5 ms·

When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? I assume the money will not be printed (this would not help,

by piokoch 11y ago

When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? I assume the money will not be printed (this would not help, as inflation would make that income very small). So the country that applies such policy must have some way of finding money. Some countries have natural resources that they can sell, so the problem is solved. But how about the rest? I guess this will be financed by those, who are earning more money. Let's forget about the question if this is moral or not to take away money from people who are working hard just to give away these money to those, who are not working at all. However the taxation will make costs of work higher and higher. Country economy would become less competitive. In addition avoiding taxes would start to be really profitable - people would start opening fake companies abroad, create fake costs, etc. it happens now as well, but the scale could be much bigger. As usually, big players would be able to avoid taxes, so the one who would be hurt most are the "middle class". Taxes will eat their profits and the gap between the best earning people and the rest would be growing and growing. For me it looks a bit as if we were trying to solve the problems caused by goods redistribution by applying more goods redistribution.

Swizec 11y ago
Most civilized countries already have something very similar - social security. Everyone who works pays into the system that distributes that money among those who are unemployed. It's a type of insurance if you will. If I participate in the system, I can be reasonably sure that were I to lose my job, I wouldn't end up on the streets. A spectacular example of why this is a good thing is J.K Rowling who was able to write Harry Potter because the British welfare system kept her in reasonably good shape after she lost her job -> http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social security, but it fundamentally feels like such a safety net should exist.
- mcv 11y ago
  > I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social security, The difference is that everybody gets basic income, and not just the unemployed. You don't get a sharp division between the employed and the unemployed, your welfare won't get cut when you start earning money. Work is always rewarded, and it's easier to get out of the poverty trap.
  - Swizec 11y ago
    That sounds even better than welfare then! And for the countries that have already got welfare, the argument of "But nobody is going to work!" is already out the window. If that were a real problem, everybody would already be on welfare. Yes there are people that abuse it. The vast majority doesn't. Even if it's just because they couldn't look their friends in the eye if they did.
- 100timesthis 11y ago
  My understanding is that basic income is unconditional while social security has some conditions attached (e.g. you need to go to interviews)
mcv 11y ago
> who is going to pay for that? The same people who are paying for the other welfare, unemployment and disability payments, the lower tax brackets for lower incomes, etc. Those are all things that basic income could eventually replace. It's not like there's free money coming out of nowhere, it's simply a smarter and more efficient way to distribute the money that's already there. The big advantage of basic income, though, is that it rewards working more than what we currently have. It's currently possible for someone on welfare who gets a part-time minimum wage job, to end up worse off. With basic income, you always get ahead when you work more.
- verinus 11y ago
  > It's not like there's free money coming out of nowhere, it's simply a smarter and more efficient way to distribute the money that's already there. I highly doubt that. In my opinion the current european social system destroys incentives to work and take responsibility for ones own live.
  - 7Z7 11y ago
    ..and Basic Income does the opposite, by not disincentivising finding supplementary work.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    And your opinion would be wrong. In my opinion, not having something like this would be forcing people to stay in shitty, abusive jobs because they have no alternative, due to needing to buy food and keep a roof over their heads. Alleviating those issues would mean that low income workers would be able to be more selective in the work they take, which means that employers would have to work harder in attracting employees. Not a bad thing at all.
dagw 11y ago
I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? Most countries contemplating this already spend a lot of money a whole host of welfare and various support and safety net systems, as well as the massive bureaucracy needed to administer these systems. By replacing the massive patchwork of existing systems with one simplified and unified system, you can save a lot of money through reduced bureaucracy and increased efficiency. Basically this system won't be added to what is currently there but replacing an already expensive and highly inefficient system. So while it may end up being slightly more expensive it won't simply be a completely new cost added to the budget. There may even be secondary savings from things like reduced crime rates and increased health.
mohawk 11y ago
> When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? Just look at all the social "safety nets" that many European countries have. That money then gets relabled "basic income". Pensions, unemployment benefits, paid sick leave, child support money, etc... For people who are working full-time and don't get anything at the moment, the taxes would have to be increased slightly to offset their "basic income" on average, so maybe with a low wage you would have a small gain, with a big wage you would have slightly less than before. The advantage could be a massive reduction in bureaucracy. The disadvantage in Europe at least is that many people prefer perceived "fairness" over efficiency, i.e. they are more worried that someone who "should not get that money" will get it than they are worried about their social systems wasting money and peoples' time.
- linker3000 11y ago
  > When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? The real question is why are we hindering the whole of humanity in terms of social development, medical and technical research, environmental management and..pretty much everything.. because we are beholden to an artificial system of numerical control (ie: money and finance) which we invented as a tool for stability and control, but has become a total, fucked-up liablity because the numbers don't line up properly and has large parts of the world limiting themselves artificially (ie: austerity measures) just to make the digits on a spreadsheet tick over in the right way. We need to reset, respawn and start again. Edit: And because my original post doesn't make it clear, I mean we need something other than 'money', ie: get rid of the whole damn concept, or reengineer it completely - something a few notches below 'shoot all the bankers and accountants'. ..and now back to my day job in support.
LBarret 11y ago
We tried without goods redistribution, it doesn't work (19th century anyone ? ). Beyond a certain level of poverty you don't have the lawful/legal means to reach a better situation, you need external help or to turn criminal. There are a lot of (documented) threshold effects. Beside, without some form of solidarity, a society tends to degrade into some "every man for himself" : the poors use violence (that's all they have), the richs task evasion because they feel no obligation to their fellow men. We have too many examples of that, local or national. The mechanisms you describe might happen but they may be minor forces in the end. A real economic system is very complex, many many forces and behaviours are at work (and many are social/cultural). A complex reactive organism. So no, this experience is not silly and it's hard to see what it will produce.
lmm 11y ago
Basic income is openly and explicitly redistribution. Many of us in Europe have found redistributive tax-and-spend policies to be quite successful. > Let's forget about the question if this is moral or not to take away money from people who are working hard just to give away these money to those, who are not working at all. In civilized countries those who are not working at all are already given money that's taken from the rich. The big difference with a basic income is that those who are working hard at low-paying jobs also get money. > the taxation will make costs of work higher and higher. Country economy would become less competitive. A country with closer income equality will be more pleasant to live in, so maybe people will be willing to work for lower take-home wages and this will balance the higher income tax. It would be good to have some kind of international tax settlement though. Otherwise we have a race to the bottom (we already see that with corporation tax and e.g. Ireland) that ends in no country being able to tax and the whole world (except for the very rich) being worse off. > In addition avoiding taxes would start to be really profitable - people would start opening fake companies abroad, create fake costs, etc. it happens now as well, but the scale could be much bigger. People already avoid tax as much as they can, I don't think this would change that. If you're the kind of person who avoids 40% tax you would still avoid 30% tax, IMO. > As usually, big players would be able to avoid taxes, so the one who would be hurt most are the "middle class". The whole idea of it being universal is that it's the working / lower middle class that benefits the most. Blindly assuming that the rich are just not going to pay their taxes is no way to run a government - if they're not paying, make them pay.
richmarr 11y ago
When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? The typical justification is that it pays for itself in simplified management, improved education, lower crime, etc. I haven't seen the sums, but given that the US incarcerates 1% of it's population at exhobitant (direct and indirect) cost, it doesn't seem that unrealistic. Let's forget about the question if this is moral or not to take away money from people who are working hard just to give away these money to those, who are not working at all. We might have forgotten it, but you brought it up and left it hanging like a yeasty fart in a confined space. Your interpretation of 'moral' here is a narrow one. Socialism is a moral economic solution; it's just not as efficient as well-regulated free markets. In a post-labour-scarcity society this will broadly be moot anyway as much fewer of us will have marketable skills. Update: I say socialism isn't as efficient as well-regulated free markets. It actually depends on the market. The UK's NHS for example covers the entire population and costs less per capita than the US spends on Medicare (which only manages to cover the elderly). Funding healthcare through insurance creates moral hazard, conflicting incentives, information asymmetry, etc. which adds up to a deeply inefficient market.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "given that the US incarcerates 1% of it's population at exhobitant (direct and indirect) cost" Isn't part of the problem there that the US Prison System is a for-profit industry? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY
  - richmarr 11y ago
    Yep. Poverty and the pathetically ineffective "War on Drugs" put them there, and the prison system's focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation keeps them imprisoned and/or reoffending. Imagine the economic effect of having 1% of the population turned from being a cost-drain to being young healthy tax-payers. The reduced load on policing. The fact that people would be less afraid of crime. Imagine the economic boost if people could interact with their neighbours and build communities without fear. Sure, in reality it wouldn't be as rosy as that, but chances are it'd be a darn sight better than where we are now.

by piokoch 11y ago

Swizec 11y ago

Most civilized countries already have something very similar - social security. Everyone who works pays into the system that distributes that money among those who are unemployed. It's a type of insurance if you will. If I participate in the system, I can be reasonably sure that were I to lose my job, I wouldn't end up on the streets. A spectacular example of why this is a good thing is J.K Rowling who was able to write Harry Potter because the British welfare system kept her in reasonably good shape after she lost her job -> http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq http://imgur.com/gallery/FIQYq I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social security, but it fundamentally feels like such a safety net should exist.

mcv 11y ago
> I've never understood the exact differences between basic income and social security, The difference is that everybody gets basic income, and not just the unemployed. You don't get a sharp division between the employed and the unemployed, your welfare won't get cut when you start earning money. Work is always rewarded, and it's easier to get out of the poverty trap.
- Swizec 11y ago
  That sounds even better than welfare then! And for the countries that have already got welfare, the argument of "But nobody is going to work!" is already out the window. If that were a real problem, everybody would already be on welfare. Yes there are people that abuse it. The vast majority doesn't. Even if it's just because they couldn't look their friends in the eye if they did.
100timesthis 11y ago
My understanding is that basic income is unconditional while social security has some conditions attached (e.g. you need to go to interviews)

mcv 11y ago

> who is going to pay for that? The same people who are paying for the other welfare, unemployment and disability payments, the lower tax brackets for lower incomes, etc. Those are all things that basic income could eventually replace. It's not like there's free money coming out of nowhere, it's simply a smarter and more efficient way to distribute the money that's already there. The big advantage of basic income, though, is that it rewards working more than what we currently have. It's currently possible for someone on welfare who gets a part-time minimum wage job, to end up worse off. With basic income, you always get ahead when you work more.

verinus 11y ago
> It's not like there's free money coming out of nowhere, it's simply a smarter and more efficient way to distribute the money that's already there. I highly doubt that. In my opinion the current european social system destroys incentives to work and take responsibility for ones own live.
- 7Z7 11y ago
  ..and Basic Income does the opposite, by not disincentivising finding supplementary work.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  And your opinion would be wrong. In my opinion, not having something like this would be forcing people to stay in shitty, abusive jobs because they have no alternative, due to needing to buy food and keep a roof over their heads. Alleviating those issues would mean that low income workers would be able to be more selective in the work they take, which means that employers would have to work harder in attracting employees. Not a bad thing at all.

dagw 11y ago

I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? Most countries contemplating this already spend a lot of money a whole host of welfare and various support and safety net systems, as well as the massive bureaucracy needed to administer these systems. By replacing the massive patchwork of existing systems with one simplified and unified system, you can save a lot of money through reduced bureaucracy and increased efficiency. Basically this system won't be added to what is currently there but replacing an already expensive and highly inefficient system. So while it may end up being slightly more expensive it won't simply be a completely new cost added to the budget. There may even be secondary savings from things like reduced crime rates and increased health.

mohawk 11y ago

> When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? Just look at all the social "safety nets" that many European countries have. That money then gets relabled "basic income". Pensions, unemployment benefits, paid sick leave, child support money, etc... For people who are working full-time and don't get anything at the moment, the taxes would have to be increased slightly to offset their "basic income" on average, so maybe with a low wage you would have a small gain, with a big wage you would have slightly less than before. The advantage could be a massive reduction in bureaucracy. The disadvantage in Europe at least is that many people prefer perceived "fairness" over efficiency, i.e. they are more worried that someone who "should not get that money" will get it than they are worried about their social systems wasting money and peoples' time.

linker3000 11y ago
> When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? The real question is why are we hindering the whole of humanity in terms of social development, medical and technical research, environmental management and..pretty much everything.. because we are beholden to an artificial system of numerical control (ie: money and finance) which we invented as a tool for stability and control, but has become a total, fucked-up liablity because the numbers don't line up properly and has large parts of the world limiting themselves artificially (ie: austerity measures) just to make the digits on a spreadsheet tick over in the right way. We need to reset, respawn and start again. Edit: And because my original post doesn't make it clear, I mean we need something other than 'money', ie: get rid of the whole damn concept, or reengineer it completely - something a few notches below 'shoot all the bankers and accountants'. ..and now back to my day job in support.

LBarret 11y ago

We tried without goods redistribution, it doesn't work (19th century anyone ? ). Beyond a certain level of poverty you don't have the lawful/legal means to reach a better situation, you need external help or to turn criminal. There are a lot of (documented) threshold effects. Beside, without some form of solidarity, a society tends to degrade into some "every man for himself" : the poors use violence (that's all they have), the richs task evasion because they feel no obligation to their fellow men. We have too many examples of that, local or national. The mechanisms you describe might happen but they may be minor forces in the end. A real economic system is very complex, many many forces and behaviours are at work (and many are social/cultural). A complex reactive organism. So no, this experience is not silly and it's hard to see what it will produce.

lmm 11y ago

Basic income is openly and explicitly redistribution. Many of us in Europe have found redistributive tax-and-spend policies to be quite successful. > Let's forget about the question if this is moral or not to take away money from people who are working hard just to give away these money to those, who are not working at all. In civilized countries those who are not working at all are already given money that's taken from the rich. The big difference with a basic income is that those who are working hard at low-paying jobs also get money. > the taxation will make costs of work higher and higher. Country economy would become less competitive. A country with closer income equality will be more pleasant to live in, so maybe people will be willing to work for lower take-home wages and this will balance the higher income tax. It would be good to have some kind of international tax settlement though. Otherwise we have a race to the bottom (we already see that with corporation tax and e.g. Ireland) that ends in no country being able to tax and the whole world (except for the very rich) being worse off. > In addition avoiding taxes would start to be really profitable - people would start opening fake companies abroad, create fake costs, etc. it happens now as well, but the scale could be much bigger. People already avoid tax as much as they can, I don't think this would change that. If you're the kind of person who avoids 40% tax you would still avoid 30% tax, IMO. > As usually, big players would be able to avoid taxes, so the one who would be hurt most are the "middle class". The whole idea of it being universal is that it's the working / lower middle class that benefits the most. Blindly assuming that the rich are just not going to pay their taxes is no way to run a government - if they're not paying, make them pay.

richmarr 11y ago

When I see that discussion about basic income I am always wandering, who is going to pay for that? The typical justification is that it pays for itself in simplified management, improved education, lower crime, etc. I haven't seen the sums, but given that the US incarcerates 1% of it's population at exhobitant (direct and indirect) cost, it doesn't seem that unrealistic. Let's forget about the question if this is moral or not to take away money from people who are working hard just to give away these money to those, who are not working at all. We might have forgotten it, but you brought it up and left it hanging like a yeasty fart in a confined space. Your interpretation of 'moral' here is a narrow one. Socialism is a moral economic solution; it's just not as efficient as well-regulated free markets. In a post-labour-scarcity society this will broadly be moot anyway as much fewer of us will have marketable skills. Update: I say socialism isn't as efficient as well-regulated free markets. It actually depends on the market. The UK's NHS for example covers the entire population and costs less per capita than the US spends on Medicare (which only manages to cover the elderly). Funding healthcare through insurance creates moral hazard, conflicting incentives, information asymmetry, etc. which adds up to a deeply inefficient market.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "given that the US incarcerates 1% of it's population at exhobitant (direct and indirect) cost" Isn't part of the problem there that the US Prison System is a for-profit industry? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY
- richmarr 11y ago
  Yep. Poverty and the pathetically ineffective "War on Drugs" put them there, and the prison system's focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation keeps them imprisoned and/or reoffending. Imagine the economic effect of having 1% of the population turned from being a cost-drain to being young healthy tax-payers. The reduced load on policing. The fact that people would be less afraid of crime. Imagine the economic boost if people could interact with their neighbours and build communities without fear. Sure, in reality it wouldn't be as rosy as that, but chances are it'd be a darn sight better than where we are now.