http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
It is a relatively recent movement in Hungary, and with the governing party`s ever growing influence over the media, I don`t expect the movement to last long, especially since elections are held this April, and the major opposition party signalled interest in "supporting a national referendum about the concept".
Now, for me, the promise in such a basic income would be the elimination of all other welfare handouts, like social aid and unemployment aid, maternity payments etc, with the elimination of the bureaucracy involved in organizing the distribution of those.
Biggest risk in my opinion is that probably minimum wage would be only mildly over the basic income (otherwise you would just suffocate the economy with a too high minimum wage), and a lot of people would lack either the motivation, or the rational reason, to work. On the other hand of course, those people already have ample opportunities in most welfare societies to dodge work and get by.
So, discuss.
Why would you have a minimum wage if you have a basic income?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2014, 09:44:48 AM
Why would you have a minimum wage if you have a basic income?
good question
But if you do, it would seem that people would have incentive to work a minimum wage job. If minimum wage and basic income were both $15k, you could either do nothing and get $15k or work and get $30k.
Basic income would need to be kept very low, or else some people would decide sitting around playing video games was better than pursuing education and working. On the other hand that would create problems for families or people with disabilities without some other programs that could theoretically be eliminated with basic income.
The social state should provide according to need, not just in general.
As Alfred says there will always be exceptions where the basic income isn't sufficient. Unless you set the basic income rather high, which is then a disincentive to work, you'll always need additional programs. Or you end up with a situation where you give basic income to people that could work but don't want to while at the same time not giving enough to the really needy.
The social state, just like taxes can either be fair or simple, not both.
Ecometrics!
It would simultaneously end the demand shortage and structural high unemployment. Seems like a good idea.
How would it end high unemployment?
A lot of people would be satisfied with their stipend and drop out of the labor market.
OK, but that seems to sort of miss the point. Unless you're trying to win the international lowest unemployment competition.
Wasn't Switzerland going to do something like that?
Quote from: The Larch on January 13, 2014, 12:40:27 PM
Wasn't Switzerland going to do something like that?
Yeah, we had a thread about it.
The thread or the Swiss law?
I think they're still at the signature-gathering stage.
Quote from: Tamas on January 13, 2014, 01:03:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2014, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 13, 2014, 12:40:27 PM
Wasn't Switzerland going to do something like that?
Yeah, we had a thread about it.
what happened to that?
Yi said it wouldnt work. Uttered something about econometrics and the thread died.
If you were asking about what the Swiss did, I am not sure anything came of it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2014, 01:05:18 PM
The thread or the Swiss law?
I think they're still at the signature-gathering stage.
No, the Swiss federal government confirmed that there'll be a plebiscite on the introduction of a basic income in late October. They haven't set a date yet though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2014, 01:05:18 PM
The thread or the Swiss law?
I think they're still at the signature-gathering stage.
They got enough signatures. A referendum has to take place in a couple years now.
On the topic itself, I'm confused as to why would you want this not to discourage work. That, in my mind, is the whole point of it. You don't have to work if you either can't or don't want to.
It is also why I only see it becoming viable with a much larger degree of automation.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2014, 09:54:42 AM
But if you do, it would seem that people would have incentive to work a minimum wage job. If minimum wage and basic income were both $15k, you could either do nothing and get $15k or work and get $30k.
Basic income would need to be kept very low, or else some people would decide sitting around playing video games was better than pursuing education and working.
So what? The problem of the 21st century is that not all of us are necessary.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2014, 02:43:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2014, 09:54:42 AM
But if you do, it would seem that people would have incentive to work a minimum wage job. If minimum wage and basic income were both $15k, you could either do nothing and get $15k or work and get $30k.
Basic income would need to be kept very low, or else some people would decide sitting around playing video games was better than pursuing education and working.
So what? The problem of the 21st century is that not all of us are necessary.
Has there been a time in history when that statement was false?
The population bottleneck following the Toba catastrophe and the reduction of the human race to an endangered species. But I guess that's prehistory.
No, I think prior to the late 20th century, added population meant more economic activity. Technically, this is still probably true, but I wonder if we're approaching the point, if we have not passed it, that the marginal productivity of each further human in the developed nations is equal to the cost to the individual and society of feeding, housing, and educating him or her.
Quote from: Tamas on January 13, 2014, 08:22:21 AM
Now, for me, the promise in such a basic income would be the elimination of all other welfare handouts, like social aid and unemployment aid, maternity payments etc, with the elimination of the bureaucracy involved in organizing the distribution of those.
Sounds like bullshit, and it would only perpetuate Welfare Queenism and all that other stuff darkies do to avoid work and mooch off real Americans.
If people want a basic income, they should work at McDonald's after school instead.
This is the worst thread I have ever read in my life.
I feel like puking.
QuoteBrezhnev promised that during the Ninth Five-Year Plan the minimum pay of workers and employees (but not collective farmers) would be raised from the present level of 60 rubles per month to 70 rubles (US$78.40). This might affect as much as one-third of the urban labor force. The basic salary scale for teachers, doctors (now receiving approximately $120 a month), medical personnel, and workers in service industries was also to be raised. Old age pensions were to increase from 30 to 45 rubles as a minimum monthly payment. Mothers were to receive more paid days off to look after sick children, and university students' stipends ($35 a month) were to be raised by 25 percent. A most significant welfare innovation was the announcement that a family allowance (no specific figure was cited) would be provided for those families with per capita incomes of less than 50 rubles a month
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2014, 07:42:13 PM
This is the worst thread I have ever read in my life.
I feel like puking.
No shit, my arguably semitic warrior of the desert. Disgusting, amirite?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2014, 08:09:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2014, 07:42:13 PM
This is the worst thread I have ever read in my life.
I feel like puking.
No shit, my arguably semitic warrior of the desert. Disgusting, amirite?
arguably?
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2014, 07:58:54 PM
QuoteBrezhnev promised that during the Ninth Five-Year Plan the minimum pay of workers and employees (but not collective farmers) would be raised from the present level of 60 rubles per month to 70 rubles (US$78.40). This might affect as much as one-third of the urban labor force. The basic salary scale for teachers, doctors (now receiving approximately $120 a month), medical personnel, and workers in service industries was also to be raised. Old age pensions were to increase from 30 to 45 rubles as a minimum monthly payment. Mothers were to receive more paid days off to look after sick children, and university students' stipends ($35 a month) were to be raised by 25 percent. A most significant welfare innovation was the announcement that a family allowance (no specific figure was cited) would be provided for those families with per capita incomes of less than 50 rubles a month
Gee, it's too bad purchasing power parity isn't a fucking thing that exists.
It's also too bad that the 1970s USSR and 21st century West are exactly the same in terms of economic structure and raw GDP!
I want food stamps. I should get a lot with 5 kids.
Hey Siege, when's the last time you actually worked for a private business? You know, actually be part of the capitalistic society?
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2014, 07:42:13 PM
This is the worst thread I have ever read in my life.
I feel like puking.
its basically like negative income tax:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html
QuoteThe idea of a negative income tax (NIT) is commonly thought to have originated with economist Milton Friedman, who advocated it in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom
You, sir, by puking over this, are an enemy of freedom and everything America stands for.
The USA actually has the EITC system in place which is based on Friedman's model. However, I don't think a basic income and a negative tax system are the same. The former is not targeted, but general, which I see as a downside as it doesn't address need. And it might create a disincentive to work if wages are directly substracted from it.
The latter has a better set of incentives for an individual to work as it is always better to earn an extra dollar to getting the negative tax credit. But has a disincentive for an employer to pay a fair wage as it basically supplements low wages with tax money.
Quote from: Siege on January 13, 2014, 07:42:13 PM
This is the worst thread I have ever read in my life.
I feel like puking.
That's just the Miller Lite.
It's an interesting idea. I think it is quite attractive in many ways.
From what I understand it was quite successful and popular when parts of England had something similar in the 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_system
I hope Switzerland go for it. Between this and their banker bonus limit we'll get some interesting case studies if nothing else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2014, 08:27:40 AM
It's an interesting idea. I think it is quite attractive in many ways.
From what I understand it was quite successful and popular when parts of England had something similar in the 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_system
I hope Switzerland go for it. Between this and their banker bonus limit we'll get some interesting case studies if nothing else.
yeah, I mean to me the idea seems just a practical acknowledgment of a system that is largely in place already (unfortunately, but hey). Namely, that (almost) everyone who is unable to work, or unwilling to work because being satisfied with the substinance lifestyle, can get by thanks to various state spending. And that sounds exactly like the intention behind a welfare state, so why not eliminate the complexities of trying to individually decide who is eligible to what portion of grants, and instead make it universal?
It would cut down on administration efforts and cost, would be helping generating demand from the bottom up instead of printing money, giving it to Warren Buffet, and hoping he will do something useful with it, and it would -allegedly- help poor people feel safer, since they could be certain that even if losing their livelihoods, they and their kids would be able to get by, and not be at the mercy of some government office.
Socialist experimentation is a crime.
Quote from: Siege on January 14, 2014, 09:03:17 AM
Socialist experimentation is a crime.
It really isn't. You're looking at the way of the future.
Quote from: Siege on January 14, 2014, 09:03:17 AM
Socialist experimentation is a crime.
such a system, if it works, could actually strengthen the free market, since it would remove a lot of rules and regulations while also giving a pretty predictable level of minimal demand on the economy. At least in theory.
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:10:36 AM
Quote from: Siege on January 14, 2014, 09:03:17 AM
Socialist experimentation is a crime.
such a system, if it works, could actually strengthen the free market, since it would remove a lot of rules and regulations while also giving a pretty predictable level of minimal demand on the economy. At least in theory.
Exactly. Free market economy have been proven to work. Socialism have been proven to fail.
I really don't understand the suicidal tendency.
You guys are as suicidal as Daybreak.
Most things work, and then fail. The free market has certainly done it a number of times.
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:15:38 AM
Most things work, and then fail. The free market has certainly done it a number of times.
:rolleyes:
It did not. When nothing can move the stock market more than the Fed, it is not a free market.
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:17:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:15:38 AM
Most things work, and then fail. The free market has certainly done it a number of times.
:rolleyes:
It did not. When nothing can move the stock market more than the Fed, it is not a free market.
What's your point?
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:17:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:15:38 AM
Most things work, and then fail. The free market has certainly done it a number of times.
:rolleyes:
It did not. When nothing can move the stock market more than the Fed, it is not a free market.
What's your point?
that the current global financial and economical system is pretty far from being a free market.
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:27:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:17:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:15:38 AM
Most things work, and then fail. The free market has certainly done it a number of times.
:rolleyes:
It did not. When nothing can move the stock market more than the Fed, it is not a free market.
What's your point?
that the current global financial and economical system is pretty far from being a free market.
But that's a good thing.
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:28:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:27:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:17:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:15:38 AM
Most things work, and then fail. The free market has certainly done it a number of times.
:rolleyes:
It did not. When nothing can move the stock market more than the Fed, it is not a free market.
What's your point?
that the current global financial and economical system is pretty far from being a free market.
But that's a good thing.
no
Quote from: Zanza on January 14, 2014, 06:29:29 AM
The USA actually has the EITC system in place which is based on Friedman's model. However, I don't think a basic income and a negative tax system are the same. The former is not targeted, but general, which I see as a downside as it doesn't address need. And it might create a disincentive to work if wages are directly substracted from it.
The latter has a better set of incentives for an individual to work as it is always better to earn an extra dollar to getting the negative tax credit. But has a disincentive for an employer to pay a fair wage as it basically supplements low wages with tax money.
Subtracting wages from basic income would kinda defeat the whole point of the idea, and it reduces to welfare payment system. The whole point is that Bill Gates and Joe the Schmoe get the same payment.
I see a real benefit to freedom from such a program, since without extensive social protections, your biological need to survive can economically cancel out many of the nominal freedoms you're supposed to have. On the other hand, the economics of it are untested, to say the least.
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:27:09 AM
that the current global financial and economical system is pretty far from being a free market.
I'm not sure how the existence of a central bank with control over the money supply undermines free market principles. The central bank is not picking winners and losers with tight money, nor with loose money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2014, 10:12:24 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:27:09 AM
that the current global financial and economical system is pretty far from being a free market.
The central bank is not picking winners and losers with tight money, nor with loose money.
:lol:
:unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2014, 10:49:30 AM
:unsure:
QE, asset buys, bailouts... come on, Yi. Of course they decide.
Which winners and losers are being picked through QE Tamas?
Quote from: Siege on January 14, 2014, 09:12:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:10:36 AM
Quote from: Siege on January 14, 2014, 09:03:17 AM
Socialist experimentation is a crime.
such a system, if it works, could actually strengthen the free market, since it would remove a lot of rules and regulations while also giving a pretty predictable level of minimal demand on the economy. At least in theory.
Exactly. Free market economy have been proven to work. Socialism have been proven to fail.
I really don't understand the suicidal tendency.
You guys are as suicidal as Daybreak.
I'm curious, when did you think that happened?
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 10:00:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:28:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:27:09 AM
that the current global financial and economical system is pretty far from being a free market.
But that's a good thing.
no
It really is. The unchecked free market is just as bad as your communist hellholes were.
It would be much worse.
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 11:17:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 10:00:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2014, 09:28:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 09:27:09 AM
that the current global financial and economical system is pretty far from being a free market.
But that's a good thing.
no
It really is. The unchecked free market is just as bad as your communist hellholes were.
no
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 14, 2014, 11:18:22 AM
It would be much worse.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
You work for a gaming company. How will you continue that employement when no one has time to play anymore because they are always at work?!
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 14, 2014, 11:20:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 14, 2014, 11:18:22 AM
It would be much worse.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
You work for a gaming company. How will you continue that employement when no one has time to play anymore because they are always at work?!
que?
TEH TBR VIOLATOIN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tamas is Ghostcrawler? I knew it!
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 14, 2014, 11:20:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2014, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 14, 2014, 11:18:22 AM
It would be much worse.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
You work for a gaming company. How will you continue that employement when no one has time to play anymore because they are always at work?!
On the other hand if the state believes that idle hands are the work of the devil no one would play either.
I think Neil is right about this. Both would be terrible options. It would be hard to decide which would be the most terrible.
Quote from: Caliga on January 14, 2014, 11:52:17 AM
TEH TBR VIOLATOIN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned in the gaming subforum. In fact, I know it has, after Ed was busting his chops about Matrix/Slytherine in the board game thread.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 14, 2014, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 14, 2014, 11:52:17 AM
TEH TBR VIOLATOIN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned in the gaming subforum. In fact, I know it has, after Ed was busting his chops about Matrix/Slytherine in the board game thread.
Constantly.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 14, 2014, 04:55:30 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 14, 2014, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 14, 2014, 11:52:17 AM
TEH TBR VIOLATOIN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned in the gaming subforum. In fact, I know it has, after Ed was busting his chops about Matrix/Slytherine in the board game thread.
Constantly.
I know you are a fan, Ed. :hug:
It's not as exciting when it's rubleforinteuros instead of Swiss Francs. I want my free money in a stable currency backed by Nazi plunder.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 14, 2014, 12:55:00 PM
Dude, I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned in the gaming subforum. In fact, I know it has, after Ed was busting his chops about Matrix/Slytherine in the board game thread.
It was a joke. :)