Forum Post: Unconditional Basic Income - $1000 for everyone
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 17, 2011, 4:40 p.m. EST by ubi
(6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Basic income is a particular form of guaranteed minimum income, which gives all people access to some income irrespective of their current work performance or their past work performance. A guaranteed minimum monthly income in this sense is something which has existed in several European countries for a number of years, but basic income differs from the existing guaranteed minimum income along three dimensions: first, basic income is strictly individual, given to all people on an individual basis irrespective of their household situation; second, it is given to all irrespective of income from other sources (labor income or capital income); third, basic income is not subject to whether people are willing to work or not. It is not restricted to the involuntarily unemployed, but would be paid to everyone, including people who choose not to engage in paid work (for example, housewives, househusbands, volunteers, students, and tramps).
Funding solutions could involve a combination of the following:
- Income taxes
- Sales taxes
- Capital gains taxes
- Inheritance taxes
- Wealth taxes, e.g. property tax
- Luxury taxes
- Elimination of current income support programs and tax deductions
- Pollution taxes
- Profit accrued from state-owned enterprises
- A National Mutual Fund
- Lottery / gambling taxes
So who's going to pay for this?
It's quite simple really. If we stop pumping money into the production and use of weapons for war. If there is money for a harmful practice like that, then surely there is enough money to at least feed and house everyone.
I don't think basic income would be the perfect solution. But it would be a good way to start.
Funding solutions may involve a combination of the following:
So more money out of everyone's pockets just to get redistributed. What's the point?
Ahh so raise taxes on all of us that do pay. It's so easy to spend other people's money isn't it? You sound just like our Federal govt.
[Removed]
[Removed]
It's called welfare. And we who pay the taxes would have to pay for it. Get off your lazy ass and go make your own money and stay the hell out of my pocket.
you're an unemployed protester trying to amp people up. why don't you go get a job :) you limp wristed college kids aint fool'n anyone.
I think your reply was misdirected to me.
oh, sorry, i thought you were insulting a protester. you know things can get.
Lol if you call telling someone to get off their lazy ass and go make their own money and stay the hell out of my pocket and insult then yes I was insulting a protester.
mid day friday and you're on here. lets have your web address to your online work or i will just assume you have no job.
You make an awful lot of assumptions don't you? Seems OWS does that a lot. I guess you've never heard of 2nd or 3rd shift? Most likely because you've never worked or had to work them. Any other assumptions you'd like to make?
lol. i'm not OWS and here ya go http://richardkentgates.com loser
you're a dick for harassing the people doing what you're to afraid to do.
What I'm afraid to do? I don't believe in OWS so why would I protest. If I did decide to protest it would be in Washington DC where the true problem lies. Nice name calling btw. makes you seem very intelligent.
Has anyone in this movement actually attended school? Hear of Capitalizim? How bout free markets? Read the Constitution or the Federalist papers? Studied world history maybe. What in the hell is wrong with you people? It is clear to me why none of you will ever succeed. You think you are entitled to something! Let me be the first to clue you in since who ever raised you dropped the ball on it. You are not entitled to anything in this country except life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would suggest you start that persuit imediately instead of wasting your time with this rediculous movement.
And where do you come up with 3.6 trillion dollars a year for this. Oh wait you do not know how to do math, balance budget, or act responsibly. You do know how to put your hand out expecting something for nothing, whine, complain and blame others.
Get a job Sha na na na, sha na na na na Sha na na na, sha na na na na, Sha na na na, sha na na na na, Sha na na na, sha na na na na, Yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip Mum mum mum mum mum mum Get a job Sha na na na, sha na na na na Get a job Sha na na na, sha na na na na Sha na na na, sha na na na na, Sha na na na, sha na na na na, Sha na na na, sha na na na na, Yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip Mum mum mum mum mum mum Get a job Sha na na na, sha na na na na
C'mon tazish... you just fire up the printing press!
That's a great idea! Let's stop making the tools we use to defend our freedom so that we can pay for everyone to live and then when another country wants to take over all our resources it will be much easier for them to do it. I like the idea of bringing a stick to a gun fight! What a moron.
I have worked hard all of my life. Why should I give to people who do nothing? I know many of my Son's friends who are 25 years old and do not have to job and live with their parents and play xbox. Sorry, no cash for the dirtbags. So you want the American taxpayer to flip the bill? Give me a break. I say let them live under a bridge in a cardboard box. I'll toss them some spam.
Yeah, European countries have been doing it. How are they faring now you idiot. Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain ?? Their economies are about to collapse. As I read your forums I realize all of your posts have the same general theme. Give us money for free- you all need to get a grip. Reality check.
"third, basic income is not subject to whether people are willing to work or not"
Why should you get something for nothing?
I'm in Paris, and glad to see OWS has inspired an Occupation here too (see my blog if ya want: http://beamerbikeclub.blogspot.com/) but its a little funny that in France citizens already have what might be a huge victory in the USA:
1) free universal health care 2) free university education 3) 5 weeks PAID vacation for EVERYONE 4) retirement at 60 5) minimum living wage (think it's about $1000 per month)
don't get me wrong... France has some major problems in areas of civil liberties as well as very big-brotherish government. Why can't we have best of both worlds?
HAHAHA!!! A grand !!! What a joke. Most people get that just working Minimum wage!!! What you are suggesting is everyone get 1000.00 free without working for it, so comrade who is going to pay for this, let me guess the rich?
For shits and giggles here lets look at this, there are 3 million millionaires in the US so if we have 200 million people who need 1,000 dollars a month you are talking about shelling out 2 billion dollars a month all this paid for by the rich, at that rate there won't be any rich people left!!!
You are out of your stinking mind......
Idiot.
You can't compare us to Europe, the US doesn't tax its citizens as much. You need to fix the tax code before you start giving out money. Debt is what has caused a lot of the problems we face, private debt and public debt.
We must not discriminate against those who for whatever reason don't produce something that people are willing to buy. And there is no reason to stop at $1000... everyone should be guaranteed $5000 per month, as that is about the minimum to have a reasonable home, nice cars, big screen TV, reasonable entertainment budget, nice clothes, a reasonable allowance for jewelry, etc. We must not be selfish!
What makes you think the world will be a better place if we give child molesters, sex criminals, drug dealers, serial killers, expelled war criminals et al. free money? Wouldn't they just use that money to commit greater crimes?
Interview with German millionaire Goetz Werner regarding unconditional basic income: http://www.oursystem.info/2010/04/basic-income-interview-with-gotz-werner.html
It's actually easy to implement. trough it will trigger hyperinflation which will only stop(if it stop) when the basic income will be considered almost nothing. And the $1,000 will worth about 1$ or less.
why dont we offer everyone galvanized pipe fitttings instead !!! poor and rich alike will both benefit from outstanding corrosion and rust resistance
LMAO!! Great Idea!!! and Hey why not some quality PEX Tubing also!!
Is it even given to the super rich?
Get a job. No one without a job should get money for free. This is not a communist country.
So, should the government tax all inheritance at 100% then?
What counts as a job too? It is possible to accumulate enough investment money to just put it in stocks and live off of dividends.
Your question makes no sense to what I have said, but I will enlighten you.
No, they should not tax 100% this is not a communist country. They should tax some part of it as you did not earn the inheritance. Yes the US government has weird tax rules and reasons. And we do have socialistic attributes, but nothing in life is pure.
Part time full time is a job. Who cares as long as you are working. I worked as a salesperson in retail and I have worked as a janitor.
You can accumulate enough money to invest and live off, but it will become your JOB to maintain that type of portfolio. It is no easy task, despite what you MAY think.
Free handouts of $1000 will make money almost near worthless by inflation.
You're equivocating. Which was the point of the question.
Rhetoric is for the weak. Whelp get a job.
There should be a comma after "Whelp".
Your statement should read:
There should be a comma after, "Whelp."
Nice try, though.
Actually, the way I wrote it was correct. Quotation marks have more than one use.
Negative. You didn't even get the punctuation properly inside the ending quotation mark.
Nope. Don't know what handbook you're using.
We pretty much already have this. It's called the Earned Income Credit.
It does in a way serve a similar function, but it is not universal. It is conditioned on working, and meeting certain requirements as far as income and dependents.
The unconditional amount goes to everyone...meaning no one is singled out as receiving the money. No one is put through an application process, or has to appeal decisions, etc.
The idea is the same - handouts for simply existing.
The qualifications are a JOKE, they're barely a hindrance in receiving your handout. No one is put through an application process to receive the EIC. You can't honestly say you have an issue with any of the current qualifications that must be met to receive the EIC, can you?
You have to make below a certain income and have dependents.
We're trying to graft moral desert onto a corner of a system that doesn't consider moral desert elsewhere, only compliance with a set of laws, rules, regulations. At the end of the day, we're always trying to tweak the economy as a whole for FUNCTIONALITY. It's one thing to consider incentive, as that is an issue of functionality, but a feature of capitalism is that is an economic, not a moral, system.
It bears mentioning that Nixon was pushing for a guaranteed minimum income. It's not a right-left thing, strictly speaking.
In fact, there is even an Austrian economist who has suggested that the Fed just expand the money supply by paying all new currency out to citizens in the form of a stipend.
Sounds a lot like what a monarchy would do. Hey we could just proclaim Obama king and just let him decide everything for us. Hell he's probably a lot smarter than us anyway.
Of course you have to make below a certain income! Those who don't qualify have to work and pay for the freeloaders. You can't just make something from nothing. In your system, let's say the overwhelming majority chose to do nothing value-adding and live on the minimum income. Now, where would it come from? Who would pay for the freeloaders?
Your Australian economist sounds like a fiscal terrorist.
Austrian (school of economics). And I mentioned him because Austrian is as far to the right as you can go in economic thinking.
What percentage of the economy would you consider essentially "busy work"? I mean, businesses that run and have customers and all that, but essentially don't add value other than the raw addition of money to the GDP.
I don't know what "busy work" necessarily means. Can you define it?
Non-essential, non-culturally based businesses. Stuff that gets started because people need to find a way to make money, but the service or product being offered is not needed, nor was it sought by anyone. The "Spencers Gifts" segment of the economy.
Uh, Spencer's wouldn't be in business if no one sought after what the sell. Duh. You're not making any sense. Anything created is sought after by someone or it wouldn't exist.
Not according to Say's Law.
Just according to reality.
yeah lets bump the deficit even more. this is America, you have to work hard to get ahead. We the people just want an even playing field. stop sending jobs overseas, no more tax loopholes for corporations, and no more money in politics from the corporations. We the people are the lobbyists now.
Theoretically, it could spur entrepeneurism. And if it replaced the entire welfare structure, including unemployment insurance and SSI, it could come out saving money by dumping a costly bureaucracy in favor of something that could easily be handled by the Treasury Department.
Theoretically? Do you know how much inflation would incur? Some of you just don't think. You guys think everything is easy, so lazy.
It probably would cause some inflation...but less than the additional $1000 would make up for...and since everyone is getting it, what's the problem?
Of course, if it gets rid of a giant welfare bureaucracy and possibly spurs more economic activity, that's an improvement over our current economic situation.
Yes, unconditional basic income should replace the entire welfare structure, including unemployment insurance and SSI.
no free handouts. period..
Why?
And isn't "free handout" a redundancy.
I ask why because we get into definition stickiness here. Free education could be considered a handout, or libraries...as could many services the government provides to individuals without asking anything of them specifically as an individual.
Actually there is a line item on my property taxes for schools so the education isn’t a hand out. It is however amortized over my life span since there are years I will not have children in the education system yet I will be paying for it in my taxes. Oh and since I send my children to a catholic school I pay twice, but that is my choice not complaining but a thank you for paying for others education would be nice.
Is that a monthly figure?
And would this replace welfare, unemployment insurance, SSI and disability insurance?
[Removed]
[Removed]
LOL, $1000 to everyone? why should the pigs that do nothing get money for doing nothing?
Why should the people who run Ashley Madison get money?
oh I don't know, maybe because the members like you give them the money
So, you're not going to address the morality issue that YOU brought up?
I fail to see this issue that I brought up, those did something to make money, and made money they did. They still have to work to keep that up so that's why they get money, not the pigs that do nothing...like you for example
Calling them pigs is a moral judgement. The implication is that they are morally undeserving of the suggested income.
But morality has nothing to do with the situation. There could be questions of incentive...which would be relevant to efficacy, but if we're going to make moral judgements about deserving money...well, we're not talking about capitalism anymore.
Good definition.
Bad idea.
Funding solutions for the unconditional basic income may involve a combination of the following:
It's a great idea. Sounds like a citizens' dividend. Would go perfectly with a debt-free money system as a way for the government to spend money into existence.
Jubilee 2012!! http://www.salon.com/2011/10/12/jubilee_2012/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/jubilee-2012/
You idiot. It would just cause $1000 to equal a penny. Yeah let's give EVERYONE 12cents a year. You moron.
Not if it was index linked to inflation. And quantitative easing should do the same thing but it hasn't stopped a lot of countries using it as a solution ;-)
Wouldn't work economically with this country's demographics. Which countries? China, North Korea? NO Thanks. The thought of wanting this shows how lazy you are.
Good point... if we just index the give-aways to inflation, then inflation won't matter. Of course, you will need to always take along a wheel barrow to carry your hyperinflated dollars, but that will create jobs for the employees of wheel barrow companies, so that's a good thing!
Why will a basic income payment add to hyper inflation but not qualitative easing, or anything else that our taxes are being spent on? Serious question.......
Depends on how it's paid. If the government makes the money by firing up the printing press, then we're talking about $1000 X 300,000,000 (people) X 12 (months) = $3,600,000,000,000 per year. Adding $3.6 Trillion to circulation would water down the value of the currency.
The other option is to increase revenues through taxation. For some this would be a wash. But essentially, this would be a system of taking money from one person to give it to someone else. The government currently spends about $3.5 Trillion per year, so we are talking about doubling government spending. To double revenues there would have to be a tax raid on the upper middle class. Most of whom are stretched as it is, and would not be able to make their bills. So doing that financially ruins millions of families.
Either method, or a combination, would both end up with bigger government. A whole new wealth re-distribution department would need to be created that would add yet even more load onto the tax payers.
How about a simple tax every time money is spent? This way the money would be "created" in the same way the banks create it to lend out now. Only creating much more value in the process ;-)
Neither would work. In theory they sound like a good idea, but would never work.
Theories always sound like good ideas.
Of course it would work. Please explain why it wouldn't. Please explain why it would lead to hyper inflation, whereas qualitative easing, or anything else that our taxes are being spent on wouldn't. If you can't explain this, maybe I'm not the moron ;-)
Hyperinflation requires 2 things: A massive increase in the money supply and velocity of money. QE has provided the massive increase. What we don't have right now is velocity of money. That means the money is actually moving through the system. At present, it is being hoarded by financial institutions to cover what they know are going to losses that far exceed their assets. these guys are leveraged to unbelievable degrees and have been allowed to mark their assets to fantasy. There is also vast uncertainty in the marketplace, so businesses are sitting on any cash they have rather than expanding/hiring because they have no idea what the Fed and the gov are going to do and how it will impact them. for these reasons, we have no velocity of money.
Eventually, however, that will change and then we will have Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation. In order to understand this, just do some research on countries who have experienced hyperinflation and how tings went down. this is very easy to do because there are loads of examples in the past 20 years (and earlier if you want to go back further). The reason why countries fall into hyperinflation is the same in every case and countries keep doing it to themselves because politicians never learn. Just like the US is doing now, they find themselves with an unmanageable amount of debt and instead of cutting back, they borrow more to kick the can down the road a little longer. But the chickens do come home to roost, and we are sitting on that precipice as we speak.
For those of you who clamor for the government to 'help' people more by giving out more money, understand the position this country is in. It's like if you earned $30K per year and were 6 million dollars in debt. You can't even pay the interest on the debt, so you're running around applying for new credit cards so you can borrow more to delay bankruptcy. That's where we are at.
I hardly need to explain it. Welfare does not push people to get jobs. Handing out $1000 to every person will just make people lazier. Like yourself for example.
We mind as well just ONLY consume for a living and not work at all!
Take out the "consumers" and the current system collapses ;-)
So I take it if you received a basic income guarantee, you wouldn't work?
I think that's a question for you as you don't work at all.
Don't know where you get that idea from, I work in a cafe. So what is your answer to my question?
I would obviously, but many others would not.
My ambition dwarfs yours.
What makes you know others wouldn't share your values? Any proof? What makes you think your ambition dwarfs mine? Any proof? I'm happy are you? ;-)
Do you have proof that I'm wrong?
It does.
Well as I don't know what your ambitions are, no I don't have proof LOL