is. A Department of Minimal Living Standards would probably be a disaster. That's not to say we can't make improvements to our existing social safety nets. Just that here, given the population and the culture, a government-provided guaranteed wage is not likely to succeed.
jcalvinowens 12y ago
> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea? I think it's a great idea, but for the sake of argument: One of the more convincing arguments I've heard against a basic income system is that it would end up driving up housing costs: since everybody now has $N money for existing, rents would increase by almost $N. I would argue that such a unilateral increase belies the nature of a free market: if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. But of course, that would come with its own host of problems... > Then, capitalism on top. Incentive to do well, and the freedom to experiment with stuff that may just crash-and-burn. And nobody is ever well-and-truly left behind. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... I keep hearing that the bay area is that way because of stupid zoning rules (artificially limited supply) that can't be fixed given screwed up local politics. Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. Nah, just make sure it's enough to cover minimal health insurance (and then stop using tax incentives to tie that to employment!!) and living within public-transit distance of an average middle-of-the-pack university. No sense in paying extra to some people just because they'd prefer to live in a place with bad zoning laws. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting. Yep. Plus, appearance matters. (a) Your BI goes down by 1/3 the amount of your other income, and once it's gone income taxes kick in at 33% of whatever you make beyond 3x BI. (b) Your BI never goes away, but you're taxed 33% of income starting at dollar one. Somehow, (b) seems to sound better even tho they work out the same.
ars 12y ago
> basic income system ... poke holes Implied in your suggestion is that poverty, and poverty alone is responsible for the ills. Solve the poverty, solve the problems, right? But it's not so clear that this is at all true. For example nowhere in that article did I find a mention of IQ. Did they test it? Don't know, maybe someone can check. Despite the distaste, the reality is that people have different IQ levels, IQ is inherited, and that lower IQ means being worse off in life. Or perhaps the problem is culture as taught by the parents? A disregard for authority and education for example. Or a lack of stable family unit. Those too will cause someone to end up worse off. Or maybe something else. I don't know. But you better, or else you will solve the wrong problem.

by canadev 12y ago

Vjdjcjdjfhc 12y ago

As long as the patricians view those below them as subhuman failures, they will never allow it. They think that if someone is not just like them, it must be because of some grievous personal fault.

happyscrappy 12y ago
Or, you know maybe we could have a working example first, in a tiny country like Sweden.
- afafsd 12y ago
  Or how about remote Aboriginal communities in Australia? If you want to see what giving people just enough money to live on looks like, check out our remote Aboriginal communities where the government hands out enough money to live (mediocrely) on to everybody, so what's their incentive to get a job? What's their incentive to do anything? The results? Well the worst one is massive substance abuse problems. If they can't get booze, they sniff petrol. Actually for the most part they sniff petrol and drink booze. Highly educated creative-class people are the minority who can deal with free money without getting sapped of initiative, because (a) we tend to get satisfaction from work and (b) we can earn substantially more by working than by not working. But for someone at the bottom end of society who couldn't earn more than minimum wage anyway, granting them minimum wage for doing nothing is probably the worst possible thing you can do to them. Even if some choose a life of honest toil for slightly more money, vast numbers will choose a life of idleness and substance abuse.
  - jpatokal 12y ago
    Not entirely sure why you're picking on the Aboriginals here, their well-known problems are caused by much more than just getting 'free' money every now and then. In Australia everybody is entitled to unemployment benefits for an indefinite length of time (as long as you're "looking for work", which doesn't mean much). The payments max out at around $1200/mo, which is still below the poverty line, but it is "just" enough to live on and many people do live on it. Political rhetoric about "dole bludgers" aside, the country has yet to collapse as a consequence. http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-how-does-australia-stack-up/ http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-ho...
  - innguest 12y ago
    Let's say for the sake of argument that Basic Income results in 70% of the population sniffing petrol and drinking booze. Who are you to tell them they are doing anything wrong? If they're not harming anyone, they have the right to make their choices and harm themselves if they want to. Why do you care? At least you are free (as they are) to do as you want. It all comes down to people thinking they know what is best for other people. You can't force other people to contribute to your idea of society. If you want something big, find a group of people that believe the same and do it. Don't force others into your idea of how life should be.
    - logicchains 12y ago
      They are indirectly forcing people to follow their idea of how life should be, by forcing everyone to give them money to spend on sniffing petrol and drinking booze. They are indirectly harming people; if you trade with someone else without giving a portion of the proceeds of your trade to the non-workers, they'll throw you in jail, or kill you if you resist. Somebody has to make the petrol and booze. If you say the people making these products should give them to the non-workers against their will, you're telling them to live their lives how you want them to, not how they want to.
      - logicchains 12y ago
        To whoever downvoted, care to present a rebuttal? I understand there are arguments that coercive redistribution by the state is necessary in the name of some 'greater good' or utilitarian outcome, but I have never encountered a cogent argument that redistribution doesn't involve any coercion.

Haul4ss 12y ago

The question becomes: how do you provide those minimums in a scalable and affordable way? Taxes of course, but who do you tax? Not the people making the minimum.

Chinjut 12y ago
There you go, you've almost got it. You're doing great, just complete that thought...
- Chinjut 12y ago
  Alright, I phrased this snarkily, but let me expand on it: Who do you tax? As you said, the tax contributions funding this cannot come from those making the minimum; accordingly, they must come from those making more than the minimum. Just as, currently, those who make a lot of money owe taxes while those who make very little money do not owe taxes. If we wished to accomplish the basic income purely through income taxation, all we would need is some function f mapping pre-tax to post-tax income such that over the whole population, income and f(income) have the same average [for convenience, I am separating out for now all other income taxation we may wish to engage in; consider it to be applied before or after this tax], while f is everywhere increasing (so there is always an incentive to work) and f(0) is the basic income we seek. We likely would also want our taxation to be progressive (as in the current system); this amounts to asking for the differential of f to be decreasing. Within these constraints, there are a multitude of choices we can make. (Yes, this is simply a form of redistribution. And why not, to the extent we can afford it? As already argued, this particular form of redistribution could unleash a host of societal benefits.)
  - Haul4ss 12y ago
    Admittedly I have not run the numbers, but I suspect the amount of tax revenue you would have to raise is in excess of what is practical to glean from income taxes alone. People who earn money want to keep their money. In the U.S. we have a deep-rooted sense of mistrust about government. We're inconsistent about where/how we place that trust, and it can manifest itself in strange ways, but there it is. A Department of Minimal Living Standards would probably be a disaster. That's not to say we can't make improvements to our existing social safety nets. Just that here, given the population and the culture, a government-provided guaranteed wage is not likely to succeed.

jcalvinowens 12y ago

> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea? I think it's a great idea, but for the sake of argument: One of the more convincing arguments I've heard against a basic income system is that it would end up driving up housing costs: since everybody now has $N money for existing, rents would increase by almost $N. I would argue that such a unilateral increase belies the nature of a free market: if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. But of course, that would come with its own host of problems... > Then, capitalism on top. Incentive to do well, and the freedom to experiment with stuff that may just crash-and-burn. And nobody is ever well-and-truly left behind. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting.

tbrownaw 12y ago
if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... I keep hearing that the bay area is that way because of stupid zoning rules (artificially limited supply) that can't be fixed given screwed up local politics. Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. Nah, just make sure it's enough to cover minimal health insurance (and then stop using tax incentives to tie that to employment!!) and living within public-transit distance of an average middle-of-the-pack university. No sense in paying extra to some people just because they'd prefer to live in a place with bad zoning laws. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting. Yep. Plus, appearance matters. (a) Your BI goes down by 1/3 the amount of your other income, and once it's gone income taxes kick in at 33% of whatever you make beyond 3x BI. (b) Your BI never goes away, but you're taxed 33% of income starting at dollar one. Somehow, (b) seems to sound better even tho they work out the same.

ars 12y ago

> basic income system ... poke holes Implied in your suggestion is that poverty, and poverty alone is responsible for the ills. Solve the poverty, solve the problems, right? But it's not so clear that this is at all true. For example nowhere in that article did I find a mention of IQ. Did they test it? Don't know, maybe someone can check. Despite the distaste, the reality is that people have different IQ levels, IQ is inherited, and that lower IQ means being worse off in life. Or perhaps the problem is culture as taught by the parents? A disregard for authority and education for example. Or a lack of stable family unit. Those too will cause someone to end up worse off. Or maybe something else. I don't know. But you better, or else you will solve the wrong problem.