Guaranteed/Basic Income

[cm husker]

Interesting theory that's supported across the political spectrum, except, of course, among republicans and progressives who have vested interests in the current system.

 

This is a long read but worth it for anyone serious about creatively revamping the system to work more efficiently:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

[NUtopia]

Not entirely related, but something I thought was interesting.

 

If I recall correctly, Switzerland, in the last few years, decided to give the unemployed a check of ~$30-40k at the beginning of the year and thus save gov't administrative costs of the month to month "installments". Unemployment is not huge in Switzerland, AND they have alot of $ there, of course.

[HuskerShark]

I'm all for a reform of our system, but not this one. Giving people without them earning it "so they can do the things they really want to do" not only would create a lot of problems, it would give no incentive for achievement. Doing the things you want to do is already attainable, just not with a job (just over broke).

[84HuskerLaw]

LOL Surely the people who opine on this board are more intelligent that to even seriously consider any sort of 'guaranteed income or other socialist/communist economic hogwash. There is no such thing as a guaranteed income system which can possibly function economically over any length of time. Socialism and communism are absolute failures and always have been and always will be. Any basic reading or study of economics, even at a high school level, if properly taught, would enable every student / learner to know and undertand this.

 

The basic failings in this sort of thinking is the biggest single issue which threatens America's economic system. Giving only a few minutes of serious thought to the concept of guaranteed income to all should be sufficient for anyone to realize it will collapse of its own weight. The disincentive to work / incentive not to work and be productive would simply crush the economic productivity of the society. Poverty and economic decline would be inevitable and worsening as time goes by. An economy with an exceptionally high level of raw materials available for export to other economies would provide some degree of support or maintenance but as time passed, ultimately even that would not be enough.

 

Socialism and communism NEVER EVER work and only a few at the very top of the governmental and societal structure who ride the backs of the working poor enjoy any kind of decent standard of living.

[NUtopia]

Gentle reminder: 5 Ways America is Already Socialist

 

[cm husker]

Guaranteed income would be to everyone. Not just the unemployed.

It's definitely not a form of socialism or communism and to refer to it that way is ignorant.

One of the main advocates for classical liberalism/libertarians, Milton Friedman, advocated for this or a similar system (i.e., the negative income tax).

Both encourage work while also simplifying the administrative costs associated with a welfare state that simply isn't (and probably shouldn't) go away.

[cm husker]

LOL Surely the people who opine on this board are more intelligent that to even seriously consider any sort of 'guaranteed income or other socialist/communist economic hogwash. There is no such thing as a guaranteed income system which can possibly function economically over any length of time. Socialism and communism are absolute failures and always have been and always will be. Any basic reading or study of economics, even at a high school level, if properly taught, would enable every student / learner to know and undertand this.

 

The basic failings in this sort of thinking is the biggest single issue which threatens America's economic system. Giving only a few minutes of serious thought to the concept of guaranteed income to all should be sufficient for anyone to realize it will collapse of its own weight. The disincentive to work / incentive not to work and be productive would simply crush the economic productivity of the society. Poverty and economic decline would be inevitable and worsening as time goes by. An economy with an exceptionally high level of raw materials available for export to other economies would provide some degree of support or maintenance but as time passed, ultimately even that would not be enough.

 

Socialism and communism NEVER EVER work and only a few at the very top of the governmental and societal structure who ride the backs of the working poor enjoy any kind of decent standard of living.

My last post was directed to you. One more question: did you read the article? It addresses your concerns (which I would share), especially around disincentives to work.

 

It's really important that you understand that this is not a form of socialism, which is about who controls and dictates the means of production and distribution.

 

a guaranteed income does not implicate that issue. It would be available to everyone (obviously those making more than that would treat it as a credit against owed income tax if we stick with our traditional form of income tax).

[cm husker]

Gentle reminder: 5 Ways America is Already Socialist

 

 

 

That's not a relevant or even accurate. It's actually propaganda.

 

It's completely false regarding the weekend and the labor movement. It's complete backward in its logic and misunderstands how economic progress through capitalism has led to increasing standards of living (including work conditions). That was not a result of socialism, which actually impedes meaningful economic progress (see for examples the USSR, China, India and South America).

 

It's funny that they can only cite celebrities as advocates as socialists.

 

Also, taxpayer funding does not equal socialism; that military argument is ridiculous, but I'm all for cutting military spending and corporate welfare.

 

And that leads to my grander point: just because we identify segments of our economy that are mismanaged by government/societal control (i.e., spending on corporate welfare) does not justify the expansion of government control over other segments of the economy. Only a fool would look at a mismanaging executive and then place more power in said executive's hands. Right?

 

I'm getting really angry watching this otherwise attractive girl spew absolute nonsense.

[NUtopia]

Well, if you are born Amish, you're guaranteed a decent house(which the community helps erect), food(since most are farmers), and a job(income). So, it has proven to work on a smaller scale.

[NUtopia]

 

Gentle reminder: 5 Ways America is Already Socialist

 

 

 

That's not a relevant or even accurate. It's actually propaganda.

 

It's completely false regarding the weekend and the labor movement. It's complete backward in its logic and misunderstands how economic progress through capitalism has led to increasing standards of living (including work conditions). That was not a result of socialism, which actually impedes meaningful economic progress (see for examples the USSR, China, India and South America).

 

It's funny that they can only cite celebrities as advocates as socialists.

 

Also, taxpayer funding does not equal socialism; that military argument is ridiculous, but I'm all for cutting military spending and corporate welfare.

 

And that leads to my grander point: just because we identify segments of our economy that are mismanaged by government/societal control (i.e., spending on corporate welfare) does not justify the expansion of government control over other segments of the economy. Only a fool would look at a mismanaging executive and then place more power in said executive's hands. Right?

 

I'm getting really angry watching this otherwise attractive girl spew absolute nonsense.

 

No further comment....

[cm husker]

It's extraordinarily frustrating to deal with people who want to ignore basic economic and political realities on both sides of the aisle.

For progressive liberals, actual economic evidence falls on deaf ears. For the conservatives, they don't understand how the changing (for the better) US economy, which is massively more productive per person today than ever before, needs to be shared in some way among the members of said society.***

 

This is an good article higlighting the issue for the reluctant conservative. I don't always agree with it's arguments re: marginal income rates because I think, from personal experience, that people will work less hard for a reduced bonus than than the article's writer believes, and it ignores the geographic differences across federal taxation as well as the numerous other taxes paid by citizens, but I do think my exerted portion identifies the real risks and inefficiencies associated with fostering a system of "haves and have nots." To sum it up by paraphrasing an axiom, an ounce of redistribution saves us a pound of political up-heavel and economic deconstruction. I happen to think that "Basic Income" may be the most efficient way to answer that challenge, because the current approaches have not worked.

 

 

 

Despite redistribution, economic inequality in the United States has risen in recent decades. In 1982, the top 1 percent of American earners received 13 percent of total income; by 1997, this had increased to 17 percent; today the figure is 22 percent. The poorest 20 percent of U.S. households have only 5 percent of the nation’s total personal income and the richest 20 percent have 50 percent. Between 1997 and 2008, median U.S. household income fell by 4 percent after adjustment for inflation, and between 2007 and 2011 it fell by 8.9 percent. A median is not an average; average income rose because the incomes of high earners rose-- and so the effect was actually to increase inequality of income.

 

 

The trend of rising inequality appears to be attributable mainly to increasing returns to well-educated people as a consequence of a shift in the economy to methods of production and distribution that require application of knowledge and intelligence—in other words, the dramatic increase in automation as a result of the computer revolution—rather than strength or stamina, but to other factors as well, such as falling marginal income tax rates. The growth in automation is unlikely to stop or slow—in fact it seems likely to speed up—and so without substantial social intervention the trend of rising inequality is likely to continue. (The Affordable Care Act will have some redistributive effect, but how great a one cannot as yet be predicted.)

Rising inequality of income and wealth creates anxieties that can have dire economic consequences by increasing the demand for trade protection, restrictions on immigration, union protections, other anticompetitive measures, and government subsidies; it can also create class resentment, and thus lead to inefficient regulatory measures. The economist Raghuram Rajan speculates that increased inequality was an indirect cause of the financial meltdown of 2008 and the ensuing economic crisis.

Measures to reduce income inequality, especially measures that raise the median household income (as distinct from reducing inequality by leveling down the incomes of the well off, which could have serious disincentive effects), could increase economic efficiency by reducing political pressures for inefficient policies. That was the rationale for the adoption by capitalist nations of “socialist measures,” beginning with Bismarck’s programs of government health, accident and disability insurance, and old-age pensions—all designed to secure capitalism against communism and other radical political ideologies.

 

 

 

*** Interestingly, maybe even with the world, especially int eh form of military stabilization -- the only legitimate justification for our massive military spending.

[cm husker]

 

 

Gentle reminder: 5 Ways America is Already Socialist

 

 

 

That's not a relevant or even accurate. It's actually propaganda.

 

It's completely false regarding the weekend and the labor movement. It's complete backward in its logic and misunderstands how economic progress through capitalism has led to increasing standards of living (including work conditions). That was not a result of socialism, which actually impedes meaningful economic progress (see for examples the USSR, China, India and South America).

 

It's funny that they can only cite celebrities as advocates as socialists.

 

Also, taxpayer funding does not equal socialism; that military argument is ridiculous, but I'm all for cutting military spending and corporate welfare.

 

And that leads to my grander point: just because we identify segments of our economy that are mismanaged by government/societal control (i.e., spending on corporate welfare) does not justify the expansion of government control over other segments of the economy. Only a fool would look at a mismanaging executive and then place more power in said executive's hands. Right?

 

I'm getting really angry watching this otherwise attractive girl spew absolute nonsense.

 

No further comment....

 

 

Because you agree or because you don't see a point in discussion?

 

I'd actually value your thoughts on some of the questions I posed. I really want to understand how progressive liberals who are reasonable (as opposed to some others on this board who will go unnamed) address those opposing arguments.

Because, ultimately, I think you and I (as a classical liberal) very much want the same things:

 

1. Less centralized power among corporate players

 

2. An efficient system that allows for economic mobility

 

3. An increase standard of living/quality of life for every member of society

 

I just see socially progressive policies as ultimately counterproductive to those goals.

[BigRedBuster]

My first thought when I think of the idea is.....hell no!!!!

 

However, when you think of all the money spent on assistance programs in the US that you could get rid of, it intrigues me.

 

Just look at food stamps. Not just the cost of the actual food stamp, we have the huge cost of running the system.

 

So, let's take someone who is living in poverty, if that person is getting $30,000 in benefits from all the various welfare programs, would it make more sense to just give that person (and everyone else) $30,000? You would wipe out huge departments in the government that administer these projects. Theoretically, you get the same level of assistance to people while greatly shrinking the federal and state governments and their budgets.

Here's another huge benefit. You take away at least some power politicians gain over poor people by promising all of these social programs and more and more of them.

 

Yes, you will have a debate on what level of check we write everyone. BUT, that is much easier to see through the BS on. ALSO.....if you raise the check from $30,000 to $35,000, you are raising that on everyone....not just the poor and unemployed.

 

I still would need to learn more to support the idea. But, there are possibly ways I could support this.

 

 

 

Now....here is one area that I think we would need to be EXTREMELY firm on. This is it......If we send everyone $30,000, that doesn't mean now lobbyist for some down trodden group can go and lobby the government to yet create another huge welfare program on top of this. This is it. We can debate all day long what level this check should be written for. But, no need for more programs on top of it.

[NUtopia]

Why not just pay a living wage in the 1st place, a healthy living wage? Then yeah, you wouldn't need so much gov't cheese. Problem solved. Maybe that's the "guaranteed income", I dunno.

[cm husker]

Well, if you are born Amish, you're guaranteed a decent house(which the community helps erect), food(since most are farmers), and a job(income). So, it has proven to work on a smaller scale.

 

 

It can work on a smaller scale depending on accountability, but, like all communal systems of that sort, it can be quite fascist in nature. Fascist in the colloquial sense that the USSR was fascist, not just how its construed under national socialism.

 

If you look at how the amish communities have traditionally operated, it's quite oppressive on those who participate (that's not a knock on the people, who I have great respect for provided that they allow members to decide on participation for themselves, which they do).