Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mincome grosses me out which I know is backwards thinking. It just goes against my core values of a simplistic meritocracy.

It doesn't have to though, the key is finding something else to reward people with. The work I do is poorly paid but I'm rewarded in publications and having my opinion valued. That stuff makes me far more enthusiastic to work than an increased pay packet would. So it's not outlandish to assume there could be a separate reward for working.

Although let's not beat around the bush, mincome is just communism under another name. Maybe automation is what was missing the first time around.

You know what's scary about automation? I already prefer dealing with machines than people. So do many others. I was in the supermarket and found myself walking past empty cashiers to the self serve. So were others. The only time I actually go to a person in the supermarket is if the queue is shorter than the self serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although let's not beat around the bush, mincome is just communism under another name. Maybe automation is what was missing the first time around.

 

Mincome can still retain the capitalist ideas though because it's not about everyone having the same thing, it's about everyone being guaranteed to have the same baseline. You can earn above that if your work is valued economically. You just might earn less than before due to increased taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm more interested in funding social-welfare programs and public infrastructure for the commons than I am for mincome. I don't think that the majority of people have the ability to use free money for basic needs like healthcare, rather than luxury items. Advertising has convinced the population that consumable fads and convenience are necessities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm more interested in funding social-welfare programs and public infrastructure for the commons than I am for mincome. I don't think that the majority of people have the ability to use free money for basic needs like healthcare, rather than luxury items. Advertising has convinced the population that consumable fads and convenience are necessities.

 

Oof. This is the same kind of "they don't need welfare because they have a car" type of arguments that are just infuriating. It does not behoove anyone to be judgmental and condescending to impoverished people. Society has already failed them once. There's no need to put our failures on their shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether or not you believe a basic income for all is a good thing, the fact is that it will be a NECESSITY once automation becomes more and more prevalent. Where will these people work when all the basic jobs go away? They'll need some sort of education to move into different fields, but without a living wage, they can't get that education. Basic income gives them a way to live while learning, and then they can move into fields where automation is impossible (for now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mincome grosses me out which I know is backwards thinking. It just goes against my core values of a simplistic meritocracy.

It doesn't have to though, the key is finding something else to reward people with. The work I do is poorly paid but I'm rewarded in publications and having my opinion valued. That stuff makes me far more enthusiastic to work than an increased pay packet would. So it's not outlandish to assume there could be a separate reward for working.

 

I think it's obvious enough with the privilege given to people by their race, gender, and economic status that the world we live in is hardly a simplistic meritocracy. Additionally, if we take a look at the case study I borrowed the portmanteau from, though the results are a bit complicated, the most notable people dropping out of the labor market are mothers and teenagers, who instead of working pursued child rearing and education respectively. I think, like you're saying about the additional rewards from work, people are inherently compelled to do something. Mincome will be a huge change for the hearts and minds of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although let's not beat around the bush, mincome is just communism under another name. Maybe automation is what was missing the first time around.

 

This is not true at all. Communism implies nationalization of industries and no free market. A guaranteed income implies nothing of the sort - in fact, it's an extremely capitalist solution to the problem. It's Social Security under a a different name, not communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's probably worth clarifying that basic income / guaranteed income / mincome is NOT free money for everyone.

 

It's literally a minimum amount of money per X days (probably month? i dunno depends on implementation i suppose). So if you make OVER that minimum income, you don't get anything from the government. In fact, anything over that minimum gets taxed. If you make under, but still make money, you get enough to reach that minimum.

 

Say the minimum is something easy like... 10. You make 9. Government gives you 1. You make 11. Government taxes the 1 (say, 50% or something, leaving you with 10.5). In this system, generally, the more money you make over the minimum, the more you get taxed, obviously. Those taxes (plus decreased spending elsewhere, shifting of spending from welfare, other now-defunct programs, etc.) pay for the basic income for everyone who doesn't make enough.

 

There might be some people who abuse the system, but I'm fairly certain there are a significant number of studies that show that people who live in comfort and don't have to worry about their daily paycheck will be much more inspired to go work, and they'll be much more happy about it. And work doesn't just mean something that pays a wage. In Spenny's example, work includes child-rearing, pursuing education, etc.

 

Okay that's the basics. Someone more educated than me can fill in any blanks or correct me if I made a mistake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.

 

I find this to be a really incredible effect. In places with public health care an 8.5 drop in hospital visits translates directly to less government spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mincome is also a tremendous driver of economy, particularly for people working at the lower end of wage curve. pay for it by returning tax levels to immediate post war rates. 

 

we don't live in a world with a pure meritocracy. the class you're born into statistically determines where you'll likely stay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oof. This is the same kind of "they don't need welfare because they have a car" type of arguments that are just infuriating. It does not behoove anyone to be judgmental and condescending to impoverished people. Society has already failed them once. There's no need to put our failures on their shoulders.

I don't have as much faith in people as you do. I'm not being judgemental and condescending to poor people exclusively, I have the same feelings about the rich. I expect folks to spend money on stuff that won't help anyone but themselves and in many cases won't even do that. Why would we need a mincome if the money for it was spent on social programs that benefit us as a community? And programs that are decided on and formed by the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's obvious enough with the privilege given to people by their race, gender, and economic status that the world we live in is hardly a simplistic meritocracy. Additionally, if we take a look at the case study I borrowed the portmanteau from, though the results are a bit complicated, the most notable people dropping out of the labor market are mothers and teenagers, who instead of working pursued child rearing and education respectively. I think, like you're saying about the additional rewards from work, people are inherently compelled to do something. Mincome will be a huge change for the hearts and minds of people.

 

I never said we live in such a place, only that my values are as such.

 

This is not true at all. Communism implies nationalization of industries and no free market. A guaranteed income implies nothing of the sort - in fact, it's an extremely capitalist solution to the problem. It's Social Security under a a different name, not communism.

 

You're entirely right.

 

I guess the obvious issue with this sort of thing, is that it pretty much has to be implemented globally, or anyone earning enough to be taxed enough would simply leave the country and move to somewhere that they don't have to pay ludicrous amounts of tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the obvious issue with this sort of thing, is that it pretty much has to be implemented globally, or anyone earning enough to be taxed enough would simply leave the country and move to somewhere that they don't have to pay ludicrous amounts of tax.

 

Well if that was true wouldn't lots of people be migrating to the more socialist countries where they don't have to worry about health care costs, etc.?

 

Like why stay in America. We don't treat our people well, so everyone should be trying to leave for a better place!

 

Although that said, is that really a huge problem if it does happen? More people means more economic growth as those people spend money and find their own jobs etc.

 

EDIT: Oh, I see, you're saying they'd leave the country. Well, in that case I'll flip it around. If that was true, why aren't we seeing people moving en masse from the more socialist countries to places where they pay less in taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have as much faith in people as you do. I'm not being judgemental and condescending to poor people exclusively, I have the same feelings about the rich. I expect folks to spend money on stuff that won't help anyone but themselves and in many cases won't even do that. 

 

Research doesn't bear this out. I don't have links on hand, but everything I've ever seen suggests that given money to the desperately poor is an incredibly good investment. They don't spend it on bullshit, they spend it on things that help them survive and stop being poor.

 

EDIT: As for the social programs thing, while I definitely agree that a minimum income wouldn't replace everything - for instance, I would still advocate for publicly-funded education and health - the benefit over say, food stamps, is that a minimum income is fungible. If I'm on food stamps and decide that I'd like to be frugal for a few months in order to save up for school or a move or something, I can't do that - food stamps are food stamps and that's that. But if I'm instead receiving a cash transfer and spent a portion of that money on food, I can decide to spend less of that money on food in order to save up for something that I think will give me more benefit in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saving up funds by not eating healthy is exactly the kind of thing that I wouldn't support. I wonder how those studies measure whether or not the desperately poor have spent their money well.

Seems to me that if basic needs which everyone should have are paid for with public funds, then additional public funds shpuld be used on community development rather than private luxury. There are a lot of things public money could be spent on that would benefit a wide swath of folks that are not only not funded now, but would never be funded if it depended on infividual members pooling cash that they could spend privately instead.

Also there are reasons that companies are willing to spend billions on advertising campaigns. People are susceptible to the illusion that consumer goods will provide them with better community statuses. I suspect that public programs have a better chance of lifting all ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we now comparing a minimum income needed to live comfortably to "private luxury"?

 

And you know what, so what if there are some bad apples? Why should we let them ruin the lives of good people? Why are we basing the worth of a concept on the worst people instead of the best people who NEED this change? Why are we pretending that because one person might abuse the system, another person doesn't deserve to live free of the stress and worry about surviving another week, another day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spending less on food does not necessarily translate to not eating healthy. You can get all your nutrition on very little money.

 

I'm pretty confused over the community development vs private luxury thing. France guarantees everyone a basic income equivalent to working a minimum wage job. They do plenty of community spending and I don't think anyone can accuse those who live on RSA of private luxury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see, you're saying they'd leave the country. Well, in that case I'll flip it around. If that was true, why aren't we seeing people moving en masse from the more socialist countries to places where they pay less in taxes?

 

Taxes aren't high enough to warrant that. And I'd also argue that you do indeed see businesses basing their headquarters in countries that have favourable tax rates. I'm not saying that every middle class person would leave, I'm talking about the mega rich (the 1%). The ones who would actually be able to fund this sort of venture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll use the term "expenditures that are unnecessary for living a healthy and productive life and that benefit a small set of individuals rather the a larger community" instead of "private luxury" to avoid confusion.

What I am trying to say is that there is a huge amount of potential in improvements to the community as a whole that I think would better serve the purpose than giving everyone a little bit of money for candy after their basic needs are met. Public education, environmentally sustainable energy, public transportation, affordable housing, means to produce, infrastructure (like the internet) that makes it easier for communities to form on smaller issues. I think it's difficult to imagine the community running out of ideas for beneficial improvements before funding becomes an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition of a "healthy life" doesn't seem to include recreation, which really just puts us at an impasse.

 

And it's really kind of staggering to me how you say you're not judgmental or condescending to the impoverished, then say the impoverished shouldn't get "a little bit of money for candy after their basic needs are met."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition of a "healthy life" doesn't seem to include recreation, which really just puts us at an impasse.

And it's really kind of staggering to me how you say you're not judgmental or condescending to the impoverished, then say the impoverished shouldn't get "a little bit of money for candy after their basic needs are met."

If we are at at impasse it is not because recreation is not included in my idea of "healthy". I don't know why you are assuming that.

I'm am being judgmental and condescending to the impoverished, because I'm judgmental and condescending to people as a whole when discussing their capability to wisely allocate labor that benefits communities beyond the ones with which they identify. I don't understand why you would require that I have the same faith as you in people to spend money in reasonably understandable, beneficial ways... in order to converse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One issue here is clyde is talking from a very authoritarian approach that most people here don't seem to align with. ie. The government should determine what is best for people and spend the money for them accordingly. You may believe in an authoritarian government, and I do in certain ways but not in terms of budgeting and spending like this.

 

To an extent a system will always fail individuals because a system cannot account for the full range of situations. Some people just eat less food than others, why would they all need the same amount of food stamps? Obviously the government can't fully assess how much food individuals need, but this illustrates a failing of assuming you can decide things for other people like this. You have the idea that people will spend on luxury, but it's neither based on anything other than your general feeling nor is it actually going to be true of every individual a mincome would affect.

 

(I also think you overestimate how much a mincome is, I would imagine it would just about cover cost of living, it would hardly overshoot it by much at all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both of these articles seem to be about how the poor don't spend as much on luxury goods as the rich largely because they are spending their money on basic needs. I don't think I'm suggesting otherwise.

@superbiasedman

Any community is going to be authoritarian in some sense, some more or less than others. In that way, yes I'm describing authoritarian allocation of labor and resources. But if we are measuring whether or not groups should make decisions on what resources and services individuals within that group should be provided with, I suspect we would use some measurement of averaged living-standards within a reasonably equitable spectrum (no enormous inequalities od wealth as we have now). Even though some people eat less than others and some people have kids that need education while others do not and some people benefit from a space-program more than others, I don't think that providing folks with spending money is going to provide society significantly more value than bolstering public education, subsidizing quality housing in every area, developing a medical institution that can serve people more effectively and more inexpensively, feeding everyone without exploiting agricultural laborers to the extent America does now. You are right that I don't have evidence that my suspicions are correct. But I do suspect that there is a larger benefit to a greater quantity of people (especially those in need) by increasing the availability of public services than putting cash in the pockets of everyone who is poor enough to get the benefit. We are talking about limited resources right? Of course I'd prefer both, but I'm viewing every dollar given in mincome as a dollar not spent on these programs. To avoid abuses by centralized authorities, I would hope that most of the increases in public spending would be used to fund projects that are conceptualized, selected, and operated by local groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a constant issue of "money leaving the us" which entirely is a tax dodge employed by the wealthy, and it is a loophole they maintain by their power.

 

you cannot overstate the extent that the US government supports the wealthy, through subsidy, the building and maintaining of infrastructure, financing the training of future workers (which companies used to do) guaranteed business loans, strong arming foreign governments to benefit us corporations, and especially fed bailouts (think savings and loan in the 80s, or the 2008 collapse).

 

those collapses would have been abject, apocalyptic disasters if the US government didn't provide "welfare" to bail out pure greedy risk. the kind of skeezy loan bundling and derivative trading provides no value to manufacturing business. it does not finance corporate expansion, which is why you sell stock in the first place. these riskiest financial practice does not benefit our economy or the average american. they don't obey the normal stock market rules and they're only effective financial instruments if you have very large sums of capital, which is to say you or i will never benefit from them.

 

the us government supports the corn industry EXPORTING corn to the global south well below actual cost with guaranteed rates. companies sell this well below the lowest prices even impoverished farmers in those regions can match. the taxpayers support those industries. the taxpayers support us sugar makers with tariffs and incentives that keep latin american countries out of us markets. given how much leverage the government provides american business there is no reason we need to accept the idea that the wealthy is allowed to move their money out of the IRS's reach. we could easily say we'd suspend those subsidies for companies parking money.

 

to end my rant, there is always money available for projects with political will. i.e. the trillions spent of the iraq disaster. if those trillions went into the pockets of the people one might judge most harshly, the money would still probably wind up back in some local businesses cash register. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×