# Just give them the money (the argument for basic income) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704 "2015-03-10T16:59:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/81 "2015-03-13T05:31:53Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I’d share Malthus’s fears. > > If a country has a reliable source of essentially unearned wealth (for example, like Saudi Arabia), it would make sense to me to share that wealth. But even then, well, evolution happens. If there’s a resources, life springs up to take advantage of it. With a guaranteed income, people would multiply until there isn’t enough of it to make a dent, if those people aren’t also contributing to the economy. > > The thing is, there is a limit to production, but no limit to need. That’s why I don’t think resources should be allocated based on need. > > I’m not convinced I’m right, though. I’m just expressing my fears. Well actually, on the “people multiplying” … no. Most developed countries are either stable in population or have declining populations. It’s a problem in some European countries but most noticeable in Japan. People in less developed countries typically have hordes of children because adult children who will help support them in their old age are their only social safety net, and the more the better. Basic Income negates that. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/82 "2015-03-13T09:31:56Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > That’s why it should only be pay in exchange for work. Just sucks if either you’re disabled and unable to work or, as has been the case these last few years, _there are not enough jobs to go around_. This will become more of a problem in the future, the _lack of jobs_ rather than the lack of skills. > [@even\_sven](#): > > Or might be a bad thing. High density living is more efficient, and tends to promote innovation. High density _poverty_, however, is associated with crime which is why so many US cities have dismantled their [del]warehouses for the poor[/del] high rise subsidized housing. I have my theories on why this is the case, that wealthy people can live in dense urban buildings without problems but the poor can’t, but it would be a tangent. > [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > [LIST] > Substantially reduces the incentive to work for healthy childless adults, since they receive minimal welfare under the current system Actually, under the current system healthy childless adult receive ONLY food stamps - there is no other welfare for them. Wonderful, you can eat but otherwise have zero income. That’s why we have healthy, able-bodied unemployed people who are homeless. They tend to be invisible due to couch-surfing and the like, but they do exist. > [@](#): > > Diverts benefits from single parents and other needy cases to able-bodied adults who have a lesser need for government money Apparently we have determined that able-bodied adults only require food - they don’t require housing, transportation, clothing, reliable access to showers, or things like deodorant. Try applying for a job unbathed sans deodorant and wearing whatever crap clothing donated to the local food pantry. At a certain point, even if you are able-bodied and adult you need help and not just a bowl of soup. More and more people are falling down to that level yet no one seems to care. > [@](#): > > And I know the OP told us not to talk about cost, but the massive taxes needed to support this program (assuming 20,000 a person, a basic income would cost 6 trillion/year) would result in a severe disincentive to work for wealthy Americans. This effect could plausibly outweigh the increased work incentives for poorer Americans, making the whole program a wash. Except NONE of the proposals in the OP set the basic income at $20k! Where are people getting that notion? One was $1,600-something and the other 3k - not even enough to actually live on. I’ve yet to hear a basic-income proposal set as high as you suggest. The purpose of BI is NOT to make for a comfortable, lower middle class lifestyle, it’s to help ensure the rock-bottom basics. Very few people will be content with that, so the incentive to work and earn more still remains, but no one will go completely without the essentials of life. > [@Robert163](#): > > Good idea but the problem is if they are not responsible enough, for whatever reason, to have a job, car, income, etc, on their own, how will providing them a facility to do it in help? You know, I guess it would help but the trick is finding work that people with low skills and low self discipline can actually carry out. I like your idea of a farm but most farming is done with very costly machinery nowadays. And THAT is a fundamental problem with our current level of technology - the ditch diggers have been replaced with backhoes. We no longer have need for people to fill those menial jobs, yet we still have people who are suited for nothing other than that. We can’t all be doctors, lawyers, and accountants, yet that seems to be the answer trotted out - make everyone highly educated and skilled! We live in a time when more people have college degrees than ever before, but society can’t seem to grasp that when many of those folks are driving taxis (another job soon to be automated away) or pouring coffee at Starbucks it’s a waste of either talent or educational resources or both. > [@LavenderBlue](#): > > When he was two months old, he was severely dehydrated. He was in the hospital for ten days and that may have led to cognitive problems. He was left back in third grade and had (still has) a bad speech impediment. He was in special ed for many years. My bro has a regular high school diploma but his average was just barely a pass and his SAT scores did not break a 700 combined. I don’t know if he has any mental health issues. He basically has no judgment but seems utterly unaware of this fact and imagines he’s smart. Right now, he has a menial job that pays very little. He’s failed many job exams including one to enter the TSA. He’s basically just a twelve year old forty year old. > > As I said, I simply want to make sure he isn’t homeless or hungry. I just don’t want to live with him as I consider him an inappropriate role model for my girls. My husband does not want him in our house for many reasons including his vehement belief that Jews should not marry non-Jews. > > At some point, I think we need to accept that some people simply aren’t very capable. We need to provide for those people just to have a civil society. I don’t know about a guaranteed income (bro CANNOT be trusted with money – he’s been stolen from many times!) but food, shelter, clothing and other basics seem like a good idea to me. It sounds to me like your brother may have impaired [executive function](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions). Phrases like “12 year old in an adult body” and “no judgement” describe these folks quite well. It’s hard to get people to accept that such individuals _really are_ impaired because they look so damn healthy and able-bodied, but if that part of the brain machinery is damaged in a sense they never achieve complete mental adulthood and we have no way of fixing that. They are not capable of being as responsible as the rest of us. I have a nephew who wound up like that due to a traumatic brain injury. He actually IS still quite intelligent… he just is incapable of _using_ that intelligence in a useful way. In his case the damage dates to a specific day and event, but despite the physical scars of his accident, never mind the invisible damage, people STILL berate him for being lazy, not having a job, no ambition… It’s a stickier situation for folks who didn’t have an obviously precipitating event, or one in the very distant past when extremely young, that might have lead to that capacity never developing. It’s hard even to diagnose the problem in such situations, especially if the person is otherwise intelligent. You can be smart in the IQ sense and stupid when it comes to “sense” and planning and foresight. I’m not saying that is your brother’s problem - he might, in fact, be a slacker. I don’t know, but the way you talk about him and describe him he sounds like a less extreme version of my nephew. IF that is the situation with your brother that actually IS a mental illness and there might be a case to get him on disability or open up social service opportunities for him. Of course, he also might resist such a diagnosis. In any case, what it might make available to him would probably be minimal, but think about it. > [@bump](#): > > That’ll NEVER fly in the real world. The catch is that there’s some point at which a person would pay out exactly in raised taxes what they’re getting as their basic income. Anyone above that has absolutely nothing to gain from this proposal, and actually has something to lose from it. The gain is taking away the incentive of the desperately poor to riot and commit crime by making them less desperate. It’s the same reasoning that leads to universal public education. > [@XT](#): > > Except it’s apples to oranges. A rich person doesn’t get richer by magic…they invest their money and get a return on their investment, thus creating more wealth. They might not have to do anything more than hire an investment firm (paying them, of course, and thus providing jobs for this aspect as well), but that’s irrelevant…their MONEY is doing something. > > Giving a poor person money isn’t the same thing. This isn’t to say that it’s a bad idea (which was what was supposed to be discussed in this thread), but it’s not a real meaningful comparison. What the hell do you think poor people do with their money? Stuff mattresses? No, they BUY STUFF. Which is what makes the economy go round. The rich person invests in a store, but unless people buy stuff from the store no one makes any money. If poor people have the means to buy stuff they benefit by having that stuff and the store owner benefits by selling that stuff. I don’t get this assumption that the money of poor people doesn’t do anything - it does. Ray Kroc didn’t become a billionaire selling burgers to just the rich, he got wealthy by selling them to _everyone_, and most of the people buying were NOT in the 1%. Give a rich person money to invest and they may or may not see a return on that investment (sometimes _\>gasp!\<_ they LOSE money!), or they might just put into some sort of savings, but in any case it doesn’t DO anything for some period of time, weeks/months/days… even years. Give a poor person money, though, they usually go out and spend it immediately, putting it back into circulation. Both contribute to the economy in different ways, but why do we only see to value the contribution of the rich and ignore that of the poor? ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/83 "2015-03-13T10:39:17Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > True, but Alaska badly needs people and has plentiful resources. So if I were willing to move to Alaska, what would I do for money and where would I live? They probably don’t want a 53 year old handicapped woman with health issues moving up there even if she comes with a fairly adept husband retired from the Naval machinists mate program. I am not about to move out to the wilderness, I _need_ to be within ambulance call of a first class medical facility. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/84 "2015-03-13T14:12:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But let me play devil’s advocate and turn the argument on its head. > > As our basic premises, let’s say that 1) people are generally motivated to make money; 2) some people have better skills than others; and 3) society as a whole benefits when jobs are created and the economy grows. So based on these premises, what should our tax policy be? > > We should raise taxes on the wealthy. > > The logic follows: These people were motivated to make money so they applied their skills to creating jobs. Society benefited from this. These people must have superior job creating skills in comparison to the people who didn’t become rich. > > So society would benefit if these wealthy job creators had their wealth reduced. This would remotivate their desire to make more money to replace that lost wealth. Thus remotivated, these people would create new jobs and all of society would benefit further. > > Some possible counterarguments: > > _Wealthy people will quit the system_ - This counterargument violates the 1st premise. These people, like people in general, are motivated to make money. If you take away some of their money, they’ll just seek more rather than decide there’s no point in making any money at all. If people could just choose to live without wealth, they wouldn’t have earned it in the first place. > > _Just because they got wealthy once doesn’t mean they can do it again_ - This counterargument violates the 2nd premise. People who became wealthy either earned their money or they just got lucky. If they earned their money through their superior skills, then those same skills should allow them to do it again. If they just got lucky, then they didn’t really earn their money the first time. > > _This isn’t fair_ - This counterargument violates the 3rd premise. We’re discussing what tax policy benefits society as a whole not what tax policy benefits wealthy people. This totally ignores the marginal case. I am sure there are people in the world who love their jobs so much that they do not care how much they get paid and would do it for free. There are also people who love money so much that all they care about is the acquisition of money and have no desire to spend it. These people are few and far between. Most people, even ones that enjoy their jobs or are highly motivated by money have other things they like. Hobbies, sports, travel, spending time with their families etc. Everyone has a different priority as to how much time to spend on work versus how much time spent on other things. If you make works less renumerative than you automatically make alternatives more attractive and decrease the amount of work. Those who value money over leisure may have a higher point at which they will lessen work but that does not mean that their value of money over leisure is infinite. Furthermore if you accept your premises that some people are better at creating jobs than others and that jobs are good for society then it follows that we want the people who are creating jobs working the hardest and should steer clear of any policies that could keep them from working as hard as possible. It also ignores that wealth is not money, money is only the way of keeping track of wealth. If a computer glitch made the amount of dollars double overnight, we would not be twice as wealthy tomorrow. Wealth can only come from production. Production comes from work, so the more people in a society that are working hard then the wealthier society would be. Think of society like a rowboat, in order to go fast you need everyone to row as hard as possible. To do that you need to tie rewards as closely as possible to rowing output. That would not be fair to those who can’t row as fast, but it moves the boat and ultimately everyone in the boat benefits because of the increased speed. Rewards according to production leads to a rich but unfair society. Rewards according to need leads to a poor but fair society. Rich but unfair is better. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/85 "2015-03-13T15:00:03Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Think of society like a rowboat, in order to go fast you need everyone to row as hard as possible. To do that you need to tie rewards as closely as possible to rowing output. That would not be fair to those who can’t row as fast, but it moves the boat and ultimately everyone in the boat benefits because of the increased speed. How do the people who get no “rewards” (because they don’t row effectively) benefit from increased speed? You kind of just lay it out there like it’s a given the increased speed is better, but why would it be? In the economy, it’s basically the speed at which rewards are created. Increased speed is great for someone who gets rewarded, and pretty much irrelevant for someone who doesn’t. Back to society as a rowboat, if I’m going to be born, live and die on the rowboat, who gives a crap how fast the thing is going? What matters is whether I have a padded seat, good food, entertainment, a comfortable berth, and how much of my day is spent rowing vs. living. You want the bad rowers to be happy getting no benefits because it (perhaps) helps drive the boat faster, a fact that has no particular impact on their lives at all. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/86 "2015-03-13T15:30:39Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This totally ignores the marginal case. I am sure there are people in the world who love their jobs so much that they do not care how much they get paid and would do it for free. There are also people who love money so much that all they care about is the acquisition of money and have no desire to spend it. These people are few and far between. Most people, even ones that enjoy their jobs or are highly motivated by money have other things they like. Hobbies, sports, travel, spending time with their families etc. Everyone has a different priority as to how much time to spend on work versus how much time spent on other things. If you make works less renumerative than you automatically make alternatives more attractive and decrease the amount of work. Those who value money over leisure may have a higher point at which they will lessen work but that does not mean that their value of money over leisure is infinite. > Furthermore if you accept your premises that some people are better at creating jobs than others and that jobs are good for society then it follows that we want the people who are creating jobs working the hardest and should steer clear of any policies that could keep them from working as hard as possible. > > It also ignores that wealth is not money, money is only the way of keeping track of wealth. If a computer glitch made the amount of dollars double overnight, we would not be twice as wealthy tomorrow. Wealth can only come from production. Production comes from work, so the more people in a society that are working hard then the wealthier society would be. Think of society like a rowboat, in order to go fast you need everyone to row as hard as possible. To do that you need to tie rewards as closely as possible to rowing output. That would not be fair to those who can’t row as fast, but it moves the boat and ultimately everyone in the boat benefits because of the increased speed. > Rewards according to production leads to a rich but unfair society. Rewards according to need leads to a poor but fair society. Rich but unfair is better. Where your rowboat analogy breaks down is when someone install a motor on that boat, which is what is happening now. Automation has already displaced over 5 million jobs in the last few years, and it’s headed towards displacing even more jobs down the road. The rowers WILL NOT BE NEEDED to make the rowboat go very, very fast indeed. What then? ---
**Author:** ![yellowjacketcoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4bbf92/32.png) [@yellowjacketcoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yellowjacketcoder)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/87 "2015-03-13T16:01:00Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Where your rowboat analogy breaks down is when someone install a motor on that boat, which is what is happening now. Automation has already displaced over 5 million jobs in the last few years, and it’s headed towards displacing even more jobs down the road. The rowers WILL NOT BE NEEDED to make the rowboat go very, very fast indeed. What then? Then we get the first four chapters of the story of [Manna](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm). No word on the last 4 chapters. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/88 "2015-03-13T16:38:52Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > The point is, we’ve structured this game so that people who already live comfortable lives get to have their comfort entrenched while those whose lives are less comfortable are conditioned to feel their misery is deserved. And this conditioning presents an obstacle to our even conceptualizing structuring the rules differently. I can’t speak about what people feel they deserve, but as far as incentives go, there is a big difference between a lump sum transfer to someone with no wage income, and an income tax that is collected at a marginal rate from someone richer who has high wages. If leisure is a normal good – and most of the time, it almost certainly is – then a lump sum payment to a person will be a disincentive to work. A group of people who are given the transfer will choose comparatively more leisure and comparatively less work. In econ jargon, this is called a pure “income effect”. Naturally, they will personally be better off. But if the transfer is broad and includes many people, then the disincentive to work will affect the broader productivity of the economy, which in turn will make it more difficult to pay for the transfer. It is a different thing to tax X% of the wages of richer people. The income effect will still exist, which would encourage more work, but in most cases, the available evidence indicates it will be more than balanced by the “substitution effect”. The trade-off between leisure and work changes as the benefits from working more go down. With a lower _rate_ of income (after taxes), the opportunity cost of an extra hour of leisure goes down. If leisure costs people less in foregone wages, then they will choose relatively more of it. I was working out the math of this, but it quickly gets convoluted and hard to explain, so then I just figured, hell with it, I’ll rely on personal credibility. This is how standard economic models work. Bottom line: There is no necessary contradiction between a lump sum transfer being a disincentive to work, with an income tax on richer people to pay for the transfer _also_ being a (net) disincentive to work. From here we can dip into a broader topic of whether standard economics tends to advocate policies that benefit the rich more than the poor. And while I see the source of the criticism, I’m not sure it’s entirely fair. There’s a lot of noise in economic discussions, and for any position that helps the wealthiest, there will be an economist willing to write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining how that position is the best. Where there is strong demand for hackery, a supply will be readily provided. But at the same time, I’d say the majority of economists use fairly orthodox arguments from theory to advocate for positions which they strongly believe would help the poorest people. It might not always _look_ like that because a lot of the arguments have counterintuitive pieces, but I’d guess that’s the way it normally is. I can imagine a counterintuitive argument that might fit in this thread, if I keep working on it. > [@Learjeff](#): > > I’d share Malthus’s fears. > > If a country has a reliable source of essentially unearned wealth (for example, like Saudi Arabia), it would make sense to me to share that wealth. But even then, well, evolution happens. If there’s a resources, life springs up to take advantage of it. With a guaranteed income, people would multiply until there isn’t enough of it to make a dent, if those people aren’t also contributing to the economy. > > The thing is, there is a limit to production, but no limit to need. That’s why I don’t think resources should be allocated based on need. > > I’m not convinced I’m right, though. I’m just expressing my fears. In the super duper long term, there is simply no question that this is correct. In an evolutionary system, animals will (eventually) breed to the limits of their resources. But we shouldn’t necessarily be planning for the super duper long term when we’re facing short term problems right in our faces. We could suffer a monstrous pandemic of the bird-swine-crocodile flu, or whatever. We could create technology that circumvents evolutionary processes. We could get hit by an asteroid. Stuff can happen in the future, meaning the further away the prediction is, the more likely it is to be circumvented by something weird. In the time frames that we most care about, people who are richer tend to have fewer children. If you’re worried about sustainable resources, then the best way to reduce world population without mass death, in the short term, would be to make every country as rich as Japan. If I had a magical technology that could give the whole world a basic income of that level, I’d do it in a heartbeat. If we could raise the real income of the poorest from a dollar a day to 80 dollars a day then that is exactly what we should do. Taking care of the most miserable poverty will leave more of us available to think about the harder shit. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/89 "2015-03-13T16:47:37Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > How do the people who get no “rewards” (because they don’t row effectively) benefit from increased speed? > > You kind of just lay it out there like it’s a given the increased speed is better, but why would it be? In the economy, it’s basically the speed at which rewards are created. Increased speed is great for someone who gets rewarded, and pretty much irrelevant for someone who doesn’t. > > Back to society as a rowboat, if I’m going to be born, live and die on the rowboat, who gives a crap how fast the thing is going? What matters is whether I have a padded seat, good food, entertainment, a comfortable berth, and how much of my day is spent rowing vs. living. > > You want the bad rowers to be happy getting no benefits because it (perhaps) helps drive the boat faster, a fact that has no particular impact on their lives at all. In the analogy how fast the rowboat goes is how wealthy our society is. Less than a hundred years ago the president’s son died because of an infected blister on his foot. Today the son of a ditch digger could go to a doctor and get a prescription for a five dollar antibiotic that would clear the infection up. Anyone with a Netflix account has more access to entertainment choices than John D Rockefeller had. 10% of WW2 draftees had to be rejected because of issues with malnutrition, now the biggest food problem is too much of it. This all happened because society got richer, not from redistributing the existing wealth. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/90 "2015-03-13T23:58:17Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > If a country has a reliable source of essentially unearned wealth (for example, like Saudi Arabia), it would make sense to me to share that wealth. I think you could make a pretty good argument that we in America have a massive source of essentially unearned wealth. Unearned, at least, by those benefiting from it. I didn’t earn the excellent public education that I received, or being raised by parents who also received an excellent public education and spent so much time with me as a child because they _really_ wanted me. I didn’t earn the genetic jackpot that made me good at the sort of analytic reasoning that means I can write software better that most people can. I didn’t earn being born in a society where those skills are valuable. Yeah, I worked hard in school and studied so I could learn these skills, and I apply myself to at work. I’m not saying there’s no place for incentives for hard work. But if I’m honest, I didn’t earn most of my success. The kid who went to failing schools and had neglectful parents and an untreated learning disorder didn’t earn a lot of his hardship, either. And as technology advances, more and more people are going to find that, regardless of their drive, or their work ethic, or their desire to contribute, there simply isn’t much valuable work for them to do because machines are better at it. I don’t think we’re there yet. I don’t think we should have a guaranteed income now. But I think the time will come within my lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Danger\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6de8d8/32.png) [@Danger\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danger_Man)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/91 "2015-03-14T17:01:33Z")
I live in Norway, where for the most part people are able to live on welfare if they want to. There is very little real poverty here except for drug addicts etc People still work. Turns out the motivation is still there. No one I know is satisfied not having a job. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/92 "2015-03-14T17:25:23Z")
> [@Danger\_Man](#): > > I live in Norway, where for the most part people are able to live on welfare if they want to. There is very little real poverty here except for drug addicts etc > > People still work. Turns out the motivation is still there. No one I know is satisfied not having a job. Indeed. I live in Sweden and I’m not sure if I even know anyone that is unemployed. It is threads like this that remind me that I am way, way left of this board. I honestly don’t care if some people “game the system” because I honestly believe in the long run the benefits far outweigh the detriments. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/93 "2015-03-14T19:04:56Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > " > > “Ah, I see; the amount of effort required to earn money should be maximized, thus ensuring people working hardest rather than partaking of leisure. Ok, in accordance with this principle, what if we increase tax rates on the rich so that they too will be motivated to work harder (as it will now take more effort to increase their wealth by a given amount), and in the same vein, structure general policy so as to make it less rewarding to earn income passively (limit the ability to receive wealth through inheritance, increase capital gains taxation, make copyright less long-lasting, etc.)?” For a long time, I was puzzled by this seeming contradiction in conservative ideology. If it was truly about rewarding hard work, and discouraging laziness, why aren’t they just as outraged about inherited wealth and capital gains as they are about “welfare queens”? I think I’ve figured it out. At root, it’s about preserving the social hierarchy, not about work incentives. From the conservative point of view, those at the top deserve to be comfortable. Those at the bottom deserve to be miserable. That is the natural order of things. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2015, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/94 "2015-03-14T19:28:45Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > For a long time, I was puzzled by this seeming contradiction in conservative ideology. If it was truly about rewarding hard work, and discouraging laziness, why aren’t they just as outraged about inherited wealth and capital gains as they are about “welfare queens”? > > I think I’ve figured it out. At root, it’s about preserving the social hierarchy, not about work incentives. From the conservative point of view, those at the top deserve to be comfortable. Those at the bottom deserve to be miserable. That is the natural order of things. Yes, after seeing so many, many instances of Republicans and conservatives rejecting any social measures which might help the poor (other than the pathetic “individual charity” excuse which never works and is often a cover for actual malice (See: [Mother Theresa](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2013/07/mother-teresa-and-the-fatal-love-of-suffering/)). ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/95 "2015-03-15T00:46:55Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/96 "2015-03-16T16:16:51Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Indeed. I live in Sweden and I’m not sure if I even know anyone that is unemployed. > > It is threads like this that remind me that I am way, way left of this board. I honestly don’t care if some people “game the system” because I honestly believe in the long run the benefits far outweigh the detriments. At what price do these benefits come? The average swedish-american makes 42% more than the average Swede. That is alot of money and it is the hidden cost of the Swedish system/ ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/97 "2015-03-16T16:43:24Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > At what price do these benefits come? The average swedish-american makes 42% more than the average Swede. That is alot of money and it is the hidden cost of the Swedish system/ And in the American system many Swedes would die of poverty and its associated issues, such as violence. That’s the not-so-hidden cost of the American system. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/98 "2015-03-16T17:11:41Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > At what price do these benefits come? The average swedish-american makes 42% more than the average Swede. That is alot of money and it is the hidden cost of the Swedish system/ A price I am willing to pay. And yes I do pay, without disclosing too much I am in the higher tax bracket where a portion of my wages is taxed at almost 50%. And VAT/Sales Tax is 25% on the majority of items. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/99 "2015-03-16T22:27:25Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well actually, on the “people multiplying” … no. Most developed countries are either stable in population or have declining populations. It’s a problem in some European countries but most noticeable in Japan. People in less developed countries typically have hordes of children because adult children who will help support them in their old age are their only social safety net, and the more the better. Basic Income negates that. Good point. I remember hearing Carl Sagan say that the world doesn’t have a population problem so much as a poverty problem, and he backed it up with good arguments and facts. > [@Hellestal](#): > > In the super duper long term, there is simply no question that this is correct. In an evolutionary system, animals will (eventually) breed to the limits of their resources. There’s no “super duper” about it. Thanks to the magic of exponential growth, populations tend to breed to growth limits remarkably quickly. The only reason this hasn’t happened for humans is the astounding increase in productivity. This increase happens largely as a result of people doing what’s good for themselves. It hasn’t happened in planned economies like USSR or pre-Deng China. > [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I think you could make a pretty good argument that we in America have a massive source of essentially unearned wealth. Unearned, at least, by those benefiting from it. Right: I should have said “unproduced”, not “unearned.” ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/100 "2015-03-17T02:40:09Z")
> [@Danger\_Man](#): > > I live in Norway, where for the most part people are able to live on welfare if they want to. There is very little real poverty here except for drug addicts etc There are also only 5 million people in Norway. > [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I think you could make a pretty good argument that we in America have a massive source of essentially unearned wealth. Unearned, at least, by those benefiting from it. Do you mean “natural resources”?😕 Natural resources are really the only “unearned wealth” in that they are just there. But every other step in the process that gets those resources out of the ground (or wherever) and converts them into products people use comes at the expense of someone’s labor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704.md?page=6)