10 ms·

It's interesting that the nyt is covering basic income. I wonder if it would be possible to institute basic income as a policy without significant social unres

by nissimk 12y ago

It's interesting that the nyt is covering basic income. I wonder if it would be possible to institute basic income as a policy without significant social unrest. It seems unlikely to me that basic income would be accepted politically unless there was significant action first by disenfranchised workers.

thret 12y ago
I wonder if the tipping point might simply be when >50%-80% of people are already on welfare.
- neohaven 12y ago
  Yep. When you can't hold up the "you can't find a job because you're lazy/a slob/stupid/etc." narrative, we'll get these things.
edward 12y ago
I was going to point out that UK Green party supports a basic income, but now I find that they have dropped it from their 2015 manifesto. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11383801/Greens-ditch-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/1138380...
- mrec 12y ago
  It's not clear yet that they have dropped it; I think a lot of reporters jumped the gun after some (typically) careless comments. The Greens' "basic income" is only a partial one, though; most notably it's set at a level that couldn't possibly replace Housing Benefit, and so doesn't avoid the welfare trap.
smountcastle 12y ago
I'm curious why you don't think that a basic income would accepted politically? If it were provided to everyone without regard to their other sources of income it would differ from other approaches like welfare. I realize that the money has to come from somewhere, so perhaps a transition to a consumption tax rather than income tax would work. Of course the basic income would need to be significant enough to offset the increased cost of consumption for basic needs.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  Sell it to the left as assistance programs, sell it to the right as a tax overhaul, (fair tax/flat etc). You could cover both sides by consolidating aid programs into one basic income payment and bundling with tax reform where all tax paid is via a consumption tax. So borrow the fair tax idea of a prebate, where the government automatically deposits a set amount weekly/monthly into your account. The worrisome parts here are is that far too many people are willing to live at near poverty levels as long as the feel comfortable and the effort to exist there requires little on their part. We could end up legislating an entire segment to permanent poverty, paid enough to keep them from rising against those who have all the money
- JonFish85 12y ago
  Once people saw the cost of the program, I think it would cause a great deal of outrage. I've done the back-of-the-envelope math here on HN several times, so I don't really care to do it again, but essentially it would dwarf our current budget (which is already spending beyond income). The cost is enormous. I believe if you taxed everyone whose net worth is over $1b at a 100% rate, you could pay for this program for just under 2 years. And if you're talking about "everyone gets the same amount", remember that you have to collect it back, so you have the overhead of giving a person $1 just to collect it back again.
  - minthd 12y ago
    The key for this to be possible is a big reduction in the cost of living. Robots,automation and other tech , combined with the right regulations, could possible reduce cost of living by 80%-90%. Under those assumptions, won't basic income become possible ?
    - refurb 12y ago
      reduce cost of living by 80%-90% Relatively speaking, our cost of living has already been reduced by 80-90% since the late 1800's. The problem is, wealth is relative, not absolute.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
We've already (in America) got so many basic support programs, I don't see a problem with accepting Basic Income. There's food stamps, housing assistance (20% of Americans!) and free education already. {edit: add Basic Income}
- flatline 12y ago
  The problem is at the intersection of welfare and work. You have to be really poor and stay really poor to qualify for most of these social programs, and the programs are designed to be pretty minimal and thereby encourage people to work. At the same time, they disincentivize much of the low-paying work that many people on welfare can obtain, because they will be worse off without the handout. This is what unconditional basic income is supposed to address. It is also the source of concern about jobs going away, that a much larger number of people are going to be swept into government-subsidized poverty, which will put strains on the already burdened welfare system in the US. Where will the money come from?
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    The question was about acceptance, which is demonstrate by the existence of these programs. The further question of resource is a good one. And its not about money, which is after all, imaginary points on a scorecard. The real question is where are the goods coming from? It'll have to be automation, because the premise is that people won't be working.
- geebee 12y ago
  I think the big arguments for basic income are: 1) there is a huge and inefficient bureaucracy involved in administering these various assistance programs 2) the way these programs work (you lose access to them if your income rises above a fairly low threshold), we've essentially created a marginal tax rate of 100% on certain types of low income workers. 3) rapid technological change and increasing automation undermines the moral argument against redistribution of wealth. It is interesting that libertarians, not generally known for enthusiasm around wealth distribution, appear at least intrigued by basic income. This is just a quick summary, of course, I'd encourage you to read more about the case for basic income.
timepiece 12y ago
Marx was dead right all along. We should not work for capitalists who plunder the nations wealth with the help of politicians for them to make more money off our efforts. We should fight for (believe me these leeches won't give up very easily) fair share in aggregate wealth and people should not work for subsistence anymore esp when we have all these resources available on the planet.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  I think the word you are looking for is "plunder" not "blunder". If it is, you misspelled it in your other post also.
  - timepiece 12y ago
    Thanks for the correction. :)
- lucozade 12y ago
  Absolutely. There's overwhelming evidence that when the proletariat rise up it producers worker utopiae and doesn't revert to another capitalist system a few years later. Oh wait...
tosser-002 12y ago
You can't have both open borders and guaranteed income. Maintaining open borders seems to be a higher priority for the time being amongst those who would also advocate for a guaranteed income.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > You can't have both open borders and guaranteed income. Sure you can have liberalized immigration and basic income: basic income isn't means/behaviorally-tested, but it still has a target population -- which can well be citizens. If anything, a relatively liberalized immigration policy with unconditional basic income for citizens but not noncitizens minimizes the economic incentive for immigrants without their own strong support (whether from their own assets or family support) to come to the country.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I wonder if it would be possible to institute basic income as a policy without significant social unrest. Probably. But it depends on what it replaces, how it is funded, and how it is sold.

by nissimk 12y ago

thret 12y ago

I wonder if the tipping point might simply be when >50%-80% of people are already on welfare.

neohaven 12y ago
Yep. When you can't hold up the "you can't find a job because you're lazy/a slob/stupid/etc." narrative, we'll get these things.

edward 12y ago

I was going to point out that UK Green party supports a basic income, but now I find that they have dropped it from their 2015 manifesto. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11383801/Greens-ditch-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/1138380...

mrec 12y ago
It's not clear yet that they have dropped it; I think a lot of reporters jumped the gun after some (typically) careless comments. The Greens' "basic income" is only a partial one, though; most notably it's set at a level that couldn't possibly replace Housing Benefit, and so doesn't avoid the welfare trap.

smountcastle 12y ago

I'm curious why you don't think that a basic income would accepted politically? If it were provided to everyone without regard to their other sources of income it would differ from other approaches like welfare. I realize that the money has to come from somewhere, so perhaps a transition to a consumption tax rather than income tax would work. Of course the basic income would need to be significant enough to offset the increased cost of consumption for basic needs.

Shivetya 12y ago
Sell it to the left as assistance programs, sell it to the right as a tax overhaul, (fair tax/flat etc). You could cover both sides by consolidating aid programs into one basic income payment and bundling with tax reform where all tax paid is via a consumption tax. So borrow the fair tax idea of a prebate, where the government automatically deposits a set amount weekly/monthly into your account. The worrisome parts here are is that far too many people are willing to live at near poverty levels as long as the feel comfortable and the effort to exist there requires little on their part. We could end up legislating an entire segment to permanent poverty, paid enough to keep them from rising against those who have all the money
JonFish85 12y ago
Once people saw the cost of the program, I think it would cause a great deal of outrage. I've done the back-of-the-envelope math here on HN several times, so I don't really care to do it again, but essentially it would dwarf our current budget (which is already spending beyond income). The cost is enormous. I believe if you taxed everyone whose net worth is over $1b at a 100% rate, you could pay for this program for just under 2 years. And if you're talking about "everyone gets the same amount", remember that you have to collect it back, so you have the overhead of giving a person $1 just to collect it back again.
- minthd 12y ago
  The key for this to be possible is a big reduction in the cost of living. Robots,automation and other tech , combined with the right regulations, could possible reduce cost of living by 80%-90%. Under those assumptions, won't basic income become possible ?
  - refurb 12y ago
    reduce cost of living by 80%-90% Relatively speaking, our cost of living has already been reduced by 80-90% since the late 1800's. The problem is, wealth is relative, not absolute.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

We've already (in America) got so many basic support programs, I don't see a problem with accepting Basic Income. There's food stamps, housing assistance (20% of Americans!) and free education already. {edit: add Basic Income}

flatline 12y ago
The problem is at the intersection of welfare and work. You have to be really poor and stay really poor to qualify for most of these social programs, and the programs are designed to be pretty minimal and thereby encourage people to work. At the same time, they disincentivize much of the low-paying work that many people on welfare can obtain, because they will be worse off without the handout. This is what unconditional basic income is supposed to address. It is also the source of concern about jobs going away, that a much larger number of people are going to be swept into government-subsidized poverty, which will put strains on the already burdened welfare system in the US. Where will the money come from?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  The question was about acceptance, which is demonstrate by the existence of these programs. The further question of resource is a good one. And its not about money, which is after all, imaginary points on a scorecard. The real question is where are the goods coming from? It'll have to be automation, because the premise is that people won't be working.
geebee 12y ago
I think the big arguments for basic income are: 1) there is a huge and inefficient bureaucracy involved in administering these various assistance programs 2) the way these programs work (you lose access to them if your income rises above a fairly low threshold), we've essentially created a marginal tax rate of 100% on certain types of low income workers. 3) rapid technological change and increasing automation undermines the moral argument against redistribution of wealth. It is interesting that libertarians, not generally known for enthusiasm around wealth distribution, appear at least intrigued by basic income. This is just a quick summary, of course, I'd encourage you to read more about the case for basic income.

timepiece 12y ago

Marx was dead right all along. We should not work for capitalists who plunder the nations wealth with the help of politicians for them to make more money off our efforts. We should fight for (believe me these leeches won't give up very easily) fair share in aggregate wealth and people should not work for subsistence anymore esp when we have all these resources available on the planet.

chrisbennet 12y ago
I think the word you are looking for is "plunder" not "blunder". If it is, you misspelled it in your other post also.
- timepiece 12y ago
  Thanks for the correction. :)
lucozade 12y ago
Absolutely. There's overwhelming evidence that when the proletariat rise up it producers worker utopiae and doesn't revert to another capitalist system a few years later. Oh wait...

tosser-002 12y ago

You can't have both open borders and guaranteed income. Maintaining open borders seems to be a higher priority for the time being amongst those who would also advocate for a guaranteed income.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> You can't have both open borders and guaranteed income. Sure you can have liberalized immigration and basic income: basic income isn't means/behaviorally-tested, but it still has a target population -- which can well be citizens. If anything, a relatively liberalized immigration policy with unconditional basic income for citizens but not noncitizens minimizes the economic incentive for immigrants without their own strong support (whether from their own assets or family support) to come to the country.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I wonder if it would be possible to institute basic income as a policy without significant social unrest. Probably. But it depends on what it replaces, how it is funded, and how it is sold.