Opinion of basic income?

[RaphaelDLG]

I mean, I see this idea talked up on normally neoliberal Vox all the time, it recently failed a ballot initiative in Switzerland:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/6/11861018/switzerland-basic-income-vote-rejected

I'm in favor a comprehensive, generous welfare state and aggressively progressive taxation - much different than the US has now...

...but is basic income not just a totally INSANE idea?

1) You are taking away lower income folks' incentives to work and be productive - there's a gigantic moral hazard component
2) The point of the welfare state is that it makes sure that the vulnerable in society have access to needs (food, shelter, healthcare, education), not a blank check so that they can go blow their money on Playstations and crack

[OSR stands with Israel]

Horrible Idea

[Thunderbird is the word]

Freedom idea, if automation is inevitable it should primarily benefit humanity. This would increase labor power and immediately have an upward wage effect. Also would allow creative types to focus fully on their pursuits rather then a sh**tty job.

[Maxwell]

Wouldn't it also be deeply inflationary? It would cause a dramatic price increase on goods that make up a large portion of where income goes for both middle class and lower class families. The rich would be relatively unscathed in this sort of thing.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Wouldn't it also be deeply inflationary? It would cause a dramatic price increase on goods that make up a large portion of where income goes for both middle class and lower class families. The rich would be relatively unscathed in this sort of thing.

That's why it should be inflation adjusted

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A good idea, although not a silver bullet.

(I laugh at people who seriously thought the Swiss would vote for it though)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Telling people what they can spend their money on (your second point) even if it given to them is just another tactic of hating the poor for no reason. Yes, drugs are a concern as is ensuring children, if any, are nourished, but if they prefer a Play Station to food, you can't really stop them. Nor should you tell them what is best for them.

Children do muddy it up, but yes, a food card can coexist with it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

As a strategy for decreasing poverty it blows accepted stuff like the minimum wage and workfare out the window though.

Telling people what they can spend their money on (your second point) even if it given to them is just another tactic of hating the poor for no reason. Yes, drugs are a concern as is ensuring children, if any, are nourished, but if they prefer a Play Station to food, you can't really stop them. Nor should you tell them what is best for them.

Children do muddy it up, but yes, a food card can coexist with it.

And this. Irt children Brazil does it best, by linking Bolsa Familia with school attendance. not that it didn't stop conservatives there crying that the poor would just spend all the money drinking.

[RaphaelDLG]

Freedom idea, if automation is inevitable it should primarily benefit humanity. This would increase labor power and immediately have an upward wage effect. Also would allow creative types to focus fully on their pursuits rather then a sh**tty job.

Is automation actually going to result in mass unemployment in the long run, or is it just going to shift employment even further from manufacturing and ag to service (particularly non-essentials like entertainment) and information?

With the caveat that automation will probably increase inequality, so the rich must be brought to heel via some democratic socialist means, and fully financed quality tertiary education is necessary to ensure everyone can get information jobs.

[RaphaelDLG]

As a strategy for decreasing poverty it blows accepted stuff like the minimum wage and workfare out the window though.

Telling people what they can spend their money on (your second point) even if it given to them is just another tactic of hating the poor for no reason. Yes, drugs are a concern as is ensuring children, if any, are nourished, but if they prefer a Play Station to food, you can't really stop them. Nor should you tell them what is best for them.

Children do muddy it up, but yes, a food card can coexist with it.

And this. Irt children Brazil does it best, by linking Bolsa Familia with school attendance. not that it didn't stop conservatives there crying that the poor would just spend all the money drinking.

Uh, how is giving poor and middle-class people generous welfare benefits "hating the poor?"  I'm totally against the conservative strategy of demonizing poor people as low character individuals who got there because of their own inferiority, as they almost always get into poverty due to at least some factors beyond their control and such demonization shows a profound ignorance of reality and lack of empathy.

But does the state not have an obligation to use its laws to encourage people to make wholesome decisions that benefit society?  Ultimately, people can do what they want with their lives, but the state shouldn't be subsidizing decisions that are bad for society, and should be subsidizing decisions that are good for society.

I also think that you can recognize that human beings are frail, behave in predictable ways, engage in irrational short-term thinking, and often have little self-control... without castigating them or looking down on them for it.

[NeverAgain]

Against it. I'm a huge lib, but I think that it's silly. I support a fair minimum wage, an increase to the safety net, and a decent paying job for all Americans. I think this not only will drain the funds for those projects, but we become a Welfare state where more and more people are dependent on the Government, no one should be dependent on the Government unless they really need it. Therefore we should expand our existing programs.

I always think of it like a birthday party, the gift cards are from people who really care and understand what you need, the cash is from people who don't know you. I think education, healthcare, and housing all need to be accessible and affordable, but giving out free money doesn't solve it.

[Pyro]

The market is not the solution to the very same problems generated by the market system.

Enough with the table scraps.

[Santander]

It may be good economics, but I could never support it on moral grounds.

[Goldwater]

Honestly, I kind of like the idea. Seems like it would overall cheaper and more efficient than complex bureaucratic welfare schemes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

As a strategy for decreasing poverty it blows accepted stuff like the minimum wage and workfare out the window though.

Telling people what they can spend their money on (your second point) even if it given to them is just another tactic of hating the poor for no reason. Yes, drugs are a concern as is ensuring children, if any, are nourished, but if they prefer a Play Station to food, you can't really stop them. Nor should you tell them what is best for them.

Children do muddy it up, but yes, a food card can coexist with it.

And this. Irt children Brazil does it best, by linking Bolsa Familia with school attendance. not that it didn't stop conservatives there crying that the poor would just spend all the money drinking.

Uh, how is giving poor and middle-class people generous welfare benefits "hating the poor?"  I'm totally against the conservative strategy of demonizing poor people as low character individuals who got there because of their own inferiority, as they almost always get into poverty due to at least some factors beyond their control and such demonization shows a profound ignorance of reality and lack of empathy.

But does the state not have an obligation to use its laws to encourage people to make wholesome decisions that benefit society?  Ultimately, people can do what they want with their lives, but the state shouldn't be subsidizing decisions that are bad for society, and should be subsidizing decisions that are good for society.

I also think that you can recognize that human beings are frail, behave in predictable ways, engage in irrational short-term thinking, and often have little self-control... without castigating them or looking down on them for it.

Because existing strategies don't help. existing benefit systems perversely discourage useful work and further education, and encourage worthless mini jobs that don't benefit society as a whole. Perhaps the Bi isn't the best way to solve this issue (perhaps a negative income tax is better), but the existing way benefits are set-up is they are only given to some arbitrary group of despondents, and as soon as you dare leave under your own will, the government immediately punishes you for it.

[RaphaelDLG]

As a strategy for decreasing poverty it blows accepted stuff like the minimum wage and workfare out the window though.

Telling people what they can spend their money on (your second point) even if it given to them is just another tactic of hating the poor for no reason. Yes, drugs are a concern as is ensuring children, if any, are nourished, but if they prefer a Play Station to food, you can't really stop them. Nor should you tell them what is best for them.

Children do muddy it up, but yes, a food card can coexist with it.

And this. Irt children Brazil does it best, by linking Bolsa Familia with school attendance. not that it didn't stop conservatives there crying that the poor would just spend all the money drinking.

Uh, how is giving poor and middle-class people generous welfare benefits "hating the poor?"  I'm totally against the conservative strategy of demonizing poor people as low character individuals who got there because of their own inferiority, as they almost always get into poverty due to at least some factors beyond their control and such demonization shows a profound ignorance of reality and lack of empathy.

But does the state not have an obligation to use its laws to encourage people to make wholesome decisions that benefit society?  Ultimately, people can do what they want with their lives, but the state shouldn't be subsidizing decisions that are bad for society, and should be subsidizing decisions that are good for society.

I also think that you can recognize that human beings are frail, behave in predictable ways, engage in irrational short-term thinking, and often have little self-control... without castigating them or looking down on them for it.

Because existing strategies don't help. existing benefit systems perversely discourage useful work and further education, and encourage worthless mini jobs that don't benefit society as a whole. Perhaps the Bi isn't the best way to solve this issue (perhaps a negative income tax is better), but the existing way benefits are set-up is they are only given to some arbitrary group of despondents, and as soon as you dare leave under your own will, the government immediately punishes you for it.

To be clear, I'm talking about a non-means tested universal benefit system like Social Security or Medicare.  I'm opposed to "means-testing" and think the best way to do so is via taxation.

Is a negative income tax with the cash value of medicare-for-all better than medicare-for-all?!?  Ditto for free public tertiary education.

[SWE]

My favorite part of it is this component:

1) You are taking away lower income folks' incentives to work and be productive - there's a gigantic moral hazard component

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Honestly, I kind of like the idea. Seems like it would overall cheaper and more efficient than complex bureaucratic welfare schemes.

Same.

It's inherently socialist in nature, to be sure, but in many ways it's also inherently libertarian in nature. If the social safety net is to exist, this is a reasonably non-invasive way to execute it.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Support it 100%! With such a system we could guarantee everybody a decent standard of living. It is also more efficient than Social Security and other social safety net programs.

[Santander]

Wow, it's really something when libertarians and socialists agree on something related to government spending. I didn't expect something like this. Ontario is going to trial basic income on a large scale this year, so it should be interesting to see how this goes in a country that is culturally similar to the US.

Speaking of Ontario, I like how they administer some of their social programs through the tax system - it reduces redundancy and it also eliminates much of the stigma associated with government assistance. I'm a big proponent of "good government", and I think that's a great example of it. (of course, Alberta and Saskatchewan are still far superior)

[RaphaelDLG]

Support it 100%! With such a system we could guarantee everybody a decent standard of living. It is also more efficient than Social Security and other social safety net programs.

As far as I can tell, it would work exactly the same way as social security does for the over 65 crowd.  Might be funded by a different form of taxation.

[sparkey]

Basic economics time!

When you subsidize something, you get more of it!

This is money for doing nothing!

Therefore...?

[Intell]

More Capitalism to fix capitalism. Just socalise the means of production, have a generous welfare state, with right to healthcare, housing and all the rest and redistribute wealth if it need be.

[Phony Moderate]

Basic economics time!

When you subsidize something, you get more of it!

This is money for doing nothing!

Therefore...?

Maybe we can dig up and ask the well-known Trotskyist Milton Friedman (who supported it) this question.

[SWE]

Basic economics time!

When you subsidize something, you get more of it!

This is money for doing nothing!

Therefore...?

What's wrong with more people doing nothing?