Guaranteed/Basic Income

[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....

 

 

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.

 

I want a worker revolution and takeover, kick the bourgeoisie to the curb, old school style, that's where I'm at.

[BigRedBuster]

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.

 

 

Because believe it or not, there are jobs that can not afford to have a certain position paid $30,000. I know that's hard for some people to grasp. But, it's reality.

 

Heck, if we have the government pay everyone $30,000, could we do away with the minimum wage?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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).

 

As opposed to the current system which does a pretty good job of demotivating people from achievement?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

There's more than likely a middle ground between paying everyone a living wage and the current system.

[NUtopia]

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.

Might have to include regular COL increases.

 

Anyway, I already noted that Switzerland is already giving unemployed folks a living lump sum of $30-40k at the beginning of the cycle, to decrease gov't admin costs. Looks like they're considering the idea even further to provide the basic income to everybody:

 

 

This fall, a truck dumped eight million coins outside the Parliament building in Bern, one for every Swiss citizen. It was a publicity stunt for advocates of an audacious social policy that just might become reality in the tiny, rich country. Along with the coins, activists delivered 125,000 signatures — enough to trigger a Swiss public referendum, this time on providing a monthly income to every citizen, no strings attached. Every month, every Swiss person would receive a check from the government, no matter how rich or poor, how hardworking or lazy, how old or young. Poverty would disappear. Economists, needless to say, are sharply divided on what would reappear in its place — and whether such a basic-income scheme might have some appeal for other, less socialist countries too.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html?_r=0

[cm husker]

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.

 

 

I appreciate you reading it with an open mind, because I do know it would be an initial visceral reaction against it.

 

I agree that there are details to hash out and would would have to worry about the existing system of lobbying continuing and therefore costing taxpayers double. But hopefully enough people would understand the benefits of this "clean" system that they would jettison the one that is subject to crony capitalism and politicking.

 

It's a main reason I would also advocate increasing pay for federal politicians, which would hopefully decrease incentives to set themselves up for post-office careers while also encouraging higher caliber people to enter politics. It would, interestingly, also decrease money in politics (or reduce the incentives to spend on lobbying), because there'd no longer be special pet projects to lobby for -- other than things like public works projects and other items the government is the "consumer" for (i.e., the one writing the direct check for.

Edit: just realized you touch on my last paragraph to the poor. I think that's fair. I think it's corporate lobbying that has a more deleterious effect on competition and the economy as a whole. In any event, both concerns would be alleviated.

 

You're also correct regarding how the transparency related to raises in the "basic incomes." That would be very beneficial in a number of ways.

 

 

 

A negative that you haven't addressed that some will is that by writing a check to everyone for $30k (or crediting it to them on a tax return) society loses control over how that person spends their income. I'm not particularly concerned about that argument, except as it relates to moneys for children being cooped and wasted by parents. I need to think on that issue some.

 

But overall, I think the benefits outweigh the potential risks.

[cm husker]

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.

 

 

Imposing "living wage" standards on all forms of work has its own costs on society (numerous ones) that would be much less efficient than a guaranteed income, I think.

 

Plus, some work just simply isn't worth a living wage. Under that proposed system, that means the work just wouldn't' get done.

 

Under a guaranteed income system, that work would get done because it's simply a "bonus" on top of your guaranteed income. I.e., if I'm a low skill service provider, I would do the $4 an hour service because that wouldn't reduce my $30k check. This encourages more productivity going into the pot. For example, my $4 service may free up someone else to do a $400 an hour service for someone else. That's an overall net win for society.

 

And, it avoids the main problem with today's welfare system: the "welfare cliffs" described in the article, which discourage work that takes you above a benefits threshold.

 

 

It's also important to understand that this is not a form of "corporate welfare" like some have tried to argue about Walmart. We know this because, if you take away the income (or the welfare benefits in the Walmart example), Walmart does not raise wages. Therefore, it's not as though Walmart is getting a break and able to pay less than they otherwise would.

[cm husker]

Super interesting stuff. Unfortunately, I have to go back to my day (and night and weekend... thanks for nothing 1930s labor movement) job, so I look forward to reading thoughts on this later.

[BigRedBuster]

 

A negative that you haven't addressed that some will is that by writing a check to everyone for $30k (or crediting it to them on a tax return) society loses control over how that person spends their income. I'm not particularly concerned about that argument, except as it relates to moneys for children being cooped and wasted by parents. I need to think on that issue some.

 

 

I actually did in my last paragraph. That's a major reason why I put that in there. I have absolutely no desire to give anyone $30,000 only to have them blow it on a fancy car or meth and have them back begging for more because these poor poor people can't feed themselves.

 

If you get $30,000 from the government....that's it. Figure out how to be responsible enough to take care of yourself.

[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.

 

 

Because believe it or not, there are jobs that can not afford to have a certain position paid $30,000. I know that's hard for some people to grasp. But, it's reality.

 

Heck, if we have the government pay everyone $30,000, could we do away with the minimum wage?

 

$30K/yr is ~ $14,50/hr with no vacation! Currently, a person can live ok on that in most places of the country not named NYC, Boston, San Fran, or LA, for e.g. One would hope for COL increases, but that's why they have unions. Seriously, it's going to get paid one way or the other, so choose your poison.

[cm husker]

 

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.

Might have to include regular COL increases.

 

Anyway, I already noted that Switzerland is already giving unemployed/poor folks a living lump sum of $30-40k at the beginning of the cycle, to decrease gov't admin costs. Looks like they're considering the idea even further to provide the basic income to everybody:

 

 

This fall, a truck dumped eight million coins outside the Parliament building in Bern, one for every Swiss citizen. It was a publicity stunt for advocates of an audacious social policy that just might become reality in the tiny, rich country. Along with the coins, activists delivered 125,000 signatures — enough to trigger a Swiss public referendum, this time on providing a monthly income to every citizen, no strings attached. Every month, every Swiss person would receive a check from the government, no matter how rich or poor, how hardworking or lazy, how old or young. Poverty would disappear. Economists, needless to say, are sharply divided on what would reappear in its place — and whether such a basic-income scheme might have some appeal for other, less socialist countries too.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html?_r=0

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I want a worker revolution and takeover, kick the bourgeoisie to the curb, old school style, that's where I'm at.

 

 

 

Oh.

 

I was wrong about your reasonableness.

 

I would recommend you read some history on how that worked in the USSR, Cuba, China and elsewhere.

 

Spoiler: it doesn't work out well for the worker.

[cm husker]

 

 

A negative that you haven't addressed that some will is that by writing a check to everyone for $30k (or crediting it to them on a tax return) society loses control over how that person spends their income. I'm not particularly concerned about that argument, except as it relates to moneys for children being cooped and wasted by parents. I need to think on that issue some.

 

 

I actually did in my last paragraph. That's a major reason why I put that in there. I have absolutely no desire to give anyone $30,000 only to have them blow it on a fancy car or meth and have them back begging for more because these poor poor people can't feed themselves.

 

If you get $30,000 from the government....that's it. Figure out how to be responsible enough to take care of yourself.

 

 

 

Right. Sorry, I meant the minor child situation. I don't know how to make sure someone doesn't blow their kids' money. And I'm not comfortable letting kids suffer for adult misbehavior.

[cm husker]

 

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.

 

 

Because believe it or not, there are jobs that can not afford to have a certain position paid $30,000. I know that's hard for some people to grasp. But, it's reality.

 

Heck, if we have the government pay everyone $30,000, could we do away with the minimum wage?

 

 

 

You're correct. It should go away and people should be hired to be however marginally more productive that they can be at whatever price they are willing to exchange for their productivity.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

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.

 

 

Because believe it or not, there are jobs that can not afford to have a certain position paid $30,000. I know that's hard for some people to grasp. But, it's reality.

 

Heck, if we have the government pay everyone $30,000, could we do away with the minimum wage?

 

$30K/yr is ~ $14,50/hr with no vacation! Currently, a person can live ok on that in most places of the country not named NYC, Boston, San Fran, or LA, for e.g. One would hope for COL increases, but that's why they have unions. Seriously, it's going to get paid one way or the other, so choose your poison.

 

You have $30,000 per year. Without doing ANYTHING. You can sit on your huffy and smoke dope if you want. OR......ding ding ding....let's say you go get a job for $8.00/hr.

 

NOW....you are in essence starting to earn $22.50 per hour.

 

In actuality, the job market would be forced to pay a certain wage to attract people to do a job. No longer would that person be forced into working for $2.00 per hour (assuming no minimum wage) because that employer would have to pay enough to convince that person (who is already getting $30,000) that coming to work is worth their time.

 

 

 

Also......nobody is forcing people to live in NYC, Boston, San Fran...etc. Take a portion of the $30,000 and move to North Platte where the cost of living is MUCH less. And...guess what, the unemployment rate is extremely low so there is a better chance that you could actually find a job.

[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).

 

As opposed to the current system which does a pretty good job of demotivating people from achievement?

I actually really agree with you on that. But if you're talking lesser of two evils, I'll take our current system over shelling out a bunch of money to everyone who didn't earn it.