5 ms·

Basic income. People may scoff, but this is one of the extremely rare ideas that can draw significant support from both sides of the isle in the US. There are

by jnbiche 12y ago

Basic income. People may scoff, but this is one of the extremely rare ideas that can draw significant support from both sides of the isle in the US. There are pockets of strong opposition to the idea on both the right and the left, but I can only hope that the far left's opposition to basic income continues. That opposition in and off itself makes most politicians in this country take a serious look at the idea.

shit_parade 12y ago
The problem is implementation, do you really trust the US government to give it even more power over its people by allowing to hand out 'basic incomes' to everyone? I'm sure it will only become yet another tool to oppress dissent.
- jeffreyrogers 12y ago
  I don't think your fears are well grounded, and I'm not aware of significant efforts by the US government to "oppress dissent" in other recent cases.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - shit_parade 12y ago
    Free speech zones, excessive pursuit of whistle blowers, proposed restrictions on cryptography, extensive use of national security letters, resisting FOIA requests, defending NSA programs, killing US citizens in secret. I'm flabbergasted you believe my fears of government overreach and suppression of dissent is not well grounded.
  - geoffbrown2014 12y ago
    The federal government has a terrible record of trying and succeeding in ruining people they perceive as a threat to the status quo, including people like MLK Jr., a Senate confirmed target of the FBI. These tactics continue today, they are currently being directed towards investigative journalists and whistle blowers. The threats are so great as to create a very real chill among conventional journalists to keep on approved topics and messages.
pcmonk 12y ago
Which part of the right supports basic income?
- rcfox 12y ago
  By implementing basic income, you no longer need welfare, public healthcare, etc. You get a smaller government body as a result.
- molecules 12y ago
  Some Libertarians have kicked around the idea. Basic income would replace all of the welfare bureaucracies. EDIT: rcfox beat me to it by a few minutes.
- Futurebot 12y ago
  This is a topic on Cato, Reason, and several other prominent publications of the right. Here's one: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragma... and another one: http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/26/scrap-the-welfare-state-give-people-free http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/26/scrap-the-welfare-stat... Disagreements on implementation are real (some on the right want this implemented only as Friedman's negative income tax, which is not a true GBI, and some on the left want a GBI in addition to the current welfare state), but there is still significant agreement, especially over the past few years.
girmad 12y ago
Two questions: 1. How will this help with wealth that's already accumulated? I get how this will slow further accumulation. 2. How about capital flight? If the US enacts a policy like this, what stops the super rich from moving to other countries?
- pgodzin 12y ago
  I believe the goal is some kind of universal basic income, where the developed countries affected by these changes provide similar benefits. Of course, no matter what the solution is, political and social structures will have to change drastically to accommodate this kind of change in the world.
- frandroid 12y ago
  1. Inheritance taxes are one part of the solution. Capital gains taxes are another. 2. Make the right to conduct financial transactions contingent on one being part of a global financial network which abides by a specific set of taxation rules. This can take many forms. The U.S. in particular is well-placed to initiate and control such a system. However, considering that Wall Street has captured Congress, I doubt the U.S. will come anywhere close to this in the first place.
- estebank 12y ago
  1. You're assuming redistribution wouldn't happen through heavy taxation of existing capital and property, like France's wealth tax[1], where you pay when your worldwide net worth is above 1,300,000€. 2. The US taxes citizens regardless of where they live[1], and in the case of renouncing the US citizenship it is required you pay an exit tax[2] equivalent to the capital gains of selling all your property when above $680,000. [1]: http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/wealth-tax/ http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxatio... [2]: http://hodgen.com/does-the-united-states-stand-alone/ http://hodgen.com/does-the-united-states-stand-alone/ [3]: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expatriation-Tax http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expat...
- jnbiche 12y ago
  Two very good questions, but my ideas about those go way off topic. But with respect to question 1, the most important response is that we can't let the sunk cost fallacy stop us from adopting good ideas.
pbreit 12y ago
I'd say it's one of the rare ideas that almost no one supports. The right obviously objects to redistribution. The left prefers inefficient redistribution. It's hard to say there's much tangible opposition on the far left or that opposition causes consideration or that most politicians are taking a serious look. I think you might have just gone 0 for 5.
- gaius 12y ago
  The left prefers inefficient redistribution That's not quite true; just they want the main beneficiaries of redistribution to be the bureaucratic class rather than the working class. What you see as inefficiency (in terms of money reaching the end recipients) is in fact, the actual design doing what it was intended to do. Ideally (for them) ALL the money would go on civil servant salaries.
- mrec 12y ago
  The right also tends to like freedom of choice, reduced bureaucracy, efficient markets and price discovery, all of which BI does much better than current welfare systems.
- lukeschlather 12y ago
  > The right obviously objects to redistribution. This is inarguable. > The left prefers inefficient redistribution. This is an obvious strawman. The current inefficient solution is a compromise between the left (who want the government to help the poor) and the right (who don't want the government to help the poor, but can be persuaded if you mix in enough penalties for perceived sin.) In order to have an efficient solution you need a majority of people voting to agree on what the goal is.
up_and_up 12y ago
Wouldn't that just cause more inflation?
nightski 12y ago
Since I am not an economist or very experienced in these matters may I ask what would prevent the cost of goods simply going up due to basic income being supplied? Wouldn't we end up in the same situation all over again except the government would then be forced to write checks as the population would be dependent on them due to increased costs?
- calroc 12y ago
  The "problem" that basic income is trying to solve is the massive increase in productive capacity due to automation, of which the increase of unemployment is a symptom. It's not so much that supply would meet demand (and so prevent prices going up), as that basic income allows demand to keep up with supply even as automation makes more with less labor.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Since I am not an economist or very experienced in these matters may I ask what would prevent the cost of goods simply going up due to basic income being supplied? Prices of goods demanded by the group of people receiving a net benefit from basic income (which, even though BI itself is universal, isn't everyone, because its funded by progressive taxation, which makes it a net downward transfer of wealth) would almost certainly go up with a basic income. The thing that suggests that the increase in price would generally be restrained such that the quantity of goods the net beneficiaries could afford would still increase despite the price level increase is "elasticity".

by jnbiche 12y ago

shit_parade 12y ago

The problem is implementation, do you really trust the US government to give it even more power over its people by allowing to hand out 'basic incomes' to everyone? I'm sure it will only become yet another tool to oppress dissent.

jeffreyrogers 12y ago
I don't think your fears are well grounded, and I'm not aware of significant efforts by the US government to "oppress dissent" in other recent cases.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- shit_parade 12y ago
  Free speech zones, excessive pursuit of whistle blowers, proposed restrictions on cryptography, extensive use of national security letters, resisting FOIA requests, defending NSA programs, killing US citizens in secret. I'm flabbergasted you believe my fears of government overreach and suppression of dissent is not well grounded.
- geoffbrown2014 12y ago
  The federal government has a terrible record of trying and succeeding in ruining people they perceive as a threat to the status quo, including people like MLK Jr., a Senate confirmed target of the FBI. These tactics continue today, they are currently being directed towards investigative journalists and whistle blowers. The threats are so great as to create a very real chill among conventional journalists to keep on approved topics and messages.

pcmonk 12y ago

Which part of the right supports basic income?

rcfox 12y ago
By implementing basic income, you no longer need welfare, public healthcare, etc. You get a smaller government body as a result.
molecules 12y ago
Some Libertarians have kicked around the idea. Basic income would replace all of the welfare bureaucracies. EDIT: rcfox beat me to it by a few minutes.
Futurebot 12y ago
This is a topic on Cato, Reason, and several other prominent publications of the right. Here's one: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragma... and another one: http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/26/scrap-the-welfare-state-give-people-free http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/26/scrap-the-welfare-stat... Disagreements on implementation are real (some on the right want this implemented only as Friedman's negative income tax, which is not a true GBI, and some on the left want a GBI in addition to the current welfare state), but there is still significant agreement, especially over the past few years.

girmad 12y ago

Two questions: 1. How will this help with wealth that's already accumulated? I get how this will slow further accumulation. 2. How about capital flight? If the US enacts a policy like this, what stops the super rich from moving to other countries?

pgodzin 12y ago
I believe the goal is some kind of universal basic income, where the developed countries affected by these changes provide similar benefits. Of course, no matter what the solution is, political and social structures will have to change drastically to accommodate this kind of change in the world.
frandroid 12y ago
1. Inheritance taxes are one part of the solution. Capital gains taxes are another. 2. Make the right to conduct financial transactions contingent on one being part of a global financial network which abides by a specific set of taxation rules. This can take many forms. The U.S. in particular is well-placed to initiate and control such a system. However, considering that Wall Street has captured Congress, I doubt the U.S. will come anywhere close to this in the first place.
estebank 12y ago
1. You're assuming redistribution wouldn't happen through heavy taxation of existing capital and property, like France's wealth tax[1], where you pay when your worldwide net worth is above 1,300,000€. 2. The US taxes citizens regardless of where they live[1], and in the case of renouncing the US citizenship it is required you pay an exit tax[2] equivalent to the capital gains of selling all your property when above $680,000. [1]: http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/wealth-tax/ http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxatio... [2]: http://hodgen.com/does-the-united-states-stand-alone/ http://hodgen.com/does-the-united-states-stand-alone/ [3]: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expatriation-Tax http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expat...
jnbiche 12y ago
Two very good questions, but my ideas about those go way off topic. But with respect to question 1, the most important response is that we can't let the sunk cost fallacy stop us from adopting good ideas.

pbreit 12y ago

I'd say it's one of the rare ideas that almost no one supports. The right obviously objects to redistribution. The left prefers inefficient redistribution. It's hard to say there's much tangible opposition on the far left or that opposition causes consideration or that most politicians are taking a serious look. I think you might have just gone 0 for 5.

gaius 12y ago
The left prefers inefficient redistribution That's not quite true; just they want the main beneficiaries of redistribution to be the bureaucratic class rather than the working class. What you see as inefficiency (in terms of money reaching the end recipients) is in fact, the actual design doing what it was intended to do. Ideally (for them) ALL the money would go on civil servant salaries.
mrec 12y ago
The right also tends to like freedom of choice, reduced bureaucracy, efficient markets and price discovery, all of which BI does much better than current welfare systems.
lukeschlather 12y ago
> The right obviously objects to redistribution. This is inarguable. > The left prefers inefficient redistribution. This is an obvious strawman. The current inefficient solution is a compromise between the left (who want the government to help the poor) and the right (who don't want the government to help the poor, but can be persuaded if you mix in enough penalties for perceived sin.) In order to have an efficient solution you need a majority of people voting to agree on what the goal is.

up_and_up 12y ago

Wouldn't that just cause more inflation?

nightski 12y ago

Since I am not an economist or very experienced in these matters may I ask what would prevent the cost of goods simply going up due to basic income being supplied? Wouldn't we end up in the same situation all over again except the government would then be forced to write checks as the population would be dependent on them due to increased costs?

calroc 12y ago
The "problem" that basic income is trying to solve is the massive increase in productive capacity due to automation, of which the increase of unemployment is a symptom. It's not so much that supply would meet demand (and so prevent prices going up), as that basic income allows demand to keep up with supply even as automation makes more with less labor.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Since I am not an economist or very experienced in these matters may I ask what would prevent the cost of goods simply going up due to basic income being supplied? Prices of goods demanded by the group of people receiving a net benefit from basic income (which, even though BI itself is universal, isn't everyone, because its funded by progressive taxation, which makes it a net downward transfer of wealth) would almost certainly go up with a basic income. The thing that suggests that the increase in price would generally be restrained such that the quantity of goods the net beneficiaries could afford would still increase despite the price level increase is "elasticity".