It’s an interesting idea. On the face of it I’m against it because I see so many problems but I can understand the advantages as well. My biggest concern is what kind of incentives does it create? For example, at what age does it kick in? Will it lead to people having children to collect more money?
Simple economics tells you why this won’t work.
When you give something of good value away for free (in this case cash) then the demand for that good value becomes endless.
You have to make that entity of good value to have a cost to it to reduce the demand.
Furthermore that act of giving away say 20,000 to any and all for “just existing” will have a huge ripple effect throughout the economy skewing all other wages.
Yeah, if everyone is suddenly $5,000 richer, wouldn’t prices just rise to a new equilibrium, making the added cash worthless? The negative income tax seems to be the best idea. It targets those who need it, and does not de-incentivize work.
There’s a reason why economists study beyond “simple economics”.
None of this is simple, and the real effects have nothing to do with endless demand for money.
WRT SIME/DIME, a quick read of the report shows that the payouts were negatively affected by earnings. Earn more, you get less cash, earn less, you get more cash. No surprise at all that this program would be correlated to reduced interest in work.
The basic income theory is that the cash payout does not change with your income, even if you make a million a year. There’s no inherent negative pressure on working, because you don’t lose anything when you earn more, you just earn more.
My biggest concern would be that the extra money would go to increases in rent rather than increases in standard of living/spending. If I’m your landlord, and know that you’re getting $2,000/yr in extra money, I can raise your rent by $150 and I KNOW you can pay it. Sure, you can try a different apartment, but that guy knows that all his tenants have $2,000/yr more to spend as well.
Cheesesteak,
That’s why it should only be pay in exchange for work.
Extra/free money is just inflation.
Crane
Or might be a bad thing. High density living is more efficient, and tends to promote innovation.
Is this payment for all citizens or low income citizens only?
That’s on the table for discussion as well, if you like. The CNN article doesn’t really make an assertion of how it should be, merely talks about the subject. I think the idea, though, would be that ‘everyone’ (where everyone is defined as some subset of people depending on where the bar is set) would get the money, so as to take away trying to distinguish between the folks who really need this and ones who would presumably abuse the system, thus taking some of the complexity out of trying to determine which is which. My guess is that it wouldn’t actually be everyone, but there would be a bar set (and perhaps some sort of graduated payment system, where the more you make the less you get until there would be a cut off point where you wouldn’t get anything at all). Where that bar might be or how this all might work is part of what I think this discussion should have, so feel free to give your thoughts. A negative tax has also been proposed, so that could certainly be fleshed out.
Well if everyone got the money then it would just all readjust to the same level all over again. I agree with people of saying if you get a job/get a better job you still keep the money, but only up to a point, if you are making 50K plus you dont need any “help”.
I’ve always found the gap between liberals and conservatives on this issue to be grossly understated. The conservative thinkers on a universal income usually argue for it in place of all existing welfare programs, while liberals want it to supplement existing programs. This isn’t a trivial difference.
Anyways, the usual arguments against it are:
[ul]
[li]Substantially reduces the incentive to work for healthy childless adults, since they receive minimal welfare under the current system[/li][li]Diverts benefits from single parents and other needy cases to able-bodied adults who have a lesser need for government money[/li][li]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.[/li][/ul]
The subject of the OP is a native American community that distributes a portion of the profits from its casino equally to all of its tribe members.
Not really a model to compare much to but another tribe.
Means testing is just an extra complexity that’s better implemented elsewhere.
A system where a $5k basic income is phased out at $50k is equivalent to one with truly universal income but where the tax rates have been adjusted so that people making $50k on up pay an additional $5k in taxes.
The difference is that the latter approach is about half the complexity, since it doesn’t require another giant bureaucracy for figuring out if people should receive the payments. We already have the IRS, and adjusting the tax rates slightly will have exactly the same net effect.
[quote=“The_Joker_and_the_Thief, post:30, topic:714704”]
[li]Substantially reduces the incentive to work for healthy childless adults, since they receive minimal welfare under the current system[/li][/QUOTE]
On the other hand, it’s good to have a disincentive to having children that doesn’t adversely affect the children themselves. We don’t really want people to have children they can’t afford, but if they do have children (due to accident, stupidity, etc.), we want the kids fed and clothed. A universal income works to this end.
You’d have to socialize a large % of the economy to make this work, 20%+. I don’t see that as realistic anytime soon.
There isn’t going to be enough demand to meet production soon (there already isn’t). The transition to post scarcity will be tough.
What about millionaires in Socialist Europe??? Surely you will agree there are some without wanting a cite?
ummm, what???
You said that people making $50k a year shouldn’t receive the basic income payments.
That’s reasonable, but if we’re going to cut people off at a certain threshold, we need a government agency to enforce this. They need to figure out what your income is. And income is a tricky thing, because there are a bunch of different categories of income, and some things (like mortgage interest) can be deducted from your income.
That’s why we have the monster agency that is the IRS to figure things out and make sure people pay the right amount of tax. If we had a basic income that went away at a certain threshold, we’d need another agency to decide basically the same thing. All the tax forms and stuff that we send to the IRS would have to be also sent to the basic income agency.
The alternative is to pay everyone the same basic income. It doesn’t matter if you’re a billionaire or a homeless guy. If you’re an American citizen, you get it. We don’t need a giant agency to enforce any rules because there aren’t any.
But what about that guy making $50k a year? Well, let’s say that the guy currently pays $10k in taxes. Under your system, nothing changes, since he’s not getting the basic income. He keeps the $40k. Under a universal system, he’s getting an extra $5k. However, we’ve increased his taxes so that he’s now paying $15k a year. So his total income is $50k - $15k + $5k = $40k, or the same amount as before.
So there’s no change in the final dollar value, but we’ve made it easier because we only have to tweak the tax rates a bit instead of creating a big new bureaucracy.
well the IRS is big and complicated but is it as really big and complicated as people make it out to be? Maybe it is.
Well, we can’t afford to give free money to everyone…
well, people still have to pay taxes
My understanding is that it pays for itself by reducing reliance upon the various welfare programs.
[ul]
[li]So? This is really only a problem if you think that the entire purpose of life is to work. Let’s say those healthy childless adults decide to just stop working- what’s the downside to this? It frees up employment opportunities for those who *do want to make more than the minimum amount.[/li][li]Not really sure how this would happen. Everyone gets the same amount of money- nobody gets more because they really need it.[/li][]Again, the argument is that basic income reduces reliance upon welfare, which means that it pays for itself. There’s something similar here in Salt Lake City- the homeless are given apartments. The program apparently works really well, as the cost is offset by the money saved in taking care of the homeless. Basically, it’s just a smarter way to treat the problem of homelessness- do you treat the symptoms (higher healthcare costs, homeless shelters, etc.), or do you treat the cause?[/ul]
That would only be true if the government was just printing the money and handing it out. But this program is basically wealth redistribution (a loaded term, I realize, but it’s true here). Some people come in and gamble and lose - they now have less money. Other people get handed basic income checks by the casino - they now have more money. But the total amount of money in the system remains constant so there’s no inflationary effect.
It would be the same thing if the program were financed by taxes. Some people would be paying more into the system then they’re getting out of it, even if they collect the basic income. The reduction in their assets would balance the increase in other people’s assets.