Universal Basic Income

[Venerable Bede]

How are you going to even get a work place to function if all management is only done by council voting?

Why would community stakeholders vote against their own interest? Voluntary subordination to a single will happens all the time and has worked in say Catalonia and to a lesser extent in the modern day cooperatives (though it would be wrong to fetishize them as many do)

That's correct, and how do you propose to ensure these managers don't become corrupt?

[Daburuetchi]

Why would community stakeholders vote against their own interest? Voluntary subordination to a single will happens all the time and has worked in say Catalonia and to a lesser extent in the modern day cooperatives (though it would be wrong to fetishize them as many do)

That's correct, and how do you propose to ensure these managers don't become corrupt?

Freedom of information regarding expenditures, appointed inspectors and the ability to dismiss managers with a 2/3 majority vote

[Venerable Bede]

That's correct, and how do you propose to ensure these managers don't become corrupt?

Freedom of information regarding expenditures, appointed inspectors and the ability to dismiss managers with a 2/3 majority vote

You can still embezzle money with freedom of information, that's how bank employees manage to embezzle from banks even though there is plenty of oversight. Also the majority vote is often heavily affected by popular leaders and demagogues, who can destroy someone's reputation with some well-placed words, or instigate paranoia, or scapegoat groups or individuals. It's very possible you'd also have different factions within this framework, and how each faction ran itself might be different.

[Daburuetchi]

Freedom of information regarding expenditures, appointed inspectors and the ability to dismiss managers with a 2/3 majority vote

You can still embezzle money with freedom of information, that's how bank employees manage to embezzle from banks even though there is plenty of oversight. Also the majority vote is often heavily affected by popular leaders and demagogues, who can destroy someone's reputation with some well-placed words, or instigate paranoia, or scapegoat groups or individuals. It's very possible you'd also have different factions within this framework, and how each faction ran itself might be different.

You could say the same thing about literally any enterprise. Nobody has a panacea. Anyhow if playing nice doesn't work threatening with the sword will.

[New Chalcedon]

Hello all. I can't seem to find a Universal Basic Income forum. It seems to be mentioned from time to time in other forums, but there don't seem to be any forums just for Universal Basic Income, so I am making one now. So to be clear a Universal Basic Income (UBI), sometimes called a Basic Income (BI), Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI), Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), citizen's dividend, citizen's income, etc... is a social safety net scheme in which all citizen's receive a minimum amount of money from their government or some other institution unconditionally. They will receive this money regardless if they work or don't work, regardless if they are wealthy or poor, the only criteria that is often taken into account in various versions of a UBI is citizenship (or legal residency in some cases) and age (which may or may not be a factor in receiving or how much you receive). The UBI is often used as a means to ensure that all citizen's have a minimum standard of living to survive, but not be in luxury; it allows for people whom work and therefor add value to the economy to make more money if they wish.

So what do people think of a UBI? What are the Pros and Cons of a UBI? Do you think we will eventually implement a UBI? What are the problems with a UBI? Can and How would we fix these problems? What would society look like with a UBI? Discuss.

Thank You. I am curious what viewpoints are out there on NationStates about this issue.

Oh, look. Another naive young leftist assuming that the lords and masters of the world will ever, ever, ever let anything as "wrongheaded"(read: freeing us from the necessity of working makework, boring, grind-jobs that serve zero purpose but emphasize our lowly place in the socioeconomic structure. Work 2 such jobs if you want to own your own home, and add 1 for every child you want to send to college) as UBI happen. Ever. This is always entertaining, watching young idealists like you have every last drop of hope squeezed out of them by our social realities.

[Galloism]

Hello all. I can't seem to find a Universal Basic Income forum. It seems to be mentioned from time to time in other forums, but there don't seem to be any forums just for Universal Basic Income, so I am making one now. So to be clear a Universal Basic Income (UBI), sometimes called a Basic Income (BI), Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI), Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), citizen's dividend, citizen's income, etc... is a social safety net scheme in which all citizen's receive a minimum amount of money from their government or some other institution unconditionally. They will receive this money regardless if they work or don't work, regardless if they are wealthy or poor, the only criteria that is often taken into account in various versions of a UBI is citizenship (or legal residency in some cases) and age (which may or may not be a factor in receiving or how much you receive). The UBI is often used as a means to ensure that all citizen's have a minimum standard of living to survive, but not be in luxury; it allows for people whom work and therefor add value to the economy to make more money if they wish.

So what do people think of a UBI? What are the Pros and Cons of a UBI? Do you think we will eventually implement a UBI? What are the problems with a UBI? Can and How would we fix these problems? What would society look like with a UBI? Discuss.

Thank You. I am curious what viewpoints are out there on NationStates about this issue.

Oh, look. Another naive young leftist assuming that the lords and masters of the world will ever, ever, ever let anything as "wrongheaded"(read: freeing us from the necessity of working makework, boring, grind-jobs that serve zero purpose but emphasize our lowly place in the socioeconomic structure. Work 2 such jobs if you want to own your own home, and add 1 for every child you want to send to college) as UBI happen. Ever. This is always entertaining, watching young idealists like you have every last drop of hope squeezed out of them by our social realities.

Just you wait until I get my mass mind control device.

[New Chalcedon]

Just you wait until I get my mass mind control device.

That's what it would take to get the elites to go along with such an idea. As well ask a tyrant to abdicate his crown, as ask the wealthy to surrender the power and prestige "their" wealth gets them.

[IceBuddha]

A question for UBI advocates: How big of a UBI do you envision/want?

If the United States gave out $10,000 a year per person as a basic income, they'd spend ~3.25 trillion dollars a year, or ~17.45 percent of GDP. Would children receive a basic income? If not, should someone's UBI increase if they have dependents? If so, how would that be managed? If the parents get to spend that money, would there be restrictions? Should some people (like the disabled or elderly) get a bigger UBI than other people?

[ChicagoBoys]

I would support a negative income tax in lieu of welfare but I think a UBI would go too far to be effective.

There have been studies done before and some should be ongoing in the Netherlands. I'll post some links

Mincome Experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome?wprov=sfla1

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6335682

http://www.cbc.ca/1.868562

New experiments in Europe

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/02/state-handouts-for-all-europe-set-to-pilot-universal-basic-incomes

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... -uk-greens

[Herador]

I'm pro universal basic income for the poor. Or a negative income tax.

It's a lot simpler than our current Welfare system, but still helps people.

How would you stop people from simply wasting the money? I feel like I should say I'm not anti-welfare or anything like that, but I am curious how the system you have in mind would actually function.

God I hope that made sense.

[New Chalcedon]

I would support a negative income tax in lieu of welfare but I think a UBI would go too far to be effective.

There have been studies done before and some should be ongoing in the Netherlands. I'll post some links

Mincome Experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome?wprov=sfla1

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6335682

http://www.cbc.ca/1.868562

New experiments in Europe

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/02/state-handouts-for-all-europe-set-to-pilot-universal-basic-incomes

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... -uk-greens

The premise of a UBI, as opposed to an NIT, is that the jobs-to-population ratio is out of balance (self-evidently true), and that it won't get back into balance due to automation cutting out human involvement from many steps of production of goods and services (much more debatable).

However: Assuming that the UBI proponents are correct, and the so-called "jobless future" is on the cards, an NIT doesn't help while a UBI does. Mostly because the NIT is based on how much money you earned - but if there aren't enough jobs for everyone, then the NIT gives those without the jobs nothing.

My issues with the UBI isn't technocratic - if their premises are sound, the UBI proponents' logic adds up as far as "helping society survive in a post-mass-employment era" goes. And there's some evidence that their premises are sound - multiple academic and financial studies have projected mass job losses for Western economies in a wide variety of industries over the next 10-15 years. While the more optimistic studies (such as Deloitte's study of the Swiss economy) "assume" equivalent job growth essentially out of thin air (magic asterisks, anyone?), I find their arguments unconvincing - especially since most of the "projected" job types are ones which can be perfectly well handled by automation, and since they attribute all job growth since 1990 to increased automation, which is just silly.

My problem with UBI proponents is that they assume that somehow, somewhen, the wealthy and powerful will See The Light, realize that society doesn't exist if it's only a few rich farts, and accept a diminished (but still powerful) role in a more humane, egalitarian society going forward.

Any student of history will, naturally, repond, "As if!!" The wealthy and powerful will cling to every skerrick and scrap of their wealth and power as long as there is breath in their bodies. As Frederick Douglass pointed out over 200 years ago, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." My corollary to Douglass' aphorism is: "A demand without the means to enforce it is of no value."

[New Chalcedon]

I'm pro universal basic income for the poor. Or a negative income tax.

It's a lot simpler than our current Welfare system, but still helps people.

How would you stop people from simply wasting the money? I feel like I should say I'm not anti-welfare or anything like that, but I am curious how the system you have in mind would actually function.

God I hope that made sense.

I've noticed this habit among neoliberals, "technocrats" and centre-rightists of all sorts - they feel the need to inquire as to what, precisely, the poor are doing with the pittances the State so magnanimously grants them. And invariably, they find an example to seize upon to establish that the "undeserving poor" are not only undeserving of the magnificent largess of below-poverty-line handouts - which, just as invariably, leads to calls to punish the undeserving poor. Make 'em work for their sub-poverty-level income, crack the whip, smack around the "bludgers" whenever they want to distract the electorate's attention from the utter failure of neoliberalism to deliver the broad-based prosperity it promised, all those years ago.

Yet somehow, somehow, that thirst for accountability in use of "taxpayers' funds" never quite seems to reach to the gilded corporate offices which dispose of billions annually in subsidies, tax breaks, grants, infrastructure usage and so on. Indeed, anyone who so much as questions the wisdom of gifting said billions of dollars in public money to enormously profitable enterprises is tarred, feathered and run out of town as a "job-killer" or, worse, "anti-business Socialist".

[Herador]

I've noticed this habit among neoliberals, "technocrats" and centre-rightists of all sorts - they feel the need to inquire as to what, precisely, the poor are doing with the pittances the State so magnanimously grants them. And invariably, they find an example to seize upon to establish that the "undeserving poor" are not only undeserving of the magnificent largess of below-poverty-line handouts - which, just as invariably, leads to calls to punish the undeserving poor. Make 'em work for their sub-poverty-level income, crack the whip, smack around the "bludgers" whenever they want to distract the electorate's attention from the utter failure of neoliberalism to deliver the broad-based prosperity it promised, all those years ago.

Yet somehow, somehow, that thirst for accountability in use of "taxpayers' funds" never quite seems to reach to the gilded corporate offices which dispose of billions annually in subsidies, tax breaks, grants, infrastructure usage and so on. Indeed, anyone who so much as questions the wisdom of gifting said billions of dollars in public money to enormously profitable enterprises is tarred, feathered and run out of town as a "job-killer" or, worse, "anti-business Socialist".

I'm pro universal basic income for the poor. Or a negative income tax.

It's a lot simpler than our current Welfare system, but still helps people.

How would you stop people from simply wasting the money? I feel like I should say I'm not anti-welfare or anything like that, but I am curious how the system you have in mind would actually function.

God I hope that made sense.

I have no idea what spawned that little rant.

[Zurkerx]

I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.

Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.

This really.

[New Chalcedon]

I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.

Yeah, starving the poor's working so well in Western economies right now, isn't it? I mean, it's been the dominant economic paradigm for 35 years...it's not like rural, remote or disadvantaged communities are collapsing, crumbling and generally falling apart or anything.

The NIT-as-UBI has indeed been embraced by economists across the spectrum as an efficient method of delivery of a welfare state; those economists sharply disagree on what they consider to be the optimum "floor" for income. And, frankly, in an economy - again, assuming that UBI advocates' central premise is correct - where there are 7 jobs for every 10 people, using the goad of poverty to push people into finding work is...not going to. Work, that is.

Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.

Mhm. Because disabled or injured people don't need additional resources to meet medical bills, aged people never need money to meet the extra day-to-day expenses that come with getting old, parents with children are just fine on a single-person budget, and so on. Right?

[Community Values]

I'm pro universal basic income for the poor. Or a negative income tax.

It's a lot simpler than our current Welfare system, but still helps people.

How would you stop people from simply wasting the money? I feel like I should say I'm not anti-welfare or anything like that, but I am curious how the system you have in mind would actually function.

God I hope that made sense.

I have faith that people will pay rent and buy food before spending all of it on heroin. Anyways, people should have the choice to pay for what they want. If someone wants to pay for their rent, but only has food stamps, he's still going to be homeless, just with more food. If someone wants to buy luxuries before necessities, that's the guy's choice.

[Herador]

How would you stop people from simply wasting the money? I feel like I should say I'm not anti-welfare or anything like that, but I am curious how the system you have in mind would actually function.

God I hope that made sense.

I have faith that people will pay rent and buy food before spending all of it on heroin. Anyways, people should have the choice to pay for what they want. If someone wants to pay for their rent, but only has food stamps, he's still going to be homeless, just with more food. If someone wants to buy luxuries before necessities, that's the guy's choice.

I can see your point of view here.

[New Chalcedon]

I've noticed this habit among neoliberals, "technocrats" and centre-rightists of all sorts - they feel the need to inquire as to what, precisely, the poor are doing with the pittances the State so magnanimously grants them. And invariably, they find an example to seize upon to establish that the "undeserving poor" are not only undeserving of the magnificent largess of below-poverty-line handouts - which, just as invariably, leads to calls to punish the undeserving poor. Make 'em work for their sub-poverty-level income, crack the whip, smack around the "bludgers" whenever they want to distract the electorate's attention from the utter failure of neoliberalism to deliver the broad-based prosperity it promised, all those years ago.

Yet somehow, somehow, that thirst for accountability in use of "taxpayers' funds" never quite seems to reach to the gilded corporate offices which dispose of billions annually in subsidies, tax breaks, grants, infrastructure usage and so on. Indeed, anyone who so much as questions the wisdom of gifting said billions of dollars in public money to enormously profitable enterprises is tarred, feathered and run out of town as a "job-killer" or, worse, "anti-business Socialist".

I have no idea what spawned that little rant.

Oh, of course you don't. You were "just arsking questions" about welfare bums wasting the pittance the State magnanimously grants them....yeah, right.

[Herador]

I have no idea what spawned that little rant.

Oh, of course you don't. You were "just arsking questions" about welfare bums wasting the pittance the State magnanimously grants them....yeah, right.

I love the assumptions based on nothing. I didn't comment about the amount given out, I didn't make a snide remark about the people getting it, I didn't even mention fiscal responsibility in other parts of life though you certainly felt the need to bring it up for some reason. I just asked how the system he proposed would deal with mismanagement of funds. People can spend a check badly on accident and not have spent it all on booze, hookers, and drugs.

E: Wasting was the wrong word, I'll give you that. "misspending" is what I probably should have gone with.

[New Chalcedon]

Oh, of course you don't. You were "just arsking questions" about welfare bums wasting the pittance the State magnanimously grants them....yeah, right.

I love the assumptions based on nothing. I didn't comment about the amount given out, I didn't make a snide remark about the people getting it, I didn't even mention fiscal responsibility in other parts of life though you certainly felt the need to bring it up for some reason. I just asked how the system he proposed would deal with mismanagement of funds. People can spend a check badly on accident and not have spent it all on booze, hookers, and drugs.

Shall I quote you?

How would you stop people from simply wasting the money? I feel like I should say I'm not anti-welfare or anything like that, but I am curious how the system you have in mind would actually function.

God I hope that made sense.

Let's break this down, and see what each bit means.

How would you stop people from simply wasting the money?

This "just asking a question" rhetorical question is a masterpiece of misdirection. At once, it evokes an earnest, "I really want to know" tone of voice (perfect for entrapping the respondent into saying something unwise), as well as attacking poor people on two separate points:

1. The question assumes that coercive action ("stopping people") is necessary to stop recipients of a UBI from wasting the money.
2. The question also assumes that recipients of transfer payments are more prone to wasting money than the general populace. Although I must concede, you don't then go on to say, "on hookers and blow"....baby steps in "Not Dehumanizing Poor People 101", I guess.

I feel like I should say I'm not anti-welfare or anything like that,

That's a textbook "I'm not X, but...X" line. Therefore, I may infer that you are, in fact, anti-welfare; you just lack the speck of moral courage required to come into the open and admit it, so you cover your anti-welfare "just asking a question" with a prefatory "Not anti-welfare, but...".

but I am curious how the system you have in mind would actually function.

Combined with the first sentence, this sentence clearly states that (in your view) such a system would not function. And that, again in your view, the reason that such a system would not function is because poor people would simply waste any money they're given. Whether it's because they're too stupid to manage money properly, too addicted to <insert latest drug of choice here> or just too bumfuck lazy to be bothered.

Whatever the cause of poor people wasting money, your first sentence establishes your preferred remedy: Coercive action of one kind or another (almost certainly by the government) to force poor people to not waste whatever money they're given.

God I hope that made sense.

Fluff. Harmless.

So: Overall, I'm actually quite impressed. In the span of two sentences, you manage to pack in - and more, encourage a casual reader to adopt - the level of disdain that it takes Andrew Bolt half a page to enunciate in your typical Murdoch rag. Short enought that it'll stick in the reader's mind, yet provocative enough to shift opinions against people on welfare. Well done.

In all seriousness, have you considered a career working for the Murdoch media? They pay top dollar for skilled "opinion-shapers".

[Herador]

-snip-

Dude, I am telling you that this is a miscommunication. All I wanted to know was how CV's proposed system would deal with a check spent on "non-essentials". Shit man, I'd take "I wouldn't it's up to them how to use it" as a perfectly acceptable answer.
Actually, I did.

I have faith that people will pay rent and buy food before spending all of it on heroin. Anyways, people should have the choice to pay for what they want. If someone wants to pay for their rent, but only has food stamps, he's still going to be homeless, just with more food. If someone wants to buy luxuries before necessities, that's the guy's choice.

I can see your point of view here.

There was no implication, what was written is what was meant. I was genuine when I said I'm not against welfare, you're reading waaaaay too far into what was at worst a poorly written comment made when I was multitasking.

[Community Values]

stuff

Do me next! Find out my "secret ebul agenda"!

[Imperializt Russia]

I think your heart is in the right place, but the state should be addressing the disease more than symptom: money like this would probably go more to consumerism than improving quality of life.

People would be able to improve their quality of life through all sorts of avenues, including simply the purchasing of goods they could not before.

UBI should not be viewed as a solution, no, it should be seen as a stage to fixing the issue.

I for instance, am currently unemployed and deeply depressed due to my financial, family and educational situation. A universal basic income would give me the money to move away, seek employment, pay off my debts and straighten out my education.

[Islamic Republic e Jariri]

Unfortunately UCI would probably raise taxes, which in turn would raise prices in the marketplace, which in turn would negatively impact the financial health of the poor, thus rendering UCI obsolete by its own design. Kind of like a snake eating itself...

[Imperializt Russia]

Unfortunately UCI would probably raise taxes, which in turn would raise prices in the marketplace, which in turn would negatively impact the financial health of the poor, thus rendering UCI obsolete by its own design. Kind of like a snake eating itself...

Universal basic income in most countries would displace significant amounts of welfare spending, so the cost is much less than it would appear at face value.