Forum Post: Universal Basic Income
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 11:21 a.m. EST by chrismoser
(55)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In order for Capitalism to be morally and ethically just, there needs to exist a non-means tested Universal Basic Income. This would be in the form of a stipend given to every person when they reach maturity. This stipend represents their claim on the shared resources of the world that they have allowed others to exploit/claim ownership of. It would be enough for each person to buy a home, pursue an education, start a business, invest in a corporation, or buy into a sustainable collectivist community- something like $500,000.
Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice lays this idea out clearly, and is available free on Google Books. The idea itself takes root in Georgism and the the works of Enlightenment Philosopher John Locke. This idea supports the free market, and would spur innovation while eliminating overnight the need for most social welfare programs (which should still exist).
Do some research. This movement should be the beginning of a conversation about Universal Basic Income.
Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm reading the first paragraph and all I'm getting out of it is:
"Because I was born and live on Earth I own an equal share in the world, so I should get paid just for letting other people use MY part of the world!"
But just what justifies saying that just because you're born you own an equal part of the world? And if the world population just jumped another up 6.97 billion, would you only get paid $250,000, because you only own half of what you did before?
It would not have to be a completely 'equal' part in terms of fraction. There is no way to measure the worth of the whole of our production anyway. To do so would require a completely different monetary system. I am not an egalitarian, I'm a utilitarian.
money for nothing = no appreciation for its worth.. in the end that 500k is going to end up back in the hands of the 1% anyway.
I think people who are currently unemployed, especially the young idealists who just graduated college and haven't been in the real world long enough can't really understand how hard it is to make a buck (and makes you appreciate it even more)
This explains why people still go to the nearest ATM to spend 5 bucks to take out 100 bucks.. rather than walking an extra 3 blocks to their own bank
People would still need to produce goods and provide services in order to create wealth. If anyone with a pulse can receive an enormous check, then many (and perhaps most) people would simply refuse to work. There would be no need; they're already wealthy enough.
Simply not true, as proven in countless empirical studies.
Then perhaps you can link to a few of these "countless empirical studies," as opposed to linking to two personal blog posts and pretending that resolves everything.
Sigh. Way to take a decent idea and ruin it. You could hardly turn people off of it better if you tried - VERY interesting. Indeed.
People: there is another post on this forum http://occupywallst.org/forum/basic-income-guarantee-for-the-us/
Which has a more sensible and rational discussion on it (last time I checked, it could get corrupted).
Anyway, this guy is being way to greedy and silly. It should be much lower of course, not $500,000 and first of all this is an experiment that should be tried on a small scale first, in various cities, nit the whole country. You can hardly argue with trying it.
And it has been tried in various places, as explained in that thread. Plus you have to realize that this would replace welfare, and because it is not means tested it would greatly reduce the welfare-dependency problem, therefore likely leading to less people on welfare or otherwise not producing, not more. Plus the people who are working would be more productive, because they would not be terrified of trying new things, starting their own business etc.
There are a million other rational, intelligent arguments in favor of this. Don't let this guy's mushy headed philosophical sloppiness turn you off.
@Fredone- The number of $500,000 is arbitrary, but reflective of slightly more than was suggested by Paine in Agrarian Justice (adjusted for inflation). The whole point is to give people enough capital at one point in time to allow them the freedom to invest or purchase property without debt.
A system that gives living stipend would do little to provide people with any leverage on or control of the means of production, or for that matter free them from the necessity of interest-bearing debt in order to get an education, start a business, buy a home, or buy into a collective.
In case you didn't realize, a large stipend based system could be only be applied system-wide.
Having researched this for years, there is a lot of data that demonstrates humans are sadly subject to the lotto effect, due largely to the astronomical gap between every day struggle to survive and the expectations built by consumer media conglomerates, MTV cribs, etc. As if people are not "normal" unless they livin' large.
What we've observed first hand is that a living stipend can and does immediately #EndPoverty. It's been demonstrated from Canada, to Africa. I'm with you and all about Paine and Agrarian Justice; and the actionable data -- I'm always eager and willing to learn about other information I may have missed -- that we've gathered so far indicates that the living stipend stops the bleeding soonest. From there, everyone has breathing room to work on next steps. Grateful for your collegiality! Keep the faith, trust the DATA.
Great article on Basic Income: http://www.scribd.com/doc/69994132/Citizens-Income
I just saw this post and surely this is a joke written by an eight year old? Beats playing call of duty son, but ask mommy and daddy for a book on economics before posting again.
Evidently you've never heard of Bertrand Russell, Henry George, or John Locke.
Characters in call of duty? Seriously though, this post was written as a joke? Hence my continuation of the jokes?
This is the dumbest idea I have ever read. If you want to be taken seriously by people who work for a living, come up with a better idea than "give me $ 500k"
This is the dumbest idea I have ever read. If you want to be taken seriously by people who work for a living, come up with a better idea than "give me $ 500k"
Dumb.
How about people can get their 500k.... after they work 30 years and contribute 5% of their after tax income into a retirement fund?
Seems to make more sense than to just give anyone merely for being born.. Plus, my way pays for itself without sacrificing anything!
No! Just.No. To this idea.
DEAR INDIVIDUAL READING THIS, What must we as people do to fight this grave injustice inflicted upon us, by the ones who lust for power? How can we end the reign of the wicked and immoral and mete JUSTICE upon the oppressors as we have suffered from their hands-their blood stained hands... An idea of REVOLUTION-no, the act of revolution enacted by the proletarians! Must we as individuals ,as is always done, remain pawns to these people, these monoliths that we alone as individuals cannot surmounted...I surmise that we are not ignorant to the woes inflicted upon us by their enormities? We must UNIFY! Unity will be the way in which we assert ourselves!...While I realize all are not are not without income or funds and many cannot unify with this growing movement do to reasons of possible opposition and they being the people I'm question who we oppose (Wall Street), and many have responsibility they must tend to that take precedence. We must rise and vanquish this behemothto restore the equilibrium, for when disturbed it causes much chaos and strife in the hearts of man( man being neutral to represent all genders) in his mind and when mans mind and soul are in chaos as many are they rise to vanquish the pestiferous wealthy. However we should not just target these individuals, each of us individually must confront the corruption in our hearts, how can we judge the corrupt and deem them so when we cannot be amenable for ourselves we will surely be deemed hypocrites as we will be.....I am not meaning to say that this protest is in any way unjust, for far too long have we suffered, I mean that we are expected to expiate our sins -assume our parts in the problems we face and how we may have caused it. Yes, the Bankers on Wall Street are corrupt in ways we don't have evidence of without an investigation. But as we suffer soshall they, for we will make it so. But what of our government I say, my fellow citizens do not neglect to Confront the complicit in this affair for the roots of corruption are deeply seated, we have silent enemies amongst us-be warned that although succession in our goals will happen we may face a greater threat to our rights granted unto us from birth be prudent and circumspect. Another issue I wish to address is the idea of mans continual corruption as all things will be permeated with this darkness Inside our hearts.......when a system is created it always deviates from the righteous path, for nations we have learnt of in our education are littered with tales of nations that became corrupt and faded Into the ruin of collapse, we know that a society without corruption is utterly inconceivable, impossible in ways each and everyone of us know...for as long as men exist so shall our inner evil....but I digress from my original Intent of this passage and I ask forgiveness as we must forgive all in all eventual....the rising potentiality of this movement is quite an astonishment, I thought we were not capable of such things and thus I admit I had less faith in my fellow man. I see that we have all come to the realization of the need to bring the greedy to justice, although the reasons for your protesting may be unique to you, you share many goal, I had prognostications, inklings seems more appropriate of a term, that one day man would wake to realize the greater truth outside of his/her reality, and break the cycles of obsession with superficial base needs and trite motives, a dull and predictable lot we were but we've surpassed that I hope....for if not we will founder and fall Into the patterns we had grown so accustomed to, living such prosaic pedestrian lives stultified by the elite and of our own ignorance we always have the means to educate ourselves in this age, we have no limits to what we may learn based on our status in society, the powerful can no longer succeed in keeping us stupefied we have freewill to reason and learn and form our own ideas, ideas that would otherwise have died by the hands of the bigots! Our endeavours shall be crowned with fruition of our goals for our will allows it, we have broken free from the will of the oppressors.... part...now it is your turn...as Desmond Tutu stated "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." YOURS TRULY- Aaron Thomas Bridge
God, what a wank. Why not just divide the worlds resources and give everyone a million dollars. You are an idiot.
This is not an egalitarian idea- it is a utilitarian idea.
If you nationalized the fed, and taxed the upper 1% at 3% on assets above $5 Million you'd have enough money to give every man, woman and child about $5000 per year-which would lift pretty much all families out of poverty if you leave existing programs like food stamps in place. The trickle up effects of this would be huge.
I agree with the idea but 500,000 would just see a devaluation of the dollar.
Sounds interesting to me. Maybe you can take the $ sign away and say everyone gets 1.000 NWMU (lol, just made something up: stands for new world money units) and illegalise all transactions in other divisa. I wonder if people would give any NWMU´s for gold because i find the value of gold so funny. Anyway its an interesting idear. Still believe the Africans that today cannot even find water might spend all their new money in a notime and the those that have acces to good education, guns or natural resources end up with most of the money very quickly. But def. very interesting approach.
There is a solid 50 years of momentum behind this solution, which is known by a number of acronyms BI, UBI, BIG, etc. Martin Luther King Jr. called for #BasicIncome 45 years ago. The conservative think tank, AEI called for a $10,000 per person annual #BasicIncome in 2006, see below.
"Prepare yourself for a new age of peace and happiness; but also prepare yourselves for a painful transition." Kevorkian Death Cycle (KDC), Intervention.
Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.
So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform in the 1st link. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.
Shared ownership? What garbage
To chrismoser: Another thing you have to account for here is that we know from biology that people are ultimately selfish beings. Talking about fairness doesn't get you very far on serious issues. You have to have arguments about how it will benefit the country and the people you are talking to.
Free and FAIR enterprise. I am a small business owner and feel that the corporate campaign "donations" must be eliminated. My vote is equal to every American citizens vote. I know I can't compete with a corporation dollar for dollar. It's unconstitutional that I even have to. Get corporations OUT of the halls of government!!!! We have a network of Americans ready for real change! Let's gain political muscle with our nation's greatest resource. It's citizens! It is time for "we the people" to change our nation back to what it once was. An economic and cultural standard among nations. The 1% have degraded this economy and this nation by outsourcing jobs, gambling our nest eggs, and forclosing our property! This is not the America our forefathers intended. We are strong, we are compassionate, we perservere and we hope. The hope ignites that fire in every man's heart for what is just. We fight for not just a reason, but for a n honorable cause. Be revolutionary. Be American.
The contemporary conception of property ownership is completely artificial. Locke and others believe that people are entitled to make a claim on property because they mix their labor with the land. Locke does not believe this claim to be absolute however, and rightly states that the burden of proof of justice should be on the person making the claim.
These ideas are even more relevant today: We are born into a world with no frontier, where every piece of property is claimed, and the vast majority of property is claimed by the richest 2% of the population. Born property-less, we are indentured to the banks and to those who own the means of production. Moreover, we are taught that these claims are 'natural', that the transfer of immense family wealth from one generation to the next is just.
actually our wage system is the problem. the structure is why raising the min wage is ineffective. every business in america adjusts for inflation as they see fit, they set the price without the gov permission, why is labor not allowed to? the fix is a floating minimum wage evaluated quarterly pegged to inflation and cost.
The wage problem is tied to the fact that we have reached the goals of the Industrial and Electronic revolutions: an abundance of goods with lower demand for labor. One of the problems with Capitalism in it's current form is that our wage system does not reflect the fact that we are capable of all living quite comfortably with our current levels of production, even by working far less than we do. Look around us! We have more than enough food for everybody, more than enough resources to not only go around, but to support a far better standard of living for all. We just have no mechanism in place to reflect the success of our technological revolutions. The whole point of technology was to free us from labor! Yet instead, we have 20% real unemployment rates among people who actually want to work! Our goal for our society should be 20 hour work weeks for all. If we all worked 20 hours and got paid more for doing it, there would be almost no unemployment. The only thing stopping our just society is the interests of the rich.
What if someone wants to make more money? Shouldn't they be entitled to work harder to do so?
yes. of course. the http://j.mp/BasicIncome is simply a universal platform to ensure everyone has food, shelter, and housing. Basic Human Needs are Basic Human Rights. and true patriots will be reminded and recognized for the achievement when they opt-out of the #BasicIncome once they reach self-sustainability. sure, it'll technically be the top 1%'s right to keep hoarding the $1,200/mo (indexed from http://j.mp/GOP4BasicIncome) or for a new software engineer to keep reeling it in once established and making six figures, but it'll be considered extremely shady to do so. it's precisely the sense of Entitlement of the Rich that is the larger problem. the richer people are, often the more entitled they think they are to more, more, more. they'd keep drawing their "entitlement" just because they can, not because they need it. this is the psychopathology we need to treat over the longer term.
no argument from me. you're right.
And thats not to say there is no work to be done- capitalism in it's current form has almost no mechanism to get things done that benefit all, but could not allow any one party to profit. The great infrastructure investments have always been made by the government. And now as we speak, there are plenty of buildings and bridges to be built, plenty of rail lines and transit-oriented development to be undertaken. We have the resources, just not the mechanism to transfer those resources into progress. And it's because of our financial system.
An income may only be necessary if the capitalistic model is in fact the right choice for our society. But it’s important to remember that in this version of corporate capitalism WE are the capital and therefore denied the rights to accumulate wealth mainly due to the currency’s constantly readjustments and devaluation. Under these conditions it’s practically impossible, in my opinion, for the poor and the middle class to achieve wealth independence. So the question is; from where does the bulk of the rich class comes from? One possible answer is, they are prefabricated by bogus institutions design for this purpose; to throw huge amounts of currency at chosen individuals to impersonate the rich class, as all the entertainment industries are accustomed to. Does anyone really deserve 20 million dollars to play a game or a role in the movies?
The government is out of cash, and is not in the position to grant half a million dollars to 300,000,000 people. And for a bit of perspective:
I went to New Orleans to assist in the Katrina relief efforts for two weeks, one week each two years in a row. The first week I went, the government was in the process of providing economic assistance, much like the stipends you suggest, to those families that suffered severe losses from the storm.
I came back a year later to find that that money had not been spent on rebuilding their lives but instead, purchasing high-end sports cars and 40-inch LCD TVs, along with other commodities.
It is human nature that there are some that will settle with marginality in exchange for all the commodities they can afford. The government might as well pull an Oprah and buy everyone in America a car. It would be $150,000,000,000,000 down the pipe with no results.
I'm talking about systemic change, and a coherent vision for a long-term sustainable and just economic system.
It would be based on a heavy estate tax, and once put into place, would make many government functions superfluous.
The government is a criminal organization that can't be trusted. Operation Fast and Furious. The "stimulus package". Obamacare. I don't feel like handing another penny to D.C. so they can wipe their ass with my paycheck or throw it into the fire known as Washington's economic recovery plan.
Unless you're suggesting that this takes place under a more accountable government (although I frankly don't see that happening en masse. Not anytime soon.)
First of all I call bullshit on buying luxury sports cars and huge TVs with the stipends they were giving out, in the what $1500/ month range??
Secondly, there are some foolish or truly lazy people. Some, and in fact from what I have seen only a very small fraction of the population is like that, less than a few percent, and for those that are, that is how they will spend their money no matter how they obtain it.
Dealing them is part of the cost of a society that allows that type of freedom. It is a minuscule price to pay. No system or plan is perfect.
You can call bullshit, but I'm the one who saw it first-hand.
Regardless, the government is 14 trillion in debt. They don't have another 150 trillion to spend on half-a-million dollar stipends for every citizen in the country.
Where do you think money comes from? Thin air? Wishful thinking? The Wizard of Oz?
Money does come exactly from thin air http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy/how-banks-make-money with the Wizard of Fed. It's all an abstraction. We can change the rules whenever we want; provided enough people understand that reality. Follow @BasicIncome and dig deeper to get educated on the past 50 years of progress in this domain. Scroll up in this thread for a bunch of links we've provided.
Troll
So everyone should get something just for existing? Why would we bother working if we got everything for free? Hell there is a system that sucks this economy dry called welfare. Not everyone on welfare wants to be on tehre, but many of them thing it is OWED to them. THey just continue to not pay taxes, not work, and get free money because of thinking like htis.
Technology is automating production.
This isn't a bad thing, but it means there simply won't be enough jobs in existence.
You can't just invent jobs, there needs to be sufficient demand.
What's your solution. Starve to death?
You're right luparb. Our entire system needs to reflect this fundamental change in labor demand. It's a turning point in human history.
Learn a marketable skill. The trend will always be from low-skill jobs toward high-skill jobs. If technology is automating production and technologists have become the upper class, then become a technologist.
Why do I hear another bubble being blown?
You really don't understand simple economics do you?
I've supported myself successfully as a technologist for decades, because my skills are always in demand. Through recessions as well as boom times.
Technology + capitalism = e-waste.
The flaw in your thinking in your post above is that you're ignoring the fact that as technology automates production and eliminates low-skill jobs, it also creates jobs. Because somebody has to run the machines. Somebody has to invent the machines. Somebody has to innovate and improve the machines. Our economy is creating these kinds of high-skill jobs more quickly than those jobs can be filled. There is FAR more than sufficient demand for technologists.
automating the production doesn't mean ALL the jobs can be replaced with tech jobs though - the whole point is to cut labor costs, hence the rise of unemployment.
Workers only lose out and become unemployed if they're stagnant. If they constantly re-train to take the new jobs that innovation makes available, then they win, because the newer, higher-skill jobs are higher paying jobs.
The whole reason that the job is automated is to reduce labor costs. The business will not replace all the laborers, only SOME of those jobs will be replaced with high-skilled jobs.
The required levels of production are met with fewer workers, meaning unemployment is inevitable, regardless of the workers skill-set.
The demand for I.T doesn't cover the amount of people displaced.
In capitalism all we do is produce, consume and pay taxes. Is this our true meaning here?
Your true meaning is what you make of it. there is no meaning except for the one that you define for yourself. For example, I want to a lot of drugs, but mostly Tryptamines (Hallucinogens) in order to see the world in as many different perspectives as possible and to have a lot of happy memories to look back on when I'm older.
Now, considering that is my goal, if I cannot find these drugs on the street, I will simply go back to my Alma Mater (Georgia Tech) and get a degree in Chemistry/Chemical Engineering that way I can make them myself.
This world is a hell hole in which not one country on the ENTIRE PLANET, will let ME do what I WANT TO DO to MY OWN BODY. I mean if I disagree with high taxes I can say, "ah well, I'm going to move to a different country"...where in the hell am I to go? It's not like I can say, "ah well, I don't like Earth's laws so, I'm going to go to Mars..."
Not necessarily, I do think that we (humanity) should and could have different purpose in life than just profits at any expense. We need to live in harmony with the environment before we do destroy ourselves and the planet. Come on now dude you do not seriously believe that someone will subject themselves through many years of school only to produce drugs? Are you on drugs? I’ll bet you’re for the liberalization of all drugs?
I do have a different purpose, I agree with you. Did you not see? My purpose is to see the world in as many different perspectives as possible. I might need money to achieve this goal because nothing is free, but then money would simply be a means to justify the end, and making profit would still not be my end.
I don't believe in harmony with the environment, saving species, or any of that other bullshit...hell the claimed intensity of global warming is even up in the air. I mean the Earth has gotten warmer and I/m not denying that, but you should really look the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and read about what NOAA has to say about it. I used to be a firm believer in the global warming that most of the world believes in, but then I read about the AMO and the Wikipedia and NOAA articles made me waver in my stance. I still am and always have been of the opinion though that even though the globe is warming, we don't need to do anything about it that would strain my wallet, our economy, or the economy of developing countries. You want me to buy an electric car, make it appeal to my income level. The reason I buy gas is because it is easier on my wallet than an electric car. Change that and you change the world. Very simple. AND I can't think of a better way to connect with nature than through drugs.
I would. I mean if it's for fun yeah. I've thought about going to an arts school, like Full Sail, so that I can learn how to make music, that way I can just make my own music. I mean I know what I like to listen to, so if I learn how to make music I can make stuff that I like to listen to instead of relying on other people to make stuff that I like listening to.
If there is an easier way to learn how to make Ecstasy, DMT, LSD and most other synthetic Tryptamines, then yeah I won't go to school, but I mean, come on? Making Ecstasy is a 72 hour process, that at one point involves putting the mixture into a pipe, and oh, by the way, if the mixture isn't pure enough the pipe will turn into an exploding pipe bomb...Yeah you MIGHT want to have a background in Chemistry before you make Ecstasy. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a story in which someone who didn't have a college degree in Chemistry got busted for making Ecstasy. Only College Grads make Ecstasy as far as I know.
I am a recreational weed smoker and I have taken Adderall since I was 5. And I love drugs. They bring me to a level of consciousness that cannot be achieved in any other way. The way Ecstasy makes you feel is unbelievable. Weed makes food/music taste/sound unreal. That is why I want to do drugs. You haven't listened to music until you've done so while High. You haven't eaten food or drank wine until you have done so while High. Red wine in particular. Weed brings out the flavor like you have never tasted it.
If weed had never been made illegal, I guarantee you at least half the US would have a tradition of passing a fat blunt or two around before sitting down to eat Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner.
That would be a yes, I am in favor of the liberalization of all drugs.
It's not something for nothing. It's the right of people to the shared resources of the world. I suggest you read John Locke, or Agrarian Justice.
Are you smoking something?
Yeah. We're smoking DATA. You should fire some up. http://j.mp/BasicIncome http://usbig.net/ http://basicincome.org/ http://j.mp/structuralinequity
There are several proposals out there. The $500,000 dollar proposal is good but would probable have to be phased in over a generation while other programs were phased out. However, there could be several stop gap measures put in place in the mean time. Such as the basic income guarantee or the Stake Holder proposal of $80,000 for everyone over 21. There are many rational and affordable solutions.
America is about not despising your neighbor for having more than you, but rather motivating you to do better, providing the framework to make that possible.
But it no longer provides that framework. Don't you get it?
no, these kind don't get it. and they don't do the homework. they're like The Waterboy. "my momma' says ..."
This will never work.
No kidding. If you gave me $500,000 today I would quit my high stress 60+ hr week job and go work for McDonalds 16 hrs a week and live off the interest.
When are you Libertarians going to realize that the single greatest threat to personal liberty is wealth-based oligarchy?
Although I'm not concerned with threats, but the actual taking of liberty..
Libertarians do realize it. That's why they would advocate an entire government withdrawal from the market and less governemental powers overall. Duh.
Duh? A wealth-based oligarchy is exactly what will happen when the government withdraws from all markets. It's what has already happened to a large extent. There is no freedom when you are born into a world in which you own nothing and everything is claimed.
You know what the difference between government and business is? Governments make the laws (and no profits). That's it. If you're sick of corporate power, the only alternative is to be ruled absolutely by a worse power, unless you also advocate for the reduction of government power.
In a world in which you own nothing can still be free if you can work and buy something. A world in which you have no freedom is a world in which there is no freedom.
And I'm not a libertarian, for full disclosure.
When are you progressives going to learn that your government IS a wealth based oligarchy?
When you are people going to understand people need an incentive to work and will not work if they know they are getting paid for doing nothing.
Again. Empirically untrue. This is just such a malignant cancer in the mind of Americans. http://j.mp/BreakTheJobTrance and http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 and http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/07/rushkoff.jobs.obsolete/index.html and http://www.peterfrase.com/2011/09/the-basic-income-and-the-helicopter-drop/
This movement is not about not working- its about the fruit of our mutual labor being equitably reflected. These 99% want jobs! They want mechanisms in place to allow for entry into markets, and the freedom to innovate. It's about getting banks to make small business loans, and for the unjust wealth of the few to be put towards infrastructure.
1) A majority of people would just stop working at all and society would collapse or 2) the amount of money which would have to be created in order to fund this $500,000 proposal would create hyperinflation such that $500,000 would be worth nothing.
Evidence please. There have been empirical experiments on this idea that show you are completely wrong. In Canada there was an experiment called "mincome". The net labor-hours spent in the town in the formal economy involved was only reduced by 5%. Poverty was completely eliminated. The people who were working may well have been far more productive.
Secondly, the people who did not work in the formal economy did not just vegetate, they spent their time on things like child care, which for all we know may have been producing a large net gain for society. Just because it does not have a dollar sign on it does not mean it is worthless.
AI believe the experiment you are referring to (dauphin, Manitoba) included only 1,000 families (very small group) and the stipend was never as large as $500,000 .
Yes, I agree 500,000 is too high. I know you didn't see it, but I have mentioned as much elsewhere in this thread a couple times. There have been other experiments as well BTW check that other thread on this subject.
I appreciate your sentiment in wanting everyone to be taken care of, but I see a few problems with this model. Here's one:
When everyone has at least $500K (just going with your number) then that becomes the new "poverty" level. In very short order, things will change from 'isn't it great that everyone is provided for' to "it's not fair that I only have 3,000 square feet of living space and he has 6,000". "It's not my fault that I lost my $500K on a bad investment--I was given bad advice". "I used my money to study archeology but there aren't any good paying jobs in archeology so now I can't afford to buy a house". "This system isn't fair".
This may sound silly from our current perspective, but just look at how we define poverty now to see that this is what happens. The standard of living for the poor in America has been steadily increasing through the decades. Per the Census Bureau, 30% of the poor own their own homes; 62% own a car; nearly half have air conditioning; etc. We define 'poor' relativistically, which is why the percentage of poor stays pretty consistent over time. If we defined 'poverty' as not having enough food to eat, not having a roof over one's head, and not having access to basic medical care, we could say that we have virtually eradicated poverty in America. But we don't, which is why, no matter how high you raise the "basic income', those with the basic income will always be 'poor'.
And when a segment of society is considered 'poor', the question naturally becomes how do we raise them up out of poverty. And then we are right back where we started.
As a final note, please understand I am not against the poor or helping people to rise out of poverty. I am a humanitarian and do not want people to suffer. I am just pointing out what I believe will happen if your proposed system were implemented, based on what has historically been the case.
The goal should be a re-structuring of the monetary system into one that can support a Universal Basic Income without hyper-inflation.
The scenario I describe is not hyperinflation. The above will occur even if there is 0% inflation. It is a phenomenon of human behavior, not a monetary effect.
Evidence please. We cannot make good decisions for our country based on the very shaky logic, unbacked by anything but casual observation, which we know is often heavily biased or off-the-wall wrong, that you are putting forth here.
Systems of this type have existed in closed societies since the dawn of civilization.
I was talking to libertyfirst. His assertions regarding human behavior are highly dubious.
Well, you can look at the poverty thresholds we set, for starters. The stats I quoted you on the living conditions of the poor in the United States are from the Census Bureau. We continually raise the standard for 'poor' relative to the rest of society.
You can apply this to other economic classes as well. The typical middle class American today has more living space, more 'creature comforts', greater caloric intake, etc than 50 years ago.
I'm not sure what other evidence you want. You can look up the stats yourself--this is true not just in the US, but globally. We judge our economic condition relative to those who have the least and the most.
I think that only applies within certain limits, libertyfirst. The cost of goods etc. has also gone up. It is kind of silly to assume that trend can be extrapolated past having basic needs met. While the definition needs to be adjusted with the times, poverty definitely has a more definite and less relative meaning than you seem to think.
Well, you can pick any society throughout the history of mankind and study what happens. You can read the voluminous psychological studies that have been done on motivation and altruism. You can talk to people living today who have lived under systems that had similar goals. There's no need to jump blindly into a grand experiment based on pontification. Plenty of evidence out there.
So everyone should get something just for existing? Why would we bother working if we got everything for free? Hell there is a system that sucks this economy dry called welfare. Not everyone on welfare wants to be on tehre, but many of them thing it is OWED to them. THey just continue to not pay taxes, not work, and get free money because of thinking like htis.
Actually it is more complicated than that. Many of them want to work but cannot get the capital, and are also actually prevented from doing so by the rules of welfare. Because it is "means tested" (unlike this basic income idea) and the government is itching to kick you off at any excuse, people are actually afraid of what will happen if they work. There are also endless rules regarding starting your own business, etc. that prevent people from progressing. It is extremely destructive. This basic income thing, at a more reasonable level, (not $500,000, more like $1000/month plus whatever is needed for health care, would be a more reasonable place to start) is one of the few ways available to do away with these means testing rules and still have an efficient social safety net.
BTW welfare is only in the $500 per month range in most of the US. If you think you do anything other than suffer in desperation with that kind of money, I suggest you go and try it. These people want to work, that is well established.
Secondly we already know that people always want more, more more, so basic income will not stop people from working to get more. It is well known in economics that people make decisions at the margin. That is, if they can work for another hour and get another $30 bucks, they will do that unless there is a more profitable option to spend that hour on (profitable in terms of real value, the value might not have a dollar sign before it, such as child care).
I do not agree with a "living wage" even after this explaination. Who will pay? Tif it'd the giv the. You know there will be restrictions, creating more problems. Also many of those on welfare do not want to work nas a matter of fact, many of them make "supplemental" income doing illiegal things. I know many of them want to work but believe me, it's 50-50 on that one n
The #BasicIncome guarantee would eliminate the penalties for supplemental income. In fact, it would encourage and celebrate self-sufficiency. I encourage you to do some more homework so we can have a better discussion. Read my other comments in this thread and follow the links. The principle of UBI is absolutely correct, we're noodling through the different ways it can be realistically achieved; addressing each and every legitimate concern.
Well, I'm sure you'll understand I would want to see some reasonable degree of evidence for those assertions before I made a decision toeing that line of logic. Because that is an extremely common set of assertions that nobody has ever been able to back up, and flies in the face of what we know from science. It is just propaganda last time I checked.
Please tell me this is a troll.