Universal basic income

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz Not only that but throughout human history the wealthy have never done, and have never had to do, anything but what they felt like and never lacked for self-worth and confidence in their entitlement. Sorry, but it's true. I fail to see how mere subsistence for the rest would cause civilization to come crashing down. Besides, the very concept of The Invisible Hand implies that anything a person has can never actually be all theirs in the first place. They only come by it due to an unknowable number of things working in unknowable ways simply allowing a result that happened to favor one over another. Ergo everyone is owed a share. Now, of course there are deadbeats, people who only appear to be deadbeats due to not having a lot, and the simply unfortunate. Again, sorry but that's People for ya. The problem can be serviced as easily as can be gotten away with or you can kill them any number of ways. I suppose contriving a need to work is one way to do it while allowing those unaffected by the demand to feel good by invoking varying definitions of "worthiness" until you come up with one most people can agree on. The uber point is: None of this is written in stone Nothing has to be done this way or that way or we all explode.

So we don't need it.

[razztazz]

Quote:

I can see the value of a 'basic income' but I think each person needs to do something for that income.

Sounds reasonable but..... Geee....? I wonder what person or persons should be the ones to determine what work "ought to be" done and then assess the "quality" of that work before allowing another human being to eat or stay out of the rain? I can see the value of great wealth too. But I think they should have to work for it. Not just redistributing other people's wealth out of the economy under government protection and favorable legislation? DO something. Owning isn't doing. See, this seems to work in only one direction.

[explanade]

Isn't that like workfare or whatever it was called in the Depression days?

They had Americans go to work but it was really menial jobs which weren't going to provide income long term.

Or there were proposals decades ago to make welfare recipients do some jobs, like clean city buses.

Maybe they were called make fare jobs.

[Mdlerth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths I don't think that many taxpayers are naive enough not to realize that they are footing the bill through their taxes.

Naive? Quite the contrary. Most filers know that the vast bulk of taxes are paid by a small fraction of the population - someone else.

However, my point wasn't primarily about tax policy, it was about our reaction to direct vs indirect costs. We tolerate hidden costs with astonishing patience/lethargy.

Suppose the tab for UBI wasn't simply stirred into a single great big budgetary soup of government spending. Suppose each individual taxpayer had the option of electing how much he was willing to spend on each itemized entry in the budget, in return for which he would receive or dispense a quantity of government service. Would we pay to be protected by firefighters and police? Probably yes.

Roads, schools, parks? Perhaps.

But if it came down to actually checking off a box on our tax return that says "Yes, add another $1400 a month to my own tax bill to pay for somebody else's Universal Basic Income", would we check that box? I suspect it would reveal whether we REALLY support it.

[Pilot2013]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz Not only that but throughout human history the wealthy have never done, and have never had to do, anything but what they felt like and never lacked for self-worth and confidence in their entitlement.

Except, maybe, earn their wealth? Or are you going to lump EVERYONE with wealth as silver spooners... I don't think I have seen a more judgmental post so far.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdlerth But if it came down to actually checking off a box on our tax return that says "Yes, add another $1400 a month to my own tax bill to pay for somebody else's Universal Basic Income", would we check that box? I suspect it would reveal whether we REALLY support it.

By popular demand, Massachusetts actually has a box where you can pay more for your income tax. Don't have the exact number but I know it is a very, very small number of people who actually do. Something like under 1500 people in the entire state.

IIRC it was in response to a drive for lower taxes and a whole lot of people claimed they'd be fine with paying more taxes to support a variety of social causes. In the end, apparently few do, regardless of the social benefit.

[HadEnuff]

My dad did work in Cuba before Castro, and then in his later years was able to visit Havana, around 2008, twice.

He told me that the government would provide a basic sustenance of a rice and beans diet, for free. If that's all you wanted out of life, you got that for free.

If you wanted more, you had to find some sort of useful employ.

I'm not saying this is a good system, or a bad system. But it is interesting to ponder.

[harley]

I remember reading some Mack Reynolds sci fi back in the 60s. His stories, especially Mercenary from Tomorrow, included the concept of a basic guaranteed income for all citizens. It was enough to exist on (especially with the free beer, drugs, and TV), but if you wanted more you could work IF you could find a job. It was an eye opener for me as a teen, very thought provoking. I didn't read the AI article, but I could see something like this developing from the combination of the welfare state and technology doing away with types of jobs that don't require education or training.

The Star Trek socioeconomic environment is more benevolent, but not all that different. All basic needs are supplied, leaving people free to strive and create as they desire.

I don't think this will happen in my lifetime, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like it a few generations down the road.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HadEnuff My dad did work in Cuba before Castro, and then in his later years was able to visit Havana, around 2008, twice. He told me that the government would provide a basic sustenance of a rice and beans diet, for free. If that's all you wanted out of life, you got that for free. If you wanted more, you had to find some sort of useful employ. I'm not saying this is a good system, or a bad system. But it is interesting to ponder.

Sounds similar to a subsidized housing/welfare/food stamps combo.

[stepford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley ...I wouldn't be surprised to see something like it a few generations down the road.

I will be mightily surprised if I see anything a few generations down the road.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sittingduck The problem is not just the elimination of jobs. It is also how rapidly it occurs.

+1

I remember hearding a talk about how our factories got clobbered by Chinese imports. Nobody anticipated that the Chinese productions ability would overwhelm American factories so quickly by providing a huge base for very cheap production of goods in a very short time. They just didn't see it coming.

[Katsmeow]

I am not sure about the Universal Basic Income but I think it is a serious issue because it is tied to the vanishing job with the changes in technology. I couple of years ago I found this an interesting article in talking about how the era of the "job" is relatively recent. That is, in years past most people worked in agriculture, often on the family farm.

https://goplifer.com/2016/03/13/endi...ra-of-the-job/

I have been doing some family tree research and I am struck by the huge families in the pre-depression era. Families of 10 or more kids (some of whom died in childhood) were common. And, often, in the census you see most of the young adult kids working on the family farm. And, then they grow up marry sometimes own a farm down the street and then they have 8 kids or whatever.

My parents were born in the 1920s and were part of the last era of big families. They had jobs and moved off the farm. But, I'm not sure there are enough jobs out there for everyone and one of the solutions in the universal basic income.

The concept of it is that for some people -- the incapable, the lazy, the less healthy, the elderly. the less talented-- the basic income enables life at well a basic level.

But for those who are more capable, who have talents, who have drive and ambition, who are healthy, etc. then they won't be satisified with it and can make more money.

Again, I don't know enough to really know if this will work but I find it interesting to consider.

[HadEnuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepford I will be mightily surprised if I see anything a few generations down the road.

you are just trying to convince yourself that you are OK with your SWR.

[explanade]

PCs in homes led to the Internet.

But before then, PCs were sold to business for "office automation."

What happened to all the secretaries that companies used to employ?

Office automation.

[Sunset]

I don't see Universal Basic Income working because if gov't gave everyone $1,000 /mo, then gov't would need to get the money from somewhere, so gov't would need to tax everyone $1,000 + (admin cost) per month to pay for it.

Otherwise, if you limit it based on something like existing income, then it's welfare, and we already have that and are really discussing the range and limits of welfare. Nothing Universal about that.

[copyright1997reloaded]

Has anyone ever read player piano?

[Nemo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset if gov't gave everyone $1,000 /mo, then gov't would need to get the money from somewhere, so gov't would need to tax everyone $1,000 + (admin cost) per month to pay for it.

Unless said government kept running up more and more and more debt.

[Just_Steve]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot2013 I think that is a long way off. Hopefully I am long gone before we start paying everyone for nothing...

Agree.

[USGrant1962]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot2013 I think that is a long way off. Hopefully I am long gone before we start paying everyone for nothing...

I'm sure it is a long way off, probably never. One could argue the merits of UBI if we were starting with a clean slate, but for better or worse we already have a well-developed welfare state. IMO, it would be politically impossible to overturn it, which would be necessary in order to implement UBI.

[Redbugdave]

I don't see how a free ride for everyone could work in a capitalist system like ours. There would always be people "with get up and go" to make it above the sloth life and do well. What you are really describing is a socialist system and we don't have that here and hopefully never will.

Throughout time, there have been changes in society as new times appear. People adapt. One type of job ends but others open up. Not long ago there was no such thing as IT jobs. In my working career, computers have changed the work landscape and I think now more people are employed because of it than ever before. The automobile took over the horse carriage. An industry based on petroleum surfaced because of it. I think with these changes our standard of life has increased and less people are truly poor. As long as we have capitalism, we will do fine when the buggy whip is replaced by a car key. I am an optimist.