
The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income - bhauer
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income
======
api
I consider myself a left-libertarian, and I strongly support a basic income.
I'm also a supporter of some amount of public health care.

In _theory_ I support the elimination of taxation and a purely volitional
society, but I recognize that such a thing is likely a very long way away.
What we have now is not even close, and trying to shoehorn it into that vision
prematurely will not work. That kind of moral futurism should not blind us to
chances to radically improve human life here and now while working
pragmatically within the bounds of the political realities we have.

One also must ask the question: given that the abolition of force and fraud is
a moral long term goal, what sort of society would we want to build that would
be likely to evolve in that direction? I don't think crony capitalism with
fascist tendencies and no social safety net seems like what you'd want. Seems
like that would be more likely to regress back to feudalism... which is
exactly the historical path that we seem to be on. Regression to feudalism
takes us further -- _much_ further -- from that goal.

Seems to me that the precursors to a volitional libertarian state are radical
reductions in violence both within and between nations, a highly educated and
healthy populace that is _capable_ of taking care of itself, and the abolition
of caste systems (e.g. sexism, racism, classism, guild systems, etc.). A basic
income is a step in that direction.

~~~
orblivion
> Seems to me that the precursors to a volitional libertarian state are
> radical reductions in violence both within and between nations, a highly
> educated and healthy populace that is capable of taking care of itself, and
> the abolition of caste systems (e.g. sexism, racism, classism, guild
> systems, etc.). A basic income is a step in that direction.

Does the libertarian within you believe that the State will accomplish this
goal, without worse repercussions? Why remove the state at all if you think it
can engineer society for the better in this way?

~~~
api
If you remove the state from a violent, fraud-ridden, still very feudal
system, you will simply unveil the underlying less centralized tyranny latent
in that system.

There's also a massive blind spot in most conventional libertarian thought
with regard to soft power and indirect coercion. Eliminating direct coercion
but leaving caste systems in place only frees those who are rich or powerful
enough to evade those caste systems. The rest are consigned to poverty and
oppression through manipulation instead of force.

So yes, I do think the state can play some role _at this time in history_ at
uplifting the human condition and empowering the general population in ways
that could -- given a lot of time -- eventually lead to a future that is
better and freer in multiple ways. Or it could not. The state can't be
trusted, but I also don't think we can dispense with it (yet).

Simple reductio ad absurdium: imagine actually dispensing with the US Federal
Government. Most US states in the interior would establish theocratic feudal
totalitarianism along Christian Reconstructionist / Dominionist lines, and the
coasts and anywhere resource-rich would probably be invaded.

------
yummyfajitas
This article is almost self refuting - objection (2) is killer.

Immigration is probably the most important issue of our time. If we have a BI,
we can't have immigration in any form remotely resembling what we have today,
let alone some ideal situation where we have drastically more immigration.
It's as simple as that. The cost of a BI (and the welfare state in general,
really) is that millions of people are stuck in Haiti, India, Afghanistan and
other desperately poor locales.

[http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whyimmigration.pdf](http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whyimmigration.pdf)
[http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012....](http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012.pdf)

I'm not an open borders activist. Most of the countries I mentioned are
desperately poor due primarily to the people living there - any immigration
policy needs to turn Haitians and Sudanese into Americans rather than turning
the US into Haiti. But at the same time we need to recognize the tremendous
humanitarian benefits of immigration.

If we prevent a Haitian person from selling his full time labor to an American
employer for $7.25/hour, we are cutting his income by 90% (Haiti has a
GDP/capita of $1300, cost of living adjusted). I can't see any benefits from a
BI that would remotely justify doing this to millions more people. In fact,
near as I can tell, virtually any policy which requires further restricting
immigration is almost certainly a nonstarter for this reason.

A much better policy is the Basic Job, which is like Basic Income but you need
to work for it (see FDR's CCC, jobs are things like improving public parks,
planting trees, etc). This also has no disincentive effects and you get some
productive labor out of the people who choose to make use of it.

~~~
bryanlarsen
A lot of BI proposals pay the BI only to citizens. New immigrants aren't
citizens; it takes many years to move from permanent resident status to become
a citizen.

This would create an underclass of immigrants & refugees, and create
incentives for voters & politicians to make getting citizenship even harder
than it is today.

This is definitely not a good situation, but it is better than forcing people
to stay in Haiti or Sudan.

~~~
yummyfajitas
This is a possibility - but so far the US tends to not do this very well. I
don't have great data on the subject, but I've seen at least one study
suggesting immigrants with children tend to be a net drain on the US.

[http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011](http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-
use-2011)

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to do what you propose, though I think a BJ is a
better policy than BI regardless of immigration. But I'm not aware of any
western society that actually manages to do it.

~~~
edraferi
The linked article does not support your assertion that "immigrants with
children tend to be a net drain". it simply says that the majority of this
population uses at least one welfare program. it highlights low levels of
education as the main driver of this, with the benefits usually going to the
american-born children.

I suspect programs like Head Start and the school reduced/free lunch program
account for a significant portion of the reported welfare use. Do you think
that a poor immigrant family with working parents that uses these programs is
a "net drain" on society?

~~~
yummyfajitas
The linked article estimates tax liability for immigrant families and shows
this is less than welfare consumed. Like I said, not great data, but I don't
have anything better. If you do I'd love to see it.

Given that Head Start doesn't even have any measurable benefits, I definitely
think those consuming it are a drain (if they pay less in taxes than Head
Start costs).

~~~
dfoolz
> In conclusion, children who were enrolled for 2 years had higher scores than
> those who only stayed for a year, which shows that being enrolled in Head
> Start for a longer duration benefited the children.[1]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program#Effectivenes...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program#Effectiveness)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Those effects were not present in the RCT. Even after reducing the p-value
cutoff to 10% (rather than the standard 5%), only a few of the expected
measures showed a statistically significant effect (some positive, some
negative), and virtually nothing persisted as far as 1st grade.

[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_su...](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf)

(See also this comic if you want to point to a few blue and yellow cells in
their charts. [http://xkcd.com/882/](http://xkcd.com/882/) )

------
socalnate1
This is the most even handed treatment of this topic I've read yet.

One topic not addressed (but important) is what we do when someone spends the
entirety of their basic income and has nothing left for food or shelter. Do we
just let them starve to death in the street? Or do we create a "secondary"
safety net that prevents this? If so, don't we just end up with the same sort
of inefficiencies and problems that plague our current system?

~~~
jjoonathan
Here's a video in which Milton Friedman addresses this exact issue:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM)

He proposes dispensing the funds weekly. You can't starve yourself in a week
and drinking fountains + free cups of water at restaurants ensure that you
won't go thirsty. Exposure could be a problem in certain cities, but under the
new system I'm sure low-cost housing would adjust to the needs of the tenants
since there's a profit motive for doing so. You might have to bus to the edge
of the city to get low-rent food and housing, but the option would be there
(and administered by a competitive private market).

I like this idea more than "bread queues" because it forces recipients to take
responsibility for their spending without using so much force that the damage
it allows to happen is greater than the value of the sense of responsibility
it aims to instill (which I believe to be the case in the present system).
Also, it leverages the free market to optimize its administrative specifics.
Massive influx of poor people due to economic downturn? More low-cost
establishments get built/converted. Massive outflux of poor people due to
economic upturn? Low-cost establishments get sold or converted into high-cost
establishments. No need to wait for next year's appropriations bill.

~~~
edraferi
I really like the implications UBI has for charity. because everyone has a
minimum level of resources, charity's revenue can scale with the number of
people they serve.

For example, a halfway house could collect BI funds on behalf of its
residents. it uses these funds, plus monies from other sources like donations
or grants, to provide in-kind aid (food, shelter, security, medical care). as
a resident requires fewer services, you can progressively phase out the in-
kind aid and pass the BI cash through directly.

obviously this would require oversight to ensure that the charity is a
responsible steward of the residents BI. we do this with the foster care
system already.

------
tokenizer
As a libertarian-socialist, I'd love for us to collectively and
indiscriminately provide everyone with a fair and appropriate basic minimum
income. The only problem with this policy is how you pay for it.

You can abolish all other forms of social assistance -but only if you can
adequately justify the elimination of the bureaucratic government jobs
associated with them. For an all inclusive basic income, no bureaucracy would
be needed.

You could tax the wealthy heavily -in effect making the basic income a
negative income tax policy. This also seems like a worthy policy worth
investigating.

You could borrow the money by way of government securities. The only problem
with this scheme however is that already you have people like myself, who are
extremely skeptical of the long term health of the current world financial
make-up of West versus Rest, which is already changing quickly.

Personally I dismiss all arguments regarding a basic income harming poor
people in the form of "inflation". We're currently in a deflationary crisis
according to the big banks, and the social and political benefits to these
policy changes would make it extremely hard to simply get rid of due to
"bubbles and pops" as we have that plenty as it is.

Can someone try to explain why something like this isn't possible? What if we
increased taxes in the top most income bracket, abolished all forms of current
social assistance, and took on more debt, hoping this can pay for itself (or
to simply continue down the trajectory of more debt every year).

Can someone try to explain why something like this could be more simple than
I'm guessing?

~~~
nickff
What is the justification for taxing the wealthy disproportionately to their
income? Is it out of moral need, financial expedience, or economic efficiency?

If you wish to tax them out of moral need, you hold a normative belief which
is unlikely to falter, so I will not challenge it.

There is no financial reason why a 'progressive' income tax is better than a
flat tax, as the 'progressive' system encourages evasion, and makes it easier,
as well as greatly increasing the scope of government, requiring regulation of
marriage and more.

Economically, the 'progressive' income tax is completely unjustifiable, as the
wealthy invest disproportionately in economic (and job) growth, while lower
income people spend more on consumption goods.

Your idea of borrowing money by way of government securities is not a long
term solution, because interest gradually becomes an increasingly large part
of the budget. In the long term, interest will either gradually take over the
entire government budget, or an interest rate increase will force the
government to default; in either case, borrowing to finance regular spending
will eventually fail as a policy.

The 'inflation argument' against welfare policies is flawed as you point out,
because it has never been demonstrated that wage increases cause inflation (so
called "demand-pull inflation"). Whether or not some type of government
welfare program should exist is an interesting question, and your answer seems
to presuppose that the counter-factual is that there would be no social
assistance program at all, whereas I would think that private charities would
do a better job than the government, while avoiding coercion. If you require a
government welfare program, I agree with you that a negative income tax is
probably the least harmful, as it does not encourage unemployment.

~~~
bencpeters
One argument I would make is a marginal utility one - the marginal utility of
$ decreases dramatically at higher incomes, so even if you have a
(comparatively) punishingly high tax rate on the rich, the amount that your
tax is affecting their lives in real terms is lower due to the marginal
utility of money at those incomes. I'm in the camp that it's reasonable to
want at least some semblance of equality of outcome though, so this argument
resonates with me in a way that it might not to someone who favors a more
lassez-faire approach. This probably falls under your "moral need" umbrella.

I don't agree with your statement about a progressive income tax being
economically unjustifiable, especially in the economy that we find ourselves
in at the moment (and, if secular stagnation proponents like Larry Summers and
Paul Krugman are right, may be the structural norm these days). The current
economy is strongly demand constrained, with plenty of money available for
investment (corporate profits and cash holdings at record highs), but
inadequate consumer demand to justify investments. From this perspective, a
progressive transfer of wealth down the income scale makes a lot of sense
economically because the poor are much more likely to actually spend that
money than the rich are. There's also not much good evidence that high end tax
rates affect macroeconomic growth as much as people claim - just in the US
we've had tax rates all over the map over the past 100 years, and there's not
much correlation with economic growth. We certainly haven't seen any miracles
of economic growth for the economy as a whole since 1980 with the long running
supply side, deregulation, and low tax experiment. If taxing the rich really
has such a strong effect on economic growth and job creation, it's hard to see
that in the data...

Finally, interest on government debt only becomes a long-term problem if the
rate is higher than the rate of growth. It's not clear to me that that has to
be the case, but that's another discussion ;)

~~~
nickff
The marginal utility argument you make is fair, but my question would be:
marginal utility to whom, and when? The poor person who receives a government
payout does benefit immediately, but poor people would benefit in the long
term if that money had been invested in a job (and wealth) creating venture.
This seems to me a difficult trade-off, and not a clear argument for or
against welfare; my criticism of your argument here is that you presuppose an
unlikely counter-factual.

You say "the poor are much more likely to actually spend that money than the
rich are", but there is no evidence for the idea that poor people are less
likely to hoard wealth than the rich. Rich individuals allocate their wealth
to longer-term investments, whereas poorer people spend their money on
consumption goods; both of these allocation systems allow the money to
circulate in the economy. The notable difference is that the long-term
investments create jobs in the long term, in exchange for forgoing consumption
in the short term.

~~~
bencpeters
You're making the assumption here that the only way that money can be invested
in a "job (and wealth) creating venture" is for the rich to make long term
investments. Furthermore, you're assuming that taxing the rich more would
decrease their job creation efforts and thus lead to less economic growth.

I don't think that these are valid assumptions. You're basically making a
"trickle down" argument (if the rich do better, their heroic efforts will
create so much economic growth that everyone benefits), and I would argue that
our economic experience since 1980 argues pretty convincingly against that. In
fact, studies on this topic (see
[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42111.pdf](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42111.pdf))
find virtually no correlation between top tax rates and overall economic
growth, contrary to the belief of proponents of supply side macroeconomics.

I think the burden is really on you (or the supply side proponents) to
demonstrate the truth of these long term economic growth claims, rather than
just asserting them. In the absence of such proof, I would argue that concerns
of economic equality and reduced suffering on the truly poor in our society
far outweigh any of these nebulous assertions of promised future economic
growth.

Finally, this doesn't have to be limited to a "welfare" vs. "investment"
question. Government taking in money doesn't have to just give it out to
people in welfare programs; it is perfectly capable of making investments too
(infrastructure, basic scientific research, correcting market failures, etc.).
There's no reason that a dollar invested by the government in infrastructure
creates less growth than a dollar invested by a wealthy individual; in fact,
given the propensity for wealthy individuals to park money in investments of
questionable social value (see much of Wall Street's activities), I'd argue
that the former is actually MORE beneficial to overall macroeconomic growth.

~~~
nickff
I was not talking about the disincentive effects of taxing income, (though I
do believe they exist,) my reasoning was simpler, in that the rich cannot
invest the money that the government took away from them.

This is why I made the comparison between what happens with the money if you
have a progressive tax vs. flat tax.

~~~
bencpeters
But you're assuming here that "the rich" investing money is creating more
growth (and you stated earlier, helping poor people more) than the government
would.

I think that's a difficult statement to back up in the best of times, although
it's certainly a difficult thing to prove either way (moving this question
beyond the level of anecdotes is really hard). However, when we've got a
persistent demand shortage like we have right now, it's much less of a tricky
question because of the multiplier effects of consumer spending.

------
natmaster
The problem with the whole premise of this analysis is that libertarianism is
some kind of idealistic belief to appeal to the pillars.

This is wrong. Libertarianism is about pragmatism, and a basic income would
simply drive up costs of all basic things needed to survive especially if any
of those are scarce. This would likely hurt those just above that poverty
barrier the most as they would no longer be able to afford basic shelter even
though they are gainfully employed. Because of this, those people will find it
better to move out to land no one cares about and just 'do nothing' as
decreasing costs is the only way for them to live decently. These people will
not provide value to society, resulting in net loss of value (read: happiness,
whatever you want to call it) for all.

~~~
jganetsk
Your assertion that a basic income would drive up costs is wrong. What
evidence do you have of that? If it's done without printing money, it will not
cause inflation. There will be more demand for housing, but how much more? The
homeless will now be able to get homes. So, how much demand is that? How much
will that drive prices up? The great thing about universal income is that
people decide how to spend it. And they will not all spend it on "basic
items", and they will not all spend it on the same things.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Your assertion that a basic income would drive up costs is wrong. What
> evidence do you have of that? If it's done without printing money, it will
> not cause inflation.

Redistributing income can be expected to cause market-specific price increases
in goods that the people benefiting from the redistribution have a greater
propensity to purchase than those from whom income is redistributed. (And
decreases in other goods.)

Adopting Basic Income is pretty clearly going to affect a redistribution of
income.

So, the increase in prices for basic goods conclusion is sound (the idea that
this will end up _harming_ those just above the poverty line by giving them
less purchasing power seems, however, far less sound.)

~~~
jganetsk
We can't make these conclusions until we precisely know how people will spend
the money. It could go into paying off debt and savings. It could go into
luxury items (which the poor love to buy). Also, proposals for basic income
often involve curtailing other social programs, which would have an impact as
well. A basic income could, for instance, supplant food stamps, thus
potentially keeping food prices the same.

~~~
dragonwriter
> We can't make these conclusions until we precisely know how people will
> spend the money. It could go into paying off debt and savings.

Its not like marginal propensity to consume of people in different income
levels is a completely opaque mystery about which we have no information.

~~~
jganetsk
But there are many other factors other than people's propensity to consume
that you need to account for. And I'm not sure if this degree of raise in
income practically changes marginal propensity to consume that much.

~~~
dragonwriter
> But there are many other factors other than people's propensity to consume
> that you need to account for.

Not to determine short-term demand effects of redistribution of income there
isn't.

> And I'm not sure if this degree of raise in income practically changes
> marginal propensity to consume that much.

Probably not, but since marginal propensity to consume is the amount of the
next dollar of income that will go to consumption, that means that the
consumption effects are fairly straightforward if you have an idea of marginal
propensity to consume.

------
ihnorton
This is worth a read, especially for this point:

    
    
      However attractive libertarianism might be in theory, 
      “Libertarianism…Starting Now!” has the ring of special 
      pleading, especially when it comes from the mouths of people 
      who have by and large emerged at the top of the bloody and 
      murderous mess that is our collective history.
    

_Social justice libertarianism_? I was not expecting that. Very interesting.
(the website is beautiful, too)

~~~
anExcitedBeast
I think it's fair to call 'libertarian' a descriptor of political, economic,
or philosophical ideas. There are many different types of libertarians who
have occasionally conflicting positions. The only thing they share is a
vaguely similar anti-state "flavor". I think it's about as precise as
'liberal' or 'conservative', which is to say it isn't precise at all.

------
mindcrime
Background: I consider myself a Voluntaryist or Anarcho-Capitalist
libertarian, and I can't see how I could ever support anything that violates
NIF[1][2].

\---

That was more interesting and enlightening than I expected, to be quite
honest. My initial thought was that there would be no way to reconcile a
"basic income" with the NIF principle, unless said basic income is paid
entirely voluntarily. But the historical rectification argument strikes me, at
first blush anyway, as having _some_ credence.

That said, I'm a long way from fully onboard with this as long as it's rooted
in our present system of taxation which is fundamentally based on coercion /
force, or threat of same.

[1]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
aggression_principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation_of_force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation_of_force)

------
AnthonyMouse
I want to point out that that there is no difference between a basic income
and a negative income tax. Suppose you have a negative income tax rate of 30%
up to $50,000, then an income tax rate of 30% thereafter. Compare this to
having a $15,000 annual basic income and a flat 30% income tax rate starting
from $0. They are the same thing using different words.

But the words matter, which is why I don't like calling it a negative income
tax. Because if you call it that, people start asking questions like why
should someone making up to $50,000 be getting the "subsidy"? And then people
want to do something silly like make the negative income tax be something like
60% up to $25,000, then 0% to $50,000 and 30% thereafter, which is obviously
very stupid if you stop to do the math on who gets screwed by that and what
incentives to work it creates at the bottom: It's equivalent to a $15,000
basic income with the same tax brackets, and it makes no damn sense whatsoever
for someone making $25,000/year to be paying a 60% marginal tax rate. But
calling it "negative income tax" encourages people to think that way and
expect high marginal rates on the poor to be Good when they are really quite
Bad.

------
notahacker
If the _ethical_ case for redistribution rests on the view that (A) inequality
is partly the consequence of injustices that need restitution and (B) some
people _really_ need the money, and probably deserve it because of A, I can't
see why that would leave you favouring a crassly simply form of redistribution
like BI over another hypothetical form of welfare system which is better at
focusing the redistribution on suffers of injustice and things people really
need. That probably wouldn't be identical in design to the current US welfare
system, but it wouldn't be difficult to argue that many of the features
present in most actual welfare states are better at delivering A and B than a
simple monthly transfer of a small amount of income to everybody.

Which leaves us with two main lines of argument against some more traditional
form of welfare state. It's "paternalistic", but so are _employers_ when they
impose conditions upon people that expect to receive money or expenses from
them, and I so don't see anyone making the case that expecting minimum
standards of behaviour from people in return for giving them money is _in
general_ a bad thing. Secondly, it's expensive to administer, but potentially
not as expensive and wasteful as the adverse consequences of an overly-
generous basic income (or as deadly as an insufficient basic income). On the
whole, better to have lots of subtly wrong things than one big politically-
sensitive number that can make or break your economy.

Once you've conceded the case that centralised large-scale distribution is
inherently justifiable and worthwhile, saying no to "big government" starts to
look more like a slogan than an argument...

------
liquidise
Hold on now. While i am going to do my best to avoid a No True Scotsman here,
i have never spoken to a self-described libertarian who supports in reparation
or affirmative action.

This is not by chance either. The idea of fiscal freedoms comes at the cost of
fiscal safety nets. Where you draw that line is a sliding scale of course, but
i still fair to see how this article is speaking a libertarian mindset.

~~~
tokenizer
> Where you draw that line is a sliding scale of course

I disagree. As a libertarian-socialist, I think we can take care of ourselves
while pursuing freedom in regards to economics.

In our current system, we judge people based on their employment, history, and
need, and then select people to give benefits to. There are problems with
this. Bureaucracy, favouritism, politicking, etc.

With a basic income, we can reduce spending by abolishing all social
assistance, reduce the amount of government employees by firing the
bureaucrats who used to deny/approve people for benefits, and simply guarantee
everyone a minimum amount of support. This has the benefits of reducing
bureaucracy, favouritism, and politicking.

~~~
liquidise
> With a basic income, we can reduce spending by abolishing all social
> assistance

I would love to see the numbers that show a no-questions-asked basic income
would be cheaper than the present social assistance monies.

There are a lot of logistics here. How do we prove you did not already get
your check? What about those without mailing addresses. Or ID's? Is the basic
income adjusted for families of 1 vs 7?

This idea of a minimalist ruleset for financial assistance seems like it is
great at first, but will inevitably just get more and more bloated (and
costly) as you actually implement it.

~~~
tokenizer
> I would love to see the numbers that show a no-questions-asked basic income
> would be cheaper than the present social assistance monies.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome)

From the article: "She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked
substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted
to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because
they weren't under as much pressure to support their families".

To me that sounds like more adults would work, while those who have other
obligations (childbearing) or goals (study, creative, startups) can focus on
that.

I'm not saying it would be cheaper, but providing a guaranteed minimum to all
adults, would remove the need for the other programs, saving THAT money. It
would not pay for it completely. Removing the government jobs that oversee
most of the selection and verification (fact checking if the person is
pursuing offers) could be eliminated. This could also save money. Again not
enough, but enough to help sigificantly.

> There are a lot of logistics here.

Absolutely. We need to take risks for rewards though, and there must be a way
to test this without hurting the whole economy, but we need to all agree to
take that risk before we work on the next step.

> How do we prove you did not already get your check?

Great question. My guess would be you only provide one per person per period.
Any duplications would be search for via software, then again by a human. Any
proven duplication will be deducted. Rinse and repeat, minimal bureaucracy.
The government always pays me/requires me to pay them every year, but even
though its not perfect, it works for the most part.

> Is the basic income adjusted for families of 1 vs 7?

In my mind it would be a set amount per adult. The argument that we need to
provide more for larger families creates odd and sad circumstances of child
farms and generational welfare homes. People need to start becoming
responsible for their families. We'd still have child services. Besides, this
shouldn't be comfortable for a single mother living alone who isn't working.
These people can get family or charity to help them, not taxes. It SHOULD be
comfortable for a single mother working 15 hours a week though, which would
help a lot of people out there.

> This idea of a minimalist ruleset for financial assistance seems like it is
> great at first, but will inevitably just get more and more bloated (and
> costly) as you actually implement it.

Well, you could argue are current system will only get more bloated and costly
as well (which is has). A major reform is necessary eventually, and this is an
innovative and modern potential solution we should SERIOUSLY investigate past
talking and move towards researching through small implementations.

~~~
dllthomas
As a side note, lest anyone be confused by confusing namings, "Mincome" is
indeed a "Basic Income" program, which is distinct from "Minimum Income"
programs (which work differently, and which I don't support).

------
billpg
Next week, a communist case for the private ownership of the means of
production.

~~~
Finster
i.e. China's economic system?

------
jganetsk
Has anyone analyzed the impact on monetary policy and macroeconomics?

The Fed has a dual mandate of low inflation and maximal employment, and as a
result, is currently printing money indefinitely. The ECB only has a mandate
of low inflation, and has had an excellent track record. However, the Eurozone
is currently having an unemployment crisis. The BI (potentially with abolition
of the minimum wage) would then mitigate the impacts of unemployment. With
basic income, couldn't the Fed become more like the ECB, and drop the
employment mandate? Then, we could potentially greatly curtail our money
printing.

Also, what are the effects on macroeconomics? Couldn't BI attenuate the boom-
bust cycle? Deflation would even be constructive: the real value of the BI is
increased without raising the nominal value. The Fed can then take its time,
during recession, in deciding when to start the printing presses again.

