Montecfo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
We need to reign in costs of transfer programs, not create new ones.
Universal basic income
- Thread starter teejayevans
- Start date
I donate generously from your money
I wonder if this level of support would be sustained if the individuals polled were invited to personally contribute the $1400/month, instead of it being provided by some third party.
I wonder if this level of support would be sustained if the individuals polled were invited to personally contribute the $1400/month, instead of it being provided by some third party.
Something similar evolved from efforts in Roman times to deal with poverty. See chapter 6 "Poor Relief in Ancient Rome" of "The Conquest of Poverty" by Henry Hazlitt which is available for free download from here:
https://mises.org/library/conquest-poverty
https://mises.org/library/conquest-poverty
Nemo2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Messages
- 8,368
https://fee.org/articles/poor-relief-in-ancient-rome/
No surprises.....to some, apparently not to all....did someone mention feeding raccoons at a campsite?
I don't think that many taxpayers are naive enough not to realize that they are footing the bill through their taxes. Just as they are for universal health care and the old age supplements for less fortunate individuals. Money well spent in my mind but not everyone's cup of tea. Or coffee as the case may be.
Chuckanut
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I believe it was John Kasich who during the 2016 primary season, made the comment that the highest marginal 'tax' rate in the country was on the poor and working low-income folks who took a job to make some extra money - up to 70% of their new earnings were lost as one benefit after another was removed or reduced.
I know of several people who are in the above situation. Usually, it is a loss or huge reduction in daycare benefits and food stamps.
Note1: There are often steps and/or a sliding scale to welfare benefits, so it's not as simple as on or off. But, the slope downward to fewer benefits is VERY steep from what I have seen.
Note2: These things often vary by state so what is true in my neck of the woods may be more or less true in yours.
Note3: My gut tells me that if we could find a way to provide quality daycare on a sliding scale based upon income, and get our medical cost situation under control, we could see a big reduction in the poor and working poor. I could be wrong, of course.
OP
OP
teejayevans
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,692
I guess it’s a economics? But what happens when the world thru automation (robots, computers, etc) requires only X citizens but has X+Y?
Supplement Y?
Ship Y off to another planet?
Try to get Y numbers of the working to retire? (My favorite)
Supplement Y?
Ship Y off to another planet?
Try to get Y numbers of the working to retire? (My favorite)
Pilot2013
Full time employment: Posting here.
100% agree. As a person with 300+ employees, large number of which are single parents, I can tell you that daycare issues are the number 1 cause of people leaving their jobs. In SC at least, you hit 151% FPL and lose all daycare help.
Sittingduck
Recycles dryer sheets
The problem is not just the elimination of jobs. It is also how rapidly it occurs.
Your example is over a 228 year period. With some predictions of AI eliminating up to 7 million jobs in the trucking and delivery industry alone in less than a decade it is mass unemployment on a totally different scale. (Delivery/driving currently one of the biggest employers in the US). More Impact than the dust bowel years, and permanent. Ad to it all the other professions affected and you begin to see the problem.
The real question becomes "if there are just not enough jobs for people to do, how will society handle it?" From what I have heard most arguments for a universal income would be in place of all current entitlements and expenditures.
But how you handle the dignity and self worth issues with out work - I don't know.
I believe difficult decisions will be forced upon us sooner than we think.
“Economies” aren’t distinct entites that “need” X of anything. That is an anthropomorphizing of a word that is merely descriptive.
How is it that most retirees are able to survive by spending more than they saved? They bought a part of the means of production.
AI is simply the extension of a continuing historical process begun in pre-industial times. In the future everyone of means will own AI devices, thus owning personal means of production. The cost to own personal means of production will decline so even the poorest are unlikely to want for basics.
aja8888
Moderator Emeritus
This thread is getting as funny as the sock thread. Glad it went Hot Topic! 
With so many people receiving government income & free/reduced cost housing now, how can you begin to think that? Were it true, this wouldn't be happening at such a high rate.
USGrant1962
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Well, depending on your definition between 60% and 70% of Federal spending is already transfer payments (writing checks to people who are not employees). Most comprehensive analyses of UBI that I've seen postulate replacing most of that, plus most tax expenditures (tax breaks), with UBI payments. But it would still require massive tax increases.
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.
Brat
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
When DH and I visited China in the late 70s folks in our group asked about welfare in that society. The answer we got was that needy residents were identified by neighborhood members. A community member met with the person to see what they could do, even sweeping the neighborhood. Basically they were issued a broom and an area to sweep. Each day/week the sweeper would contact the community member to obtain their pay which had a 'quality of work' component. This was their way to assure a basic income. During that era working age residents were assigned an employer or were waiting for assignment. The needy were essentially the old and infirm.
At that time China didn't have a significant drug or alcohol abuse problem. Medical & dental care was basic and not free, supplied by their employer. What a person paid for health care was informally based on their financial resources.
I can see the value of a 'basic income' but I think each person needs to do something for that income.
At that time China didn't have a significant drug or alcohol abuse problem. Medical & dental care was basic and not free, supplied by their employer. What a person paid for health care was informally based on their financial resources.
I can see the value of a 'basic income' but I think each person needs to do something for that income.
So we don't need it.
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
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,450
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.
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.
Felt costs vs nebulous ones
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.
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
Full time employment: Posting here.
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
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 8,471
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.
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.
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
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
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.
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.
Sounds similar to a subsidized housing/welfare/food stamps combo.
stepford
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I will be mightily surprised if I see anything a few generations down the road.
