Universal Basic Income

[Minimalist]

Create loopholes for the poor the same way the motherfuckers create loopholes for the rich.  If there is one thing the fucks should be good at it is creating loopholes.

[Jackalope]

Create loopholes for the poor the same way the motherfuckers create loopholes for the rich.  If there is one thing the fucks should be good at it is creating loopholes.

Yeah, but Min, surely the poor don't give politiciana campaign donations bribes. How can they create loopholes without the requisite bribery?

[Pat Mustard]

I was wondering what you guys think about this? Are you for or against? And why? I love the idea, and I feel that this could work with a bit of push, but I have no confident position on this just yet.

For those not in the know:

A basic income (also called basic income guarantee, Citizen's Income, unconditional basic income, universal basic income, or universal demogrant[2]) is a form of social security[3] in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Unless the world is willing to let about 90% of the population starve, in about 20 years this kind of idea will not only be desirable but necessary. With the increased mechanisation of work and the loss of even more jobs to machines or far eastern slave labour, many countries in the west will have to start looking at ways of providing for their citizens in a method other than that of full employment economies.

If they could also ditch the stupidity of "permanent growth" economy as well we'd be getting places.

---

We're going to have to make a social and cultural shift on this issue in the next 20 years, I think.

When technology hits the service industry like is has hit the manufacturing/logistics industries, you either better be good with computers or you're gonna be SOL.

When we have iPads and touch screens instead of servers, and McDonalds only needs 2 people on staff to manage the fryer and hand food out the window, and jobs like cashier and truck driver become things people used to do, the acceptable unemployment rate will be somewhere in the mid teens, I think.

The broad unemployment figure is already in the mid teens or higher in most countries. Broad unemployment is a measure of more than just the official unemployment figure, but of all those out of work (many countries don't count unemployed people on state mandated courses or unpaid labour, and countries like the US don't count those unemployed so long they've fallen off the welfare system), those in zero or low hours contracts (where you're likely to be working on average eight hours a week or less, barely making enough money to get to and from work), and those working in the gig economy (employees counted as self employed who are short on hours, pay and employment rights).

Because of the massive changes in work practices the last twenty years and more, the way countries count the unemployed is inadequate, and given what most countries are doing the methods are getting worse (for example when I was out of work at the height of the crash, I was not counted as unemployed for eighteen months, first when I was on a Springboard course and then on a JobBridge internship {with a "company" that grossed €300 per week} despite the fact that for the whole of this period I was receiving unemployment benefit as my sole income).

[Minimalist]

Create loopholes for the poor the same way the motherfuckers create loopholes for the rich.  If there is one thing the fucks should be good at it is creating loopholes.

Yeah, but Min, surely the poor don't give politiciana campaign donations bribes.  How can they create loopholes without the requisite bribery?

By thinking of France in 1789.  Yes, they like money but they also like having their heads attached to their necks.

[Crunchy]

The only way to know how a guaranteed basic income (sometimes called negative income tax) would work is to try it. 
They will be doing a test in Ontario shortly: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/13/...51076.html

They have already done a test previously way back in the 1970's in Manitoba called Mincome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
The results were not conclusive and tests will never replace an entire roll out anyway.

These systems are meant to replace all other types of public assistance so as to create a more efficient overall system with far less bureaucracy. Also, the basic income is slowly phased out so that it is still to your advantage to work even part time as you'll make more overall. It disappears completely at some set level.

I don't know if this can be self sustaining. It is obvious that it will fail in some societies and yet that doesn't prove it will fail in all societies. With massive amounts of wealth accumulating at the top and automation on the way I'm glad we're at least testing this. However, economics is stochastic and there are no models that can accurately predict the long term outcome. There may still be a fatal flaw in the disincentive to work even though attempts are made to minimize this. I remain skeptical on the whole and to be honest, there is a big part of me that doesn't want to see my taxes go up without extremely good reason. But I'm willing to honestly look at the data.

[Pat Mustard]

And what of the cost to administer this program?

It'll be a lot less than the cost of allowing 20%+ of the population live at below the poverty line, which is what is happening now.

---

I suppose you could raise taxes but you would have to raise them a lot to fund something like this,

The richest ten percent (who own roughly 2/3 of the worlds wealth and derive a similar income) functionally pay no taxes. How about we get them to pay, make them for once, in their shitty little parasitic lives, contribute to the society which has given them so much?

Or is the fantasy of Horatio Alger too strong in this world?

[brewer]

And what of the cost to administer this program?

It'll be a lot less than the cost of allowing 20%+ of the population live at below the poverty line, which is what is happening now.

What country? That is not the number I'm seeing for the US. And what percent, for what ever reason, intentionally choose that life style? I know that we  have a rock climber here that does. 

I don't believe that monetary entitlement is the answer.

---

---

I suppose you could raise taxes but you would have to raise them a lot to fund something like this,

The richest ten percent (who own roughly 2/3 of the worlds wealth and derive a similar income) functionally pay no taxes. How about we get them to pay, make them for once, in their shitty little parasitic lives, contribute to the society which has given them so much?

Or is the fantasy of Horatio Alger too strong in this world?

Gosh, you're right, rich people didn't contribute shit to the society, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry ellison, ......... Fucking Parasites!

[Pat Mustard]

[quote='Tazzycorn' pid='1548751' dateline='1493990014']

It'll be a lot less than the cost of allowing 20%+ of the population live at below the poverty line, which is what is happening now.

The official figure in the last census was 14.8%. Given how bad the US is at actually measuring poverty (mainly because the politicians don't want to know), the real figure is probably north of 20%.

Gosh, you're right, rich people didn't contribute shit to the society, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry ellison, ......... Fucking Parasites!

Hey it's not my fault we're living in a system where a tiny group of people (including all those you mentioned, for example, Gates, Zuckerberg and Bezos got rich off a combination of stealing other peoples' ideas and very sharp work and business practices, and all four continue to refuse to pay their fair share of taxes while being lauded for giving negligible amounts to charity {compared to their net wealth and earnings}).

You want to be in thrall to the Horatio Alger fantasy, that's ok with me. Just don't say I didn't warn you when you get fucked out on your ear.

[RoadRunner79]

And what of the cost to administer this program?

It'll be a lot less than the cost of allowing 20%+ of the population live at below the poverty line, which is what is happening now.

---

I suppose you could raise taxes but you would have to raise them a lot to fund something like this,

The richest ten percent (who own roughly 2/3 of the worlds wealth and derive a similar income) functionally pay no taxes. How about we get them to pay, make them for once, in their shitty little parasitic lives, contribute to the society which has given them so much?

Or is the fantasy of Horatio Alger too strong in this world?

What do you mean, that they functionally pay no taxes? They pay in, but get it all back? While they may have a year with a bad loss, I would be willing to bet that overall, they contributed to society quite abbot more than you. I would give up my salary, to have what my boss pays in taxes.

Now if there are loop holes, that allow people to sideskirt the spirit of the tax laws, there is nothing wrong with discussing or fixing that. However I don't agree at all, that just because one has money, that they should be paying higher, just because of that. .

[brewer]

It'll be a lot less than the cost of allowing 20%+ of the population live at below the poverty line, which is what is happening now.

The official figure in the last census was 14.8%. Given how bad the US is at actually measuring poverty (mainly because the politicians don't want to know), the real figure is probably north of 20%.

Gosh, you're right, rich people didn't contribute shit to the society, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry ellison, ......... Fucking Parasites!

Hey it's not my fault we're living in a system where a tiny group of people (including all those you mentioned, for example, Gates, Zuckerberg and Bezos got rich off a combination of stealing other peoples' ideas and very sharp work and business practices, and all four continue to refuse to pay their fair share of taxes while being lauded for giving negligible amounts to charity {compared to their net wealth and earnings}).

You want to be in thrall to the Horatio Alger fantasy, that's ok with me. Just don't say I didn't warn you when you get fucked out on your ear.

Yep, blame the other guy. Another victim of society. (sigh)