Parodite wrote:Simple Minded wrote:Not a bad assessment Parodite. Welcome back BTW.
Thanks Bro
But before we can propose benefits, we have to determine how much extra milk each cow in our heard is willing to pay each day "for the good of society." "We," the brain trust at OTNOT, still have not defined "fair."
It is a democratic process and discussion before during after. So maybe "we" (not "us" on OTNOT) may come to a consensus or a majority vote. Business as usual?
And then there are the endless rules that may need to be created. If Euro Fred (EF) decides to spend his 500 euros/month on cocaine, rather than food and shelter, what to do? Put him in govt care with forced feeding? Leave him in the street?
One of the good things of a basic income via the tax system is that it requires much less rules. An enormous forest of bureaucratic overhead can be torched and burned to the ground. I would start a vineyard in its place. There will always be Freds who decide to do stupid things no matter what. As a libertarian I don't want to take away that right from anybody.
At some point, "society" may decide that EF is a danger to himself, or a detriment to "their" neighborhood.
If he is adanger to himself alone.. too bad for him. If he is a danger also to others we need police, laws, courts, law enforcement. What's new, what's is the point?
So many nuances, so few who are "aware." Coolest part about ideology is there is no cost. Implementation runs face first into the glass door of reality and gets ugly.
Indeed. It always is trial and error. Learning is part of the process. Or not learning and be miserable.
No shock that you have people focused on their own self-interests (milking the system), in the Netherlands, but Hillbillies? Really? Wouldn't that require hills?
Here it's neither up-hill nor down-hill... I guess.
good points. and as always, the main impediments to society becoming more "humane" will the reactions of the humans in that particular society.
It would be interesting some day to hear a serious cost/benefit analysis that bypasses the feel-good ideology of "me good" and actually addresses actual costs, hidden costs, perverse incentives, and unintended consequences. Me thinketh that day shall never come, cause it's complicated. Easier to sell "Us nice! Them mean!" without any of those pesky facts or data.
Feelings rule! Facts drool!
There still exist those ideologues who can not acknowledge the failures of Cash-for Clunkers, rent control, or sub prime financing as political strong arm tactics to help the poor. You can forbid people from using food stamps to buy contraband, but when a "poor" person offers $30 or $50 in food stamps for a $5 six pack of beer, some vendors will provide. Or if you sell your $30 or $50 in food stamps for $5 in cash, you good to go.
Then of course, there is the numbers aspect. Assume 10% get $500 a month, the govt. is 50% efficient ($0.50 of every dollar taxed gets to the end user), the other 90% must pay $111 per month to fund the program. If 10% of the population are better off, are the other 90% OK with footing the bill? What if only 60% agree the plan is "compassionate?" Are they the only ones who should be taxed? 60% agree this is fair, 60% willingly pay the additional tax, so we oppress 30% to help the 10%! Are we compassionate or oppressive? Definitely, "we" are not impressive.
As you noted, always, some will temporarily benefit, some will temporarily get screwed, and the discussions of who is who, and the definitions of benefit and screwed will be in flux ad infinitum (ie: for a long time).
Keep brainstorming P. Someday, they will get it!
In the meantime, ala Endo-ology, I shall continue to search for the oppressor who promises to liberate me by oppressing those I consider to be oppressing me!
He/she/they must be out there some where.....
on basic income, a question. 
