Universal Basic Income thread

[NineBerry]

If things are unpalatable, dangerous and unpleasant, pay the people who are willing to do them real big money. Or use machines.

Well, the difficulty here is basic economics, as a free market will not price products and services in accordance with the pleasantness of the work needed to produce them. Often, the less dangerous and less distasteful jobs pay more, like how acting can pay insanely high incomes, and garbage collecting not so much.

One answer is to set the salaries outside of the free market, so that this unfairness is resolved. However, that inevitably leads to distortions in the market and has massive ill effects across the economy, i.e. in the long run, it hurts a lot of people to do that. And, if you take away that portion of a free society, it becomes very difficult to maintain any sort of individual autonomy and liberty. It places in the hands of the state nearly 100% control over individual lives.

In the market, price is set by demand and supply. Offering everyone a basic income decreases supply of people willing to do unpleasant jobs. Market price of those jobs rises. If demand is not high enough to justify these prices, the jobs don't need to be done or there are alternatives found or the unpleasantness of the job is reduced. If demand is high enough, people doing those jobs will get better income.

[Forty Two]

What's most enlightening about this is that it flies in the face of the idiotic rantings from Seth that true democracy would see most people just vote themselves free largesse. As you say, there was free money on the table.

It's not free money. Money is not free. Voters can often surprise, and view a matter based on the good of the country, and not their individual pocket. However, it is also possible for the average person in an affluent society to view a measure like this, depending on how it's structured, as a step down for them. It's not reasonable to think that the government can just declare, by issuance of fiat currency, that the poor are no longer poor and the money is still worth what it was before.

[NineBerry]

With regard to incentive to work: In the current system, there are welfare benefits paid to unemployed people or people with low income. Problem is: When those recipients of welfare benefits then do some more work, the money they earn greatly reduces the benefits they receive. In many cases this is something like earning one Euro means 90 Cents fewer benefits. This is similar to being taxed 90% on income. This makes it unattractive for people receiving benefits to earn more money. In a basic income system, having more income does not reduce the basic income. People out of work do receive the basic income. When they then do some work, they still receive the basic income and only pay very little tax on the additional money earned. A high incentive for unemployed or low income people to earn (more) money.

[Forty Two]

It's a huge success when 20% vote in favour of a basic income when a few years ago one was considered a lunatic when proposing such an idea.

It's a fairly old idea in libertarian circles, only in, say, Hayek's view of minimum basic income, the MBI would not be joined with an oppressive regulatory state. “We shall again take for granted the availability of a system of public relief which provides a uniform minimum for all instances of proved need, so that no member of the community need be in want of food or shelter.” - FA Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p. 424. https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ummary.pdf

He made his argument about an MBI in the context of his opposition to mandatory unemployment insurance schemes. In a wealthy society, however, he thought it inevitable that it would become “the recognized duty of the public to provide for the extreme needs of old age, unemployment, sickness, etc.” (The Constitution of Liberty, p. 406) https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ummary.pdf

The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.

Hayek, Law Legislation and Liberty, vol.3 (p. 55).

It is unfortunate that the endeavor to secure a uniform minimum for all who cannot provide for themselves has become connected with the wholly different aims of securing a ‘just’ distribution of incomes

Id.

It's that second bit that illustrates a distinction Hayek makes, separating his view on it from the Left (socialist-ish) view.

all use of coercion to assure a certain income to particular groups (beyond a flat minimum for all who cannot earn more in the market) be outlawed as immoral and strictly anti-social

id.

[Scot Dutchy]

He wont think outside the box I am afraid. We wont to move from supply and demand because supply is running out and we have to find a way of dividing it.

[pErvinalia]

He didn't say anything about permanent work.

If you quoting levels of salaries you are not moving away from the present system where the idea of permanent work is considered the ideal. I am talking about a completely different approach.

Nothing he said necessitates how any employment should be arranged.

[pErvinalia]

What's most enlightening about this is that it flies in the face of the idiotic rantings from Seth that true democracy would see most people just vote themselves free largesse. As you say, there was free money on the table.

It's not free money. Money is not free.

I'm talking about Seth's characterisation. Free from the direct perspective of the person receiving it.

Voters can often surprise, and view a matter based on the good of the country, and not their individual pocket. However, it is also possible for the average person in an affluent society to view a measure like this, depending on how it's structured, as a step down for them. It's not reasonable to think that the government can just declare, by issuance of fiat currency, that the poor are no longer poor and the money is still worth what it was before.

Yes, that's the point I was making, in longer form. Tell Seth and the rabid neoliberals that.

[rainbow]

With regard to incentive to work: In the current system, there are welfare benefits paid to unemployed people or people with low income. Problem is: When those recipients of welfare benefits then do some more work, the money they earn greatly reduces the benefits they receive. In many cases this is something like earning one Euro means 90 Cents fewer benefits. This is similar to being taxed 90% on income. This makes it unattractive for people receiving benefits to earn more money. In a basic income system, having more income does not reduce the basic income. People out of work do receive the basic income. When they then do some work, they still receive the basic income and only pay very little tax on the additional money earned. A high incentive for unemployed or low income people to earn (more) money.

Very sensible.
Unemployed people still need to eat, so the money they need to eat comes from begging or stealing. The grant actually then costs nothing.

[NineBerry]

A Basic Income can be implemented as a leftwing model or libertarian model. It all depends on the details of the implementation.

A left wing model means having a high amount, financing it by taxation on income or property and keeping other forms of labour protections intact.
A right wing model means having a low amount, financing it by taxation on consumption and getting rid of all other forms of labour protections.

[Forty Two]

A Basic Income can be implemented as a leftwing model or libertarian model. It all depends on the details of the implementation.

A left wing model means having a high amount, financing it by taxation on income or property and keeping other forms of labour protections intact.
A right wing model means having a low amount, financing it by taxation on consumption and getting rid of all other forms of labour protections.

Do you have any sources for this?

[pErvinalia]

A large chunk of the funding will come from the abolition of most of the social welfare and associated bureaucracy.

[laklak]

There is that, but it would be eaten up immediately by all the out of work bureaucrats and welfare workers.

I can't wait to see and I.R.S. dude standing on the street corner with a sign saying "Will audit for food:.

[Forty Two]

A large chunk of the funding will come from the abolition of most of the social welfare and associated bureaucracy.

That would be an advantage. Just give the people money. In the US, the systems are so convoluted and bureaucracy heavy - applications for housing assistance, food assistance -- calls for drug testing and all this nonsense.

[Forty Two]

There is that, but it would be eaten up immediately by all the out of work bureaucrats and welfare workers.

I can't wait to see and I.R.S. dude standing on the street corner with a sign saying "Will audit for food:.

Man, that would be great to just eliminate the IRS and the income tax. Replace it with simple sales and use taxes.... Want to pay less tax, then buy and use less stuff. That would be the fairest and most progressive, because then businesses who buy equipment, materials, etc., would pay taxes on that. Now, in the US, a lot of stuff is exempt from sales tax. They could keep small exemptions for, say, food and necessaries, so the small guy doesn't get saddled.

[pErvinalia]

There is that, but it would be eaten up immediately by all the out of work bureaucrats and welfare workers.

I can't wait to see and I.R.S. dude standing on the street corner with a sign saying "Will audit for food:.

Except they won't be getting paid anywhere near what their wage was. And the state no longer has to rent/buy all the infrastructure and energy associated with that.