Basic income for everyone?

Now, what news on the Rialto?
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

this was actually a post blender question.

we will always have government taxes, is basic income a smarter way of distributing them than the current system which spends the bulk of it on making government workers comfy middle class.

simple question, yes or no, preferably with a dribble of reasoning.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

It very well could be "smarter" it's just never going to happen.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Not really, no.
Yes, really, yes.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Not really no.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Don't worry, I don't expect you to admit it.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Well you have had a great deal of time and many opportunities to make whatever case you are trying to make, and you have failed in totality and in every instance. Why you cling bitterly to a narrative you can't even define let alone defend is anyone's guess, although I imagine the first guess is probably right.

It's just bewildering to watch someone dedicate so much of their life to something they don't seem to be able to grasp and don't seem to want to.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Well you have had a great deal of time and many opportunities to make whatever case you are trying to make, and you have failed in totality and in every instance. Why you cling bitterly to a narrative you can't even define let alone defend is anyone's guess, although I imagine the first guess is probably right.
You complain that the west was put through the blender and I'm supposed to be bitter? Industrialization demanded urbanization. The advent of large scale farming and the closing of the commons started the destruction of farming as a way of life and supplied the industry's workforce. Urbanization led to a drop in family size and made it hard for extended families to stick together. All these trends had come into being long before Marx wrote his books. Consumerism came a bit later and its main sale tactic was to encourage individualism, atomization and entitlement. If you support industrialization and consumerism, you implicitly support the destruction of the traditional family and everything that comes with that.

Capital paid for research advancements, technological development, distribution and marketing with the express purpose of getting a profit. One of the effects of this combination of capital and research was a massive shift in the roles played by men and women. Since you claim to have taught economics, you should already know all these things.

Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:this was actually a post blender question.

we will always have government taxes, is basic income a smarter way of distributing them than the current system which spends the bulk of it on making government workers comfy middle class.

simple question, yes or no, preferably with a dribble of reasoning.
it sounds good. if the goal is to get (dollars paid in/dollars received by end user) as close to one as possible the answer is probably yes. but dozens of other questions regarding administration and results remain.

but if one ain't big on reason, we can stop at yes...... or better yet bacon! :P

so far in this post, everyone seems to assume the recipient is a responsible adult. reality is different. friends who work in social services have horror stories about trying to help those who can't or won't help themselves. one of the short ones is a friend who is informing a new mom about the benefits to her child of breast feeding. mom replies "I can't do dat. my boyfriend says dose titties belong to me. ain't nobody touching dose titties but me."

food stamps evolved as an effort to reduce self-destruction. not unusual to hear a grocer or convenient store clerk tell of how someone wants to give $50 worth of food stamps to buy a $8 six pack or bottle of wine since it is illegal to buy alcohol with food stamps. or $50 worth of food stamps are sold on the street for $10.

on the first of the month, Fred gets his monthly mincome check. after a three days spent drinking and smoking and whoring, it's all gone. letting him lay in the street and starve seems "not helpful." enter the paid helpers and the administrative costs go up.

we have not even started on how to prevent mincome from inflating the costs of the most basic of staples. Big Brother needs to get bigger to address that one

so far mincome vs. welfare seems a distinction in terms without a difference in results.

how to implement?
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

YMix wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:Not really, no.
Yes, really, yes.
finally a debate where everyone agrees on terminology!
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:this was actually a post blender question.

we will always have government taxes, is basic income a smarter way of distributing them than the current system which spends the bulk of it on making government workers comfy middle class.

simple question, yes or no, preferably with a dribble of reasoning.
it sounds good. if the goal is to get (dollars paid in/dollars received by end user) as close to one as possible the answer is probably yes. but dozens of other questions regarding administration and results remain.

but if one ain't big on reason, we can stop at yes...... or better yet bacon! :P

so far in this post, everyone seems to assume the recipient is a responsible adult. reality is different. friends who work in social services have horror stories about trying to help those who can't or won't help themselves. one of the short ones is a friend who is informing a new mom about the benefits to her child of breast feeding. mom replies "I can't do dat. my boyfriend says dose titties belong to me. ain't nobody touching dose titties but me."

food stamps evolved as an effort to reduce self-destruction. not unusual to hear a grocer or convenient store clerk tell of how someone wants to give $50 worth of food stamps to buy a $8 six pack or bottle of wine since it is illegal to buy alcohol with food stamps. or $50 worth of food stamps are sold on the street for $10.

on the first of the month, Fred gets his monthly mincome check. after a three days spent drinking and smoking and whoring, it's all gone. letting him lay in the street and starve seems "not helpful." enter the paid helpers and the administrative costs go up.
authoritarian leftist stuff, why should everyone lose their adult rights because a percentage of folks are idiots ?

Simple Minded wrote: we have not even started on how to prevent mincome from inflating the costs of the most basic of staples. Big Brother needs to get bigger to address that one
the current system has so many layers of bigbrother intervention and nonsense, with so many different middle class welfares and rebates (romneys 47%), im not particularly convinced that removing all that and replacing it with a single baseline makes the situation worse

also, we would change a truckload of little hitler government employees from middle class to base income earners, which is massively deflationary :-)

sounds fine to me.
Simple Minded wrote:
so far mincome vs. welfare seems a distinction in terms without a difference in results.
for me, id get a 200 a week tax rebate and less downside for taking entrepreneurial risks - even if my idea crashes and burns i know i can still feed myself and my dependents.

also, if i do fall upon hard times for health or income, i get the support as is, without debasing myself in queues doing the paperwork to prove im worthy of scraps.

id also lose an entire class of parasites who take my money off me to research reasons they need more of my money.

sounds like plenty of wins.
Simple Minded wrote: how to implement?
no chance, too many folks kneejerk against it and left and right both have cliches why its a non starter.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
authoritarian leftist stuff, why should everyone lose their adult rights because a percentage of folks are idiots ?
Absolutely true. Among those who will fight against mincome are not only the payers, but the current "middle men of compassion" who stand to lose both income and power.

Mincome sounds good from the standpoint of
1. reducing cost and complexity
2. maximizing freedom for recipients
3. maximizing personal responsibility for recipients

1 is a threat to the establishment, and some on the receiving end ain't gonna like 3 much.

US should do something similar for veterans. disband the VA and give vets voucher checks for private insurance. govt is good at collecting and handing out checks
noddy wrote: the current system has so many layers of bigbrother intervention and nonsense, with so many different middle class welfares and rebates (romneys 47%), im not particularly convinced that removing all that and replacing it with a single baseline makes the situation worse
me either.
noddy wrote: also, we would change a truckload of little hitler government employees from middle class to base income earners, which is massively deflationary :-)

sounds fine to me.
they would be the first in line for mincome! :P


noddy wrote:
for me, id get a 200 a week tax rebate and less downside for taking entrepreneurial risks - even if my idea crashes and burns i know i can still feed myself and my dependents.

also, if i do fall upon hard times for health or income, i get the support as is, without debasing myself in queues doing the paperwork to prove im worthy of scraps.

id also lose an entire class of parasites who take my money off me to research reasons they need more of my money.

sounds like plenty of wins.
We're still in salespitch land seeing as how we have not discussed any details in hard numbers. How to convince the compassionate lefties that they are control freaks and give up their power. how to convince righties they are not going to get fleeced worse.
noddy wrote: no chance, too many folks kneejerk against it and left and right both have cliches why its a non starter.
True enough. I think it is more of an indicator that the greatest bull market in western history is ending. Everyone gets paid for breathing seems an idea that can only be floated in the best of times. me thinks tougher times ahead. sounds like the idea of the EU on steroids.

still doable though if Big Bro draws the line between us and them properly.

how long before the apparatchiks f**k up the new system is a good question to start a betting pool with one's friends and co-workers
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote: True enough. I think it is more of an indicator that the greatest bull market in western history is ending. Everyone gets paid for breathing seems an idea that can only be floated in the best of times. me thinks tougher times ahead. sounds like the idea of the EU on steroids.
i dont understand this criticism - we already have that system, mincome is just about turning the admin costs into tax rebates.
Simple Minded wrote:
still doable though if Big Bro draws the line between us and them properly.

how long before the apparatchiks f**k up the new system is a good question to start a betting pool with one's friends and co-workers
big bro and the apparatchiks will never tolerate a system that makes them largely redundant, maybe a few smaller political groupings will make it happen but its never going to happen in a large multiculti place with fractured politics.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: True enough. I think it is more of an indicator that the greatest bull market in western history is ending. Everyone gets paid for breathing seems an idea that can only be floated in the best of times. me thinks tougher times ahead. sounds like the idea of the EU on steroids.
i dont understand this criticism - we already have that system, mincome is just about turning the admin costs into tax rebates.
If all you are after is reclaiming a larger percentage of the taxes you have previously paid, then sure, eliminate bureaucracy, downsize to become more efficient, and at some point your annual mincome might be 60-80% of your annual tax burden. Are you talking about your mincome only being available when you decide you need a few bucks to tide you thru the month, or is it available to you each month of every year?

In the olden days, prior to safety nets, on a personal level, this was known as saving for a rainy day. On the collective level, when on any given day, Fred can decide it's raining, it is numerically tough to administer. Some one has to be the bad ass and take money, and at times say too bad you blew yours, no more for you for the rest of the month (and maybe never).

I want someone to splain with numbers, and by defining us receivers vs. them payers, the version where mincome is over 100% of tax burden.

That is what I meant by the free lunch thinking that only becomes possible, and even popular at the end of long bull markets.

Simple Minded wrote:
still doable though if Big Bro draws the line between us and them properly.

how long before the apparatchiks f**k up the new system is a good question to start a betting pool with one's friends and co-workers
noddy wrote: big bro and the apparatchiks will never tolerate a system that makes them largely redundant, maybe a few smaller political groupings will make it happen but its never going to happen in a large multiculti place with fractured politics.
My point exactly. Give the people of Louisiana legal authority to charge a buck a ton on all freight entering or leaving the Mississippi River, and "they" can live in socialist comfort at the expense of those who live upstream and downstream. Get the upstreamers and downstreamers to join the "us" of Louisiana, and the infighting starts and the magic of the system breaks down.

Easy to believe if free lunches when one chooses to remain ignorant about who is paying.

definitions and sales pitches are the key to believing or not.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

nevermind :)
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:nevermind :)
If it makes your people feel any better, my people support all y'all intellectually, morally, philosophically, and spiritually...... just not financially. :(

which makes us either theoretically superior humans, or a bunch a racist Nazis! :P

either way, we're money ahead. :D
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

i stil dont quite get what your saying, must be a country difference thing.

in australia and europe about 50% of the population is on government benefits and we pay this thing called 'tax' to cover those costs and give away those free lunches.

mincome just means you sack all the admin staff and turn the admin component of that into tax returns of the same amount as the social security payment.

their is no new extra payment, their is just a change in the way the existing payment is distributed that benefits the private funded middle class at the expense of the government funded middle class.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:i stil dont quite get what your saying, must be a country difference thing.

in australia and europe about 50% of the population is on government benefits and we pay this thing called 'tax' to cover those costs and give away those free lunches.

mincome just means you sack all the admin staff and turn the admin component of that into tax returns of the same amount as the social security payment.

their is no new extra payment, their is just a change in the way the existing payment is distributed that benefits the private funded middle class at the expense of the government funded middle class.
that's what I was hoping you would clarify when I previously posted this:
If all you are after is reclaiming a larger percentage of the taxes you have previously paid, then sure, eliminate bureaucracy, downsize to become more efficient, and at some point your annual mincome might be 60-80% of your annual tax burden. Are you talking about your mincome only being available when you decide you need a few bucks to tide you thru the month, or is it available to you each month of every year?

clarified:

A. If all you are after is reclaiming a larger percentage of the taxes you have previously paid, then sure, eliminate bureaucracy, downsize to become more efficient, and at some point your annual mincome might be a larger percentage of your annual tax burden than it is currently.

B. Are you talking about your mincome only being available when you decide you need a few bucks to tide you thru the month,

or C. is it available to you each month of every year?


if you're talking about A, sure, all you are asking is for the union/monopolists to police their own ranks and do more with less. people and companies do that all the time when forced with the prospect of going broke following old habits of spending, unions & monopolists not so often. A is the same as the current system with slightly different rules, terminology and accounting practices.

B is A without the paperwork and begging. someone in the system needs to check to make sure you or Fred don't withdraw more than the permissible percentage of what you pay in each year. you paid in $20,000 last year, you are eligible to get $12,000 back this year just for saying "times are tough. I need some of my money back." no paper work required.

most of what I have read on mincome is C. people in freebieland get paid $1000 a month for having a pulse and being a citizen. it appears the advocates haven't heard about arithmetic.

I think the US is also close to 50% being on the public tit. no one wants to pay the actual cost of operation each month/year, so we shift it onto those too young to vote or breathe via deficit spending. I think most of the west is doing the same.

so far Saudi Arabia does it, but I think even they are running deficits now that oil prices are lower. maybe if Greece left the EU and surcharged all freight going thru Greece into or out of the EU, they could do it.

Entirely doable. just depends on the definitions of us (receivers) and them (payers). me now thinketh you are talking about A rather than C.

B. requires a "we" populated only by responsible adults. no guns needed to collect initial payments, nor needed to prevent pigs from withdrawing more than the agreed upon fraction of previous payments.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

its C with a certain percetnage of A people, and yes, requires a strict conformance to non debt based government funding - you dont get garunteed survival money ($1000 month), you get garunteed a percentage of the tax intake (which may be that much)

social security funding (about 30% of gubmint revenue) = a
registered tax payers & social security folks = b
mincome = a/b

in australia this 50% of people on the teat is largely governement admin and middle class welfare - actual poor people getting payments is less than 10%

the maths just works by sacking all the admin, removing all the middle class perks, and splitting that budget up amongst everyone. zero admin, direct payments for all registered folk.

it IS an impossibility, their is no way in hell right nor left would make it happen, however in theory (tm) [patent pending] it is a simpler, fairer system for all people that provides a safety net to all, with no politics.

if the tax intake drops because too many folks live like hippies on mincome, then the mincome will drop to suit, the feedback loop should still in be place (if its done properly, no debt allowed)

the theory expects that the amount of folk who choose to live like minimalist hippies on base survival money is probably not much higher than it is currently - they are already exploiting the system and getting free lunches anyway.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

now I understand bro.

it sounds workable, till people f**k it up.

moving all those highly paid monopolist apparatchiks into the lower income bracket..... you're gonna need a lot of guns

the accounting would be wonderful. I can see the headlines. HUGE DROP IN GDP. RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE HAPPIER THAN EVER!

reminds me of when people told me how great mortgage debt is.

"you don't get it. for every $1000 in interest you pay, your taxes go down by $300."
"tell you what. I got a better deal for you. each month you give me $1000, I'll give you $400 back. tell your friends I'll do the same for them."

better off re-defining us and them.

I think most mincomquats are still pushing C.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

yeh, i cant see a reality of it, only a pleasant thought of it ! :)
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

the best part about being an idealist is you don't have to let silly shite like physics, mathematics, the best interests of other people, or reality crush yer magination.

my bridge designs built from clouds are brilliant. but the neo-racist Nazis won't send me the money they were planning to use to feed, clothe, or house themselves or their tribal members. selfish bastards.

hang tough bro. "we" shall overcome.

mincompoops unite! :P
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

noddy wrote:it IS an impossibility, their is no way in hell right nor left would make it happen, however in theory (tm) [patent pending] it is a simpler, fairer system for all people that provides a safety net to all, with no politics.
Me ain't that sure yet.. the idea gets more momentum every day. People can do the math.. and in some countries they are crazy enough to do try outs.

I think these are times of extreme flux (SM beware! :P) Things happen that no-one saw coming. Who would have thought that the Bern and Trumpkin steal the show, that the oligurglers, banksters, apparatchiks have their privies exposed freak show style.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

parodite,

all is flux! or as some say, certainty is madness. :P

without the ability to mentally flee to fantasy and imagination, we might all be mad.

it would definitely be in "our" best interests if "they" would overcome their own selfish interests...... ;)

it's always other people that f**k up our own versions of reality. it ain't fair!
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

I feel your predicament, SM :P There is nothing you can do. If "they" just understood the truthfulness of "your" version about how "they" bother themselves with some imaginary "them"! One more move and you'd be just like them :( This cannot be allowed. Just sit still and breath softly. :|

While you're at it, don't forget to pay taxes as you promised! "They" need them, desperately,... especially the Wallstreet gang, Banksters and Gvt party poopers. The thousands of faceless people who are balancing on "the poverty line".. well, as you said: 1) who decides where the poverty line ought to be drawn, and 2) those who think they are poor should just take fate in their own hands, work hard and raise their kids in that spirit too: no free lunch for losers!

This all begs the question why people who only accept voluntary stuff should decide to pay their taxes and receive benefits payed for by other tax payers as they are configured in the current US system. I have no idea what to tell them, but it appears you might have an answer ;) :P
Deep down I'm very superficial
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: You complain that the west was put through the blender and I'm supposed to be bitter? Industrialization demanded urbanization. The advent of large scale farming and the closing of the commons started the destruction of farming as a way of life and supplied the industry's workforce. Urbanization led to a drop in family size and made it hard for extended families to stick together. All these trends had come into being long before Marx wrote his books. Consumerism came a bit later and its main sale tactic was to encourage individualism, atomization and entitlement. If you support industrialization and consumerism, you implicitly support the destruction of the traditional family and everything that comes with that.
Laughable. In the US conservatives have a TFR of 2, white liberals 1. The destruction is from ideologies of choice, not farming vs office work. Most if not all of my family works in offices and we have lots of kids.
Capital paid for research advancements, technological development, distribution and marketing with the express purpose of getting a profit.
Yeah. It's been great.
One of the effects of this combination of capital and research was a massive shift in the roles played by men and women.
Yeah. What's also happening is white leftists don't have kids anymore. I think everybody is happy with that.
Since you claim to have taught economics, you should already know all these things.
Economics doesn't teach these things. This is stock off the shelf left wing sociology, which is I guess all of your material. It will die with you.
Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes.
[/quote]
God could be laughing at leftist childlessness. I'm not going there though.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply