Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Universal basic income

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 12:06:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I want some views on this. Surprisingly despite being Libertarian I'm on the fence about this one, it seems like a better alternative to reduce poverty than the minimum wage. What's everyone's opinion?

From Wikipedia

" An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen"s income) is a form of social security system[2] 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." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please if you don't know about this take the time to educate yourself before responding. The visceral uneducated responses will get annoying.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 7:10:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:06:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
I want some views on this. Surprisingly despite being Libertarian I'm on the fence about this one, it seems like a better alternative to reduce poverty than the minimum wage. What's everyone's opinion?

From Wikipedia

" An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen"s income) is a form of social security system[2] 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." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please if you don't know about this take the time to educate yourself before responding. The visceral uneducated responses will get annoying.

It's an interesting proposal that I'll read a bit more into after I get out of class. My understanding is that it's essentially a tax cute, in some cases amounting to a negative tax cat, the benefits of which--percentage wise--accrue mostly to lower- and middle income. From the looks of it, I think it's a great idea, though I question what the number would need to be to fulfill three conditions (and I may modify these after learning a bit more): (1) actually ensuring a sustainable living for people who can't find a job; (2) not too large that it discincentivizes work; and (3) not too large that providing this subsidy to, say, a Bill Gates is utterly pointless--though I suppose it could be means tested.

It seems to do better than the EITC on (1), because it doesn't phase out after hitting income bracket, but the flip side of that is the EITC requires work, whereas this could amount to quite literally receiving a check every month for doing nothing. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but I'm trying to parse the differences between this and some other form of government assistance, which usually require some form of either holding a job, seeking employment, enrolling in job training, etc. I question providing it to everyone, but one of the core problems with the EITC (and you could even mirror this to the ACA in terms of employees) is the phase out provision, but provided that it were to phase out at a high enough amount--i.e., overshooting just a bit in terms of benefits--I see it as mollifying many of the potential negative outcomes.

And it certainly doesn't have the behavioral effects of the MW on employment, though I do question, of course, how we'd paid for it, especially if it does--and I'm speculating here, obviously--discentivizes work, depresses labor force participation, and reduced productivity and tax revenue. If it has those effects, I'd prefer an expanded EITC, but by no means are those certain.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 7:11:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:10:57 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:06:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
I want some views on this. Surprisingly despite being Libertarian I'm on the fence about this one, it seems like a better alternative to reduce poverty than the minimum wage. What's everyone's opinion?

From Wikipedia

" An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen"s income) is a form of social security system[2] 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." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please if you don't know about this take the time to educate yourself before responding. The visceral uneducated responses will get annoying.

It's an interesting proposal that I'll read a bit more into after I get out of class. My understanding is that it's essentially a tax cute, in some cases amounting to a negative tax cat, the benefits of which--percentage wise--accrue mostly to lower- and middle income. From the looks of it, I think it's a great idea, though I question what the number would need to be to fulfill three conditions (and I may modify these after learning a bit more): (1) actually ensuring a sustainable living for people who can't find a job; (2) not too large that it discincentivizes work; and (3) not too large that providing this subsidy to, say, a Bill Gates is utterly pointless--though I suppose it could be means tested.

It seems to do better than the EITC on (1), because it doesn't phase out after hitting income bracket, but the flip side of that is the EITC requires work, whereas this could amount to quite literally receiving a check every month for doing nothing. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but I'm trying to parse the differences between this and some other form of government assistance, which usually require some form of either holding a job, seeking employment, enrolling in job training, etc. I question providing it to everyone, but one of the core problems with the EITC (and you could even mirror this to the ACA in terms of employees) is the phase out provision, but provided that it were to phase out at a high enough amount--i.e., overshooting just a bit in terms of benefits--I see it as mollifying many of the potential negative outcomes.

And it certainly doesn't have the behavioral effects of the MW on employment, though I do question, of course, how we'd paid for it, especially if it does--and I'm speculating here, obviously--discentivizes work, depresses labor force participation, and reduced productivity and tax revenue. If it has those effects, I'd prefer an expanded EITC, but by no means are those certain.

*tax cut
*negative tax rate
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:43:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:06:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
I want some views on this. Surprisingly despite being Libertarian I'm on the fence about this one, it seems like a better alternative to reduce poverty than the minimum wage. What's everyone's opinion?

From Wikipedia

" An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen"s income) is a form of social security system[2] 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." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please if you don't know about this take the time to educate yourself before responding. The visceral uneducated responses will get annoying.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

So yes, libertarians can support this.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:44:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax

It is to an extent, but the differences are (1) a lump sum, which is technically progressive, broadly speaking and (2) it's irrespective of employment status.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:45:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:43:49 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:06:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
I want some views on this. Surprisingly despite being Libertarian I'm on the fence about this one, it seems like a better alternative to reduce poverty than the minimum wage. What's everyone's opinion?

From Wikipedia

" An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen"s income) is a form of social security system[2] 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." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please if you don't know about this take the time to educate yourself before responding. The visceral uneducated responses will get annoying.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

So yes, libertarians can support this.

Oh, I thought I was an oddball for liking this.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:47:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax

It is to an extent, but the differences are (1) a lump sum, which is technically progressive, broadly speaking and (2) it's irrespective of employment status.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

From my understanding of the NIT, it is (in a way) a lump sum. If the cap is put at $20,000, a person making 0 gets $10,000. IF they get a job making $10,000 they get an extra 5k, making 15k per year. If they make 20, they get nothing but no taxes. If they make 30, they get taxed but *only* on that 10k over 20k.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:49:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:47:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax

It is to an extent, but the differences are (1) a lump sum, which is technically progressive, broadly speaking and (2) it's irrespective of employment status.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

From my understanding of the NIT, it is (in a way) a lump sum. If the cap is put at $20,000, a person making 0 gets $10,000. IF they get a job making $10,000 they get an extra 5k, making 15k per year. If they make 20, they get nothing but no taxes. If they make 30, they get taxed but *only* on that 10k over 20k.

That's true, and there's certainly a degree of progressivity to it so it's arguable that, in practice, it amounts to a negative income tax. I guess it comes down to how you look at it: technically someone with an income of $0 can't really pay a negative rate, but that's sort of beside the point.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:49:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:45:53 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:43:49 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:06:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
I want some views on this. Surprisingly despite being Libertarian I'm on the fence about this one, it seems like a better alternative to reduce poverty than the minimum wage. What's everyone's opinion?

From Wikipedia

" An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen"s income) is a form of social security system[2] 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." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please if you don't know about this take the time to educate yourself before responding. The visceral uneducated responses will get annoying.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

So yes, libertarians can support this.

Oh, I thought I was an oddball for liking this.

Nah I am undecided on it, too. I am not libertarian though. The NIT is similar, but not exactly the same. I think the NIT is better, because it incentivizes work. If you make 0, you get, say, 10,000 dollars. If you make 10k, you get 5k (so 15). If you make 20, you pay no taxes, and if you make 30, only the 10k over 20 gets taxed. So you are incentivized to work in that you get more money if you earn over $10,000 a year. But it also means someone who is unable to get a job is entitled to about $10,000. So you get more money if you work, but you also don't die of hunger.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:50:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:49:42 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:47:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax

It is to an extent, but the differences are (1) a lump sum, which is technically progressive, broadly speaking and (2) it's irrespective of employment status.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

From my understanding of the NIT, it is (in a way) a lump sum. If the cap is put at $20,000, a person making 0 gets $10,000. IF they get a job making $10,000 they get an extra 5k, making 15k per year. If they make 20, they get nothing but no taxes. If they make 30, they get taxed but *only* on that 10k over 20k.

That's true, and there's certainly a degree of progressivity to it so it's arguable that, in practice, it amounts to a negative income tax. I guess it comes down to how you look at it: technically someone with an income of $0 can't really pay a negative rate, but that's sort of beside the point.

lol those semantics. But yeah, I am a fan of the NIT because I don't like letting poor people die and I think it offers more incentives to work than the current system. But the current system is better than nothing.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:51:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:50:50 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:49:42 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:47:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax

It is to an extent, but the differences are (1) a lump sum, which is technically progressive, broadly speaking and (2) it's irrespective of employment status.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

From my understanding of the NIT, it is (in a way) a lump sum. If the cap is put at $20,000, a person making 0 gets $10,000. IF they get a job making $10,000 they get an extra 5k, making 15k per year. If they make 20, they get nothing but no taxes. If they make 30, they get taxed but *only* on that 10k over 20k.

That's true, and there's certainly a degree of progressivity to it so it's arguable that, in practice, it amounts to a negative income tax. I guess it comes down to how you look at it: technically someone with an income of $0 can't really pay a negative rate, but that's sort of beside the point.

lol those semantics. But yeah, I am a fan of the NIT because I don't like letting poor people die and I think it offers more incentives to work than the current system. But the current system is better than nothing.

I've never quite understood the difference with respect to incentives. Care to elaborate?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:57:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:51:49 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:50:50 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:49:42 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:47:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax

It is to an extent, but the differences are (1) a lump sum, which is technically progressive, broadly speaking and (2) it's irrespective of employment status.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

From my understanding of the NIT, it is (in a way) a lump sum. If the cap is put at $20,000, a person making 0 gets $10,000. IF they get a job making $10,000 they get an extra 5k, making 15k per year. If they make 20, they get nothing but no taxes. If they make 30, they get taxed but *only* on that 10k over 20k.

That's true, and there's certainly a degree of progressivity to it so it's arguable that, in practice, it amounts to a negative income tax. I guess it comes down to how you look at it: technically someone with an income of $0 can't really pay a negative rate, but that's sort of beside the point.

lol those semantics. But yeah, I am a fan of the NIT because I don't like letting poor people die and I think it offers more incentives to work than the current system. But the current system is better than nothing.

I've never quite understood the difference with respect to incentives. Care to elaborate?

Well welfare reform I suppose offers incentives--ya get nothing if you don't try. But the NIT at a 20k "cap" means this:

If you make 0, you get $10,000. Not great, but you live.
If you get a job and earn $10,000 you get $5,000 from the government. This means getting a job increases your income by $5,000 and you still are getting assistance.
If you get a raise to $20,000 you again get a pay raise and do not pay taxes. So getting a job doubles your income.
If you end up making $30,000 you do not tax the entire income. You *only* tax the 10,000 over 20,000. This means for everyone--especially the poor--taxes are reduced and incomes increase. So really you are heavily incentively to get a job (even if it is low paying) and continue working. You gain skills over time, get paid more, and not just you get helped, but everyone does due to your productivity.

The current system you just need to prove you are looking for a job. I could apply to be CEO of a company knowing I would not be hired and technically meet requirements and get welfare. I mean sure, *usually* getting a job = I get more money. But once I move tax brackets I get no help. Under the NIT, you get help until you are at $20,000 (via no taxes). And beyond that you *still* receive the benefits of lower taxes. If I made $40,000 only $20,000 of my income would be taxed. So the system really helps the poor the most as their income is maximized, whereas under welfare once they earn enough they are left to fend for themselves.

I dunno if I am making sense XD
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 11:02:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:57:28 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:51:49 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:50:50 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:49:42 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:47:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax

It is to an extent, but the differences are (1) a lump sum, which is technically progressive, broadly speaking and (2) it's irrespective of employment status.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

From my understanding of the NIT, it is (in a way) a lump sum. If the cap is put at $20,000, a person making 0 gets $10,000. IF they get a job making $10,000 they get an extra 5k, making 15k per year. If they make 20, they get nothing but no taxes. If they make 30, they get taxed but *only* on that 10k over 20k.

That's true, and there's certainly a degree of progressivity to it so it's arguable that, in practice, it amounts to a negative income tax. I guess it comes down to how you look at it: technically someone with an income of $0 can't really pay a negative rate, but that's sort of beside the point.

lol those semantics. But yeah, I am a fan of the NIT because I don't like letting poor people die and I think it offers more incentives to work than the current system. But the current system is better than nothing.

I've never quite understood the difference with respect to incentives. Care to elaborate?

Well welfare reform I suppose offers incentives--ya get nothing if you don't try. But the NIT at a 20k "cap" means this:

If you make 0, you get $10,000. Not great, but you live.
If you get a job and earn $10,000 you get $5,000 from the government. This means getting a job increases your income by $5,000 and you still are getting assistance.
If you get a raise to $20,000 you again get a pay raise and do not pay taxes. So getting a job doubles your income.
If you end up making $30,000 you do not tax the entire income. You *only* tax the 10,000 over 20,000. This means for everyone--especially the poor--taxes are reduced and incomes increase. So really you are heavily incentively to get a job (even if it is low paying) and continue working. You gain skills over time, get paid more, and not just you get helped, but everyone does due to your productivity.

The current system you just need to prove you are looking for a job. I could apply to be CEO of a company knowing I would not be hired and technically meet requirements and get welfare. I mean sure, *usually* getting a job = I get more money. But once I move tax brackets I get no help. Under the NIT, you get help until you are at $20,000 (via no taxes). And beyond that you *still* receive the benefits of lower taxes. If I made $40,000 only $20,000 of my income would be taxed. So the system really helps the poor the most as their income is maximized, whereas under welfare once they earn enough they are left to fend for themselves.

I dunno if I am making sense XD

Yeah, that makes sense, and it's a pretty fascinating idea too.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 11:06:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 11:02:47 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:57:28 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:51:49 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:50:50 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:49:42 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:47:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:44:51 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/27/2015 10:43:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah this seems like a negative income tax

It is to an extent, but the differences are (1) a lump sum, which is technically progressive, broadly speaking and (2) it's irrespective of employment status.

"Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),"

From my understanding of the NIT, it is (in a way) a lump sum. If the cap is put at $20,000, a person making 0 gets $10,000. IF they get a job making $10,000 they get an extra 5k, making 15k per year. If they make 20, they get nothing but no taxes. If they make 30, they get taxed but *only* on that 10k over 20k.

That's true, and there's certainly a degree of progressivity to it so it's arguable that, in practice, it amounts to a negative income tax. I guess it comes down to how you look at it: technically someone with an income of $0 can't really pay a negative rate, but that's sort of beside the point.

lol those semantics. But yeah, I am a fan of the NIT because I don't like letting poor people die and I think it offers more incentives to work than the current system. But the current system is better than nothing.

I've never quite understood the difference with respect to incentives. Care to elaborate?

Well welfare reform I suppose offers incentives--ya get nothing if you don't try. But the NIT at a 20k "cap" means this:

If you make 0, you get $10,000. Not great, but you live.
If you get a job and earn $10,000 you get $5,000 from the government. This means getting a job increases your income by $5,000 and you still are getting assistance.
If you get a raise to $20,000 you again get a pay raise and do not pay taxes. So getting a job doubles your income.
If you end up making $30,000 you do not tax the entire income. You *only* tax the 10,000 over 20,000. This means for everyone--especially the poor--taxes are reduced and incomes increase. So really you are heavily incentively to get a job (even if it is low paying) and continue working. You gain skills over time, get paid more, and not just you get helped, but everyone does due to your productivity.

The current system you just need to prove you are looking for a job. I could apply to be CEO of a company knowing I would not be hired and technically meet requirements and get welfare. I mean sure, *usually* getting a job = I get more money. But once I move tax brackets I get no help. Under the NIT, you get help until you are at $20,000 (via no taxes). And beyond that you *still* receive the benefits of lower taxes. If I made $40,000 only $20,000 of my income would be taxed. So the system really helps the poor the most as their income is maximized, whereas under welfare once they earn enough they are left to fend for themselves.

I dunno if I am making sense XD

Yeah, that makes sense, and it's a pretty fascinating idea too.

I mean I dunno if I like it more than the current system. I lean towards liking it more. Friedman talks about it in Capitalism and Freedom.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:59:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The more desperate people are the easier it is to control, manipulate and exploit them.

Now having such a welfare safety net would act as a counter to that desperation which would exist had such not a net existed in the first place.

Some people and groups would be utterly against this. (For obvious reasons)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 10:22:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:06:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
I want some views on this. Surprisingly despite being Libertarian I'm on the fence about this one, it seems like a better alternative to reduce poverty than the minimum wage. What's everyone's opinion?

From Wikipedia

" An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen"s income) is a form of social security system[2] 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." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please if you don't know about this take the time to educate yourself before responding. The visceral uneducated responses will get annoying.

It sounds good on the face of it but it would do more harm than good. Currency is a value placeholder for real objects. Real objects are always scarce. So no matter how much money you give away, the amount of "real" things people have never changes. So if the intended effect is to give everyone $10,000 a year for food, shelter, etc., the price of food, shelter, etc., will simply raise until the supply of money is in equilibrium with supply and demand for real objects.

The other reason this would be a bad idea is because it disincentivizes work. When people are employed they are creating "real" wealth in the form of providing or enabling an exchange of goods or services. So by providing a base income to everyone the price of real goods will be inflated but will also result in a net loss or net 0 change in in nationwide productivity. Almost certainly a net loss since people would prefer leisure over work since the bump in additional income is negligible when making around or below 10,000 a year. Easy booze, easy drug money, easy cigs, etc., to people who are in poverty and are demonstrably much more likely to spend money on such things. The price will manifest itself in our healthcare and publicly funded police force.

If we give free handouts it should be towards the intended use and the intended use only. If they want food, pre-pay for free food. If they want shelter, pre-pay for free shelter. But personally, I don't think anything should be "free" I think policies should exist as incentive-based.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:06:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
I want some views on this. Surprisingly despite being Libertarian I'm on the fence about this one, it seems like a better alternative to reduce poverty than the minimum wage. What's everyone's opinion?

From Wikipedia

" An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen"s income) is a form of social security system[2] 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." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please if you don't know about this take the time to educate yourself before responding. The visceral uneducated responses will get annoying.

Okay, so you are talking about welfare, I do not know why your reference did not use this term.
If it is not talking about welfare I would ask that you show me the difference.

Milton Freidman was against welfare.
https://www.youtube.com...

~ ~
For the USA

~ ~ ~
How much does a welfare family of 3 have in income?
$21,996 per year.
If she were working she would have to earn at least $30,000 per year - probably more.
That is $14.40 per hour.
There are a lot of variables.
I choose Washington state, and have the children both under age five. The woman is paying $250 rent, and I did not count anything for HUD or section 8.
I assumed that the woman lived with family members and paid them $250 rent and help with the utilities a little - maybe $50 per month.
If she were getting housing help, it could easily increase another $5000 per year.
If she were in a work program, she would have day care, and that would increase her welfare benefits.
To keep it simple, I assumed the woman is claiming a disability and exempted from the work program.

A family of three, with no income, would receive a monthly TANF grant of $478.
http://www.dshs.wa.gov...
Based on subsidized rent of $250""""".food stamps would be $526.00
http://foodhelp.wa.gov...
LIHEAP (energy assistance would be $1000 per year, $83.00 per month.
http://www.liheap.ncat.org...
WIC (children to age 5) Washington average monthly benefit $41.64 x 2 = $83.28
http://www.fns.usda.gov...
The average cost of Medicaid for one adult and two children $663.66
http://kff.org...

The total of these benefits is $1833 per month.
Net of $21,996 per year.
Someone earning $30,000 per year, (plus full medical insurance " employer paid), who nets 74% would have this income.

How much does it cost each person, each year, to pay for welfare?
$1740.98 per year, for every man, woman, child in the United States.
Since about 25% are on the receiving end, it is actually higher, for those paying.

Consider first the total spent (not counting Social Security or Medicare):
SSI " Supplemental security Income " not social security -for people who didn't work "
$57 Billion a year.
http://www.ssa.gov...
Medicaid ( not medicare) spending 2010 - $389 Billion:
http://kff.org...
Food stamps 2011 - $71 Billion:
http://kff.org...

TANF (cash assistance for families - federal funds) $21 Billion 2009
http://archive.acf.hhs.gov...

(So I'm at $538 Billion a year (plus HUD, Energy, More).

Based on a population of 305 million, paying $538 Billion, is $1763 per person.
This does not include housing and child care subsidizes, head start ($8 billion a year for head start - http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov... ), more.
~ ~ ~ ~~
But about 25% are on the receiving end, so even more for those paying IRS taxes.
I will admit that we are not actually paying these bills when due.
They are being added to the national debt, at an obscene rate.
http://www.usdebtclock.org...

~ ~\~~
~ ~
Myth : Most welfare recipients are on benefits a short time.
Let me make that clearer.
At any one time 80% of any given caseload is chronic, repeat for one or more lifetimes.
80% of the money being spent at any one moment in time, is for the chronic, constantly needy, needy by choice, more than circumstances.
The other 20% comes and goes on a regular basis, in one door, out the other, never to be seen again.
At any moment in time, only 20% of the total, but over a long stretch (say five years), most of the ones helped were short timers, came and went, just like the myth says, most of the recipients on a short time,. . . . . . . but they only use 20% of the total funds available.
80% of the financial help available, goes to those "few bad apples."
That does not sound like a good taxpayer investment to me.
It seems to me the lion share of the money should be spent on the temporarily poor, the poor by circumstances, more than choice.
http://www.urban.org...
~
Today"s antipoverty safety net is dramatically different from the one in place two decades ago when welfare reform was enacted. Rather than a safety net primarily dependent on cash assistance programs, as is the common perception, the current system is highly reliant on social service programs funded by government and delivered through community-based nonprofits. Annual public and private expenditures for social service programs today exceed total federal outlays for cash assistance programs like welfare, food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).|
http://ed.stanford.edu...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@welfare,

It is not welfare in the traditional sense. I can explain the difference later, possibly. Please spend 10 minutes reading up on universal basic income and you'll understand the differences between it and welfare.

I did kindly request people be somewhat knowledgable on what the term "basic income" means in this instance before commenting.

Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:45:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Of course man. Look at his username: clearly, he joined to push an agenda. Admittedly, he's more bearable than the religionuts we're all too familiar with.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:50:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:45:59 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Of course man. Look at his username: clearly, he joined to push an agenda. Admittedly, he's more bearable than the religionuts we're all too familiar with.

Probably, I think I push an agenda too much myself but I'm trying to grow up. It is hard not to push an agenda when practically everyone else is, though.

Higher quality discussions can take place when people are intellectually honest.

Note: This post is for his benefit, though off topic.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:52:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:50:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:45:59 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Of course man. Look at his username: clearly, he joined to push an agenda. Admittedly, he's more bearable than the religionuts we're all too familiar with.

Probably, I think I push an agenda too much myself but I'm trying to grow up. It is hard not to push an agenda when practically everyone else is, though.

Higher quality discussions can take place when people are intellectually honest.

Note: This post is for his benefit, though off topic.

I think everyone, to some extent, is "pushing an agenda" insofar as we're trying to influence someone to our way of thinking, though I tend to think, for most of us, that it's an ancillary goal relative to having an engaging intellectual discussion.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:54:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
@welfare,

It is not welfare in the traditional sense. I can explain the difference later, possibly. Please spend 10 minutes reading up on universal basic income and you'll understand the differences between it and welfare.

I did kindly request people be somewhat knowledgable on what the term "basic income" means in this instance before commenting.

Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) (also called minimum income) is a system[1] of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test, and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to reduce poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a universal basic income.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So in some forms they are indistinguishable.

~ ~ ~
First, they involve a cash grant with no strings attached. Unlike other welfare programs which encourage or require recipients to consume certain specific kinds of good " such as medical care, housing, or food " a BIG simply gives people cash, and leaves them free to spend it, or save it, in whatever way they choose.

Second, a BIG is an unconditional grant for which every citizen (or at least every adult citizen) is eligible. It is not means-tested; checks are issued to poor and rich alike (though on some proposals payments to the rich will be partially or fully recaptured through the tax system). Beneficiaries do not have to pass a drug test or demonstrate that they are willing to work. If you"re alive, and a citizen, you get a check. Period.

http://www.cato-unbound.org...

So in other forms it is welfare with no strings attached.
Sign your name, get a bunch of money instead of this much for food, this much for housing, this much for energy, this much for child needs, this much for medical needs, etc., and no obligations to get the money, breath, sign you name, it is yours.

Henceforth, federal, state, and local governments shall make no law nor establish any program that provides benefits to some citizens but not to others. All programs currently providing such benefits are to be terminated. The funds formerly allocated to them are to be used instead to provide every citizen with a cash grant beginning at age twenty-one and continuing until death. The annual value of the cash grant at the program"s outset is to be $10,000.
(From above)

That would be $10,000 per person, $50,000 for a family of five.

Do I have a correct understanding?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:45:59 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Of course man. Look at his username: clearly, he joined to push an agenda. Admittedly, he's more bearable than the religionuts we're all too familiar with.

Well, a user name implies an agenda.
So what is your agenda, indecision?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:57:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:54:36 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
@welfare,

It is not welfare in the traditional sense. I can explain the difference later, possibly. Please spend 10 minutes reading up on universal basic income and you'll understand the differences between it and welfare.

I did kindly request people be somewhat knowledgable on what the term "basic income" means in this instance before commenting.

Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) (also called minimum income) is a system[1] of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test, and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to reduce poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a universal basic income.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So in some forms they are indistinguishable.

~ ~ ~
First, they involve a cash grant with no strings attached. Unlike other welfare programs which encourage or require recipients to consume certain specific kinds of good " such as medical care, housing, or food " a BIG simply gives people cash, and leaves them free to spend it, or save it, in whatever way they choose.

Second, a BIG is an unconditional grant for which every citizen (or at least every adult citizen) is eligible. It is not means-tested; checks are issued to poor and rich alike (though on some proposals payments to the rich will be partially or fully recaptured through the tax system). Beneficiaries do not have to pass a drug test or demonstrate that they are willing to work. If you"re alive, and a citizen, you get a check. Period.

http://www.cato-unbound.org...

So in other forms it is welfare with no strings attached.
Sign your name, get a bunch of money instead of this much for food, this much for housing, this much for energy, this much for child needs, this much for medical needs, etc., and no obligations to get the money, breath, sign you name, it is yours.

Henceforth, federal, state, and local governments shall make no law nor establish any program that provides benefits to some citizens but not to others. All programs currently providing such benefits are to be terminated. The funds formerly allocated to them are to be used instead to provide every citizen with a cash grant beginning at age twenty-one and continuing until death. The annual value of the cash grant at the program"s outset is to be $10,000.
(From above)


That would be $10,000 per person, $50,000 for a family of five.

Do I have a correct understanding?

Yes, people get paid for existing. Your understanding is correct. I think it may be possible to engage in intelligent discussion with you now. We'll see.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:58:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:56:28 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:45:59 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Of course man. Look at his username: clearly, he joined to push an agenda. Admittedly, he's more bearable than the religionuts we're all too familiar with.

Well, a user name implies an agenda.
So what is your agenda, indecision?

Lmfao.

I got a great laugh out of that, but it's okay. My username is based on a somewhat esoteric concept arcane to anyone who isn't a monetary policy wonk, so I'm not particularly surprised that you aren't aware of it (especially since I'm using a bastardized version of it).
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:58:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:52:58 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:50:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:45:59 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Of course man. Look at his username: clearly, he joined to push an agenda. Admittedly, he's more bearable than the religionuts we're all too familiar with.

Probably, I think I push an agenda too much myself but I'm trying to grow up. It is hard not to push an agenda when practically everyone else is, though.

Higher quality discussions can take place when people are intellectually honest.

Note: This post is for his benefit, though off topic.

I think everyone, to some extent, is "pushing an agenda" insofar as we're trying to influence someone to our way of thinking, though I tend to think, for most of us, that it's an ancillary goal relative to having an engaging intellectual discussion.

Ever hear of an agenda of truth?
I didn't think so.
It makes your posts rather suspect.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:50:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:45:59 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Of course man. Look at his username: clearly, he joined to push an agenda. Admittedly, he's more bearable than the religionuts we're all too familiar with.

Probably, I think I push an agenda too much myself but I'm trying to grow up. It is hard not to push an agenda when practically everyone else is, though.

Higher quality discussions can take place when people are intellectually honest.

Note: This post is for his benefit, though off topic.

I am intellectually honest, present company may not be.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:01:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:58:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:52:58 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:50:05 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:45:59 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:07:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Your post seemed off topic and a waste of time to read.

Of course man. Look at his username: clearly, he joined to push an agenda. Admittedly, he's more bearable than the religionuts we're all too familiar with.

Probably, I think I push an agenda too much myself but I'm trying to grow up. It is hard not to push an agenda when practically everyone else is, though.

Higher quality discussions can take place when people are intellectually honest.

Note: This post is for his benefit, though off topic.

I think everyone, to some extent, is "pushing an agenda" insofar as we're trying to influence someone to our way of thinking, though I tend to think, for most of us, that it's an ancillary goal relative to having an engaging intellectual discussion.

Ever hear of an agenda of truth?
I didn't think so.
It makes your posts rather suspect.

I think you're making a giant leap by presupposing that I don't care about truth when, in reality, I'm probably one of the least ideological and most open-minded people you'll ever meet. Further, the notion that my questioning of whether or not you came with an agenda such that you attempt to obscure the discussion at hand with irrelevant dribble--when you readily admit that you do in fact come with an agenda--makes my posts suspect is nothing more than ad hominem.

I highly suggest that you read what I and others have written, and focus on the merits of our arguments, rather than how you perceive us relative to your own agenda. You may learn a thing or two.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah