
Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? - ryan606
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/
======
VincentEvans
Why wouldn't all standard of living benefits of basic income get eliminated
immediately by all relevant costs rising to soak it up?

This happens every single time the poor get any sort of money. In poor
neighborhoods the rents cost as much as people are able to pay, no more, no
less.

Do you know when most rental deposits are collected? Around the tax return
season.

If suddenly the poor had some money to spare - the rents will simply go up.
The water bill will go up. Electricity, gas. Etc.. until there's no extra
income left. And then the poor will be in exactly the same situation as they
are now.

Source: long time resident (and landlord btw) of poor neighborhoods of Philly.

P.S: Government is willing to help poor with mortgages? House prices balloon.
Government is helping with education grants - colleges raise tuition.
Borderline-broke municipalities with enormous unfunded liabilities are looking
for any opportunity to collect back taxes and make up new ones. I can go on.

Why would this be any different? As the history shows it will provide a
benefit for only a short amount of time until costs catch up.

P.P.S: I am not an opponent of helping poor, quite the opposite. I just don't
know how to go about it in real world.

~~~
pierrebai
I fail to see by what mechanism what you describes occurs. Do you constantly
query your occupant of pay raises? Why would every raise be siphoned by rent?
Poor people have problem making ends meet for clothes, food, etc. Sure, more
money put inflationary pressure, but it's not a magic direct correlation and
instant feedback. If the government is serious and declares that it will
adjust basic income to match the market price for basic goods and regulate
their prices, including building low-rent lodging, then the inflationary
pressure will have to subsides into only unregulated items.

~~~
VincentEvans
I certainly don't "constantly query", but somehow there's always a feedback of
what is a successful economic model.

I have so many examples of this. For instance due to terrible public schools -
private schools cost roughly what it would cost you to move to a good
neighborhood with good public school.

Day care - costs around what the government contributes as day care
assistance.

Etc...

------
JonFish85
Well, the real question is, are you ready to pay for the Guaranteed Basic
Income? Generously assuming that it's not indexed to inflation, probably what
would happen is that costs would rise to account for the newfound money. Then,
of course, there would have to be services that remain in place, because if
people spend their income stupidly, we can't have them starving in the
streets. Then you have the collection problem, that suddenly taxes would have
to go up (and they would, of course, regardless of how many services you think
you can cut).

The people who pay? In general, as with any tax increase, it's the middle
class. It's the couple that went to college, saved their money, worked hard,
bought a house and started a family. Regardless of how much you think you can
raise tax rates on "the rich", the only way to pay for something like this is
by getting to the middle class, which is where the tax revenue is.

------
Retric
I think we should just call it what it is a dividend. We have crossed a point
where handing off 10% of everyone's income allows for a reasonable minimum
standard of living. But, because progress is always going to cost some people
more than others we need to align incentives.

Sorry, I know your a world class doctor, but _Auto Scan (TM)_ just does a
better job.

The important thing to remember is that % for a given standard is dropping
over time. If 1% is enough to reach the current US standard then it's going to
be really hard to say no.

PS: I don't think we will take this global any time soon. But, we could. World
GDP is 106 dollars per person per day. 10% of that is 10.06$ per person per
day. 80% of humanity lives on less than 10$ per day.

~~~
asmithmd1
The numbers seem to work for the US.

A 10% income tax increase redistributed to all US households would be ~$11,000
per household, which is right about what the poverty line is for 1 person. If
your household makes less than $110k you get a tax cut, above $110k you will
be paying more to prevent social unrest.

All numbers in Billions and for 2014

Total earned income $14,700

Total income tax $1,000

\--------------------------

    
    
                        $13,700
    

10% = $1,370

Total US households .125

basic income per household 1370/.125 = $11,000

~~~
Retric
I think suggestions reduce low income tax breaks and other social welfare
programs while introducing a BI. ~11k per year could be close to net tax
neutral.

EX: A flat tax at the highest rate would adds ~2,745$ to everyone above of the
first tax bracket $9,275/yr, next tax bracket is hands out 6,980$, together
that's a 9,725$ benefit for everyone making over $37,650/yr already being
baked into the tax code.

On top of that you get things like HUD, education grants etc. Not to mention
the 60+ million people getting Social Security.

PS: Not that I think the odds are good in the US any time soon. But, we are
facing a lot of systemic issues which could promote a huge range of reforms.

------
dota_fanatic
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about anything.

Some parents can put 850k in a account for their child when it's born that
gets invested, say in the American economy (grows by say 7% over an average,
long time period), which compounds until later in life, and when they grow up,
they can access it. With good financial responsibility, this child won't have
to work a day in their lives and can live off the returns.

Why can't we as a society do this for everyone, but you can never touch the
account, only the returns? That is, wealth and a foot in the returns of
humanity as a right.

You're born, you get $1mil put in an account that gets invested. When you turn
18, you start getting a monthly check, the return on that investment. You can
never touch the account, only get its returns.

Someone tell me why this is a bad idea, worse than guaranteed basic income.

~~~
wskinner
What makes you think the American economy would continue growing at 7%
forever?

And why do you believe prices wouldn't rise to meet the new common standard of
living afforded by this grant?

~~~
dota_fanatic
Because humans will never stop climbing. It's built into us. Even most people
in poverty want to climb, they just have little to no options, so they find
ways to cope nevertheless.

As for rising prices, surely they can't rise _everywhere_? People will be able
to afford to abandon the obscenely wealthy playpens (SF, NY, Tokyo, etc) and
move somewhere that's affordable. Cost of living varies depending on location,
doesn't it? Surely this would result in more competition, not less?

------
wimagguc
An earlier Freakonomics episode [1] discusses whether early retirement is bad
for the health. According to the show it actually might be: _" one additional
year of early retirement causes an increase in the risk of premature death of
2.4 percentage points"_

Guaranteed Basic Income sounds like an early retirement option for most
people, so where it's probably a fantastic opportunity for self-starters, it
might be lethal for everyone else. GBI's side effect can be weeding out non-
entrepreneurs.

[1] Early Retirement: Bad For Your Health?
[http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/29/early-retirement-bad-
for-...](http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/29/early-retirement-bad-for-your-
health/)

------
f_allwein
It is important to consider this as more and more white-collar jobs may become
redundant due to automation [e.g. 1].

Moreover, it would be interesting to see what becomes of today's jobs if there
were an basic income. E.g. what percentage of jobs would disappear and not be
missed? How many people would continue to work at their current job?

[1] [http://books.simonandschuster.com/The-Industries-of-the-
Futu...](http://books.simonandschuster.com/The-Industries-of-the-Future/Alec-
Ross/9781476753652)

~~~
ancap
Why? We have had "automation" in some form or another for many millennia and
we have not needed a "basic income".

Every technological advancement from the invention of hand tools, to creating
complex machines can be loosely classified as "automation" and in every case
the standard of living has increased and resources were then allocated to some
more productive means.

Why is today's automation any different?

~~~
f_allwein
The general argument (made e.g,. in the Alec Ross book) is that there will not
be enough paid work left as more and more jobs are automated. So paying a
basic income would become necessary to ensure people's survival (or prevent
social unrest).

~~~
ancap
Just around my home I could easily hire a few people to do various jobs at any
given time, but it is not cheap enough for me to justify doing that.
Automation comes at a cost, and often humans laborers can do the job cheaper.
The thing that will be pushing people out of a job is minimum wage, not the
automation which often results in reaction to minimum wage.

~~~
mercutio2
Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of
the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below
subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be
much less need for low end wage distortions.

Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not
guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier.
I suspect once we have BI, it will be much more expensive to pay someone to
come clean your house.

~~~
ancap
>Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part
of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Nope.

>Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below
subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be
much less need for low end wage distortions.

No, minimum wage is a political stunt which results unemployment. That is why
you now see the same union lobbyists who pushed for the $15 minimum wage now
lobbying for exemptions for their unions.

>Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not
guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier.

Are you suggesting that wealthy people are ok if all of their workers died?
Seems pretty ridiculous. If I am opposed to someone stealing my wallet, does
that mean I am in favor of their kids starving to death?

------
klunger
It was interesting that they used dogs as an example of a population that had
its work taken away by technological progress, yet did not provide the obvious
counter example (horses).

~~~
SilasX
Horses also had their work taken away by technological progress.

------
Overtonwindow
Negative. Those with money will fight like hell to keep from giving it up.
However if by some chance/miracle a guaranteed income is ever instituted, it
will become a political football, as politicians and advocacy groups seek to
continuously push it higher and higher. Instead of a money handout, I would
rather support money in exchange for public works and service. I don't believe
handouts without some kind of exchange will ever really work.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Politically I don't see it being any different to progressive taxes which many
(most?) countries already implement.

Practically I suspect it will need to be quite low to avoid all sorts of
distortions.

~~~
Overtonwindow
By politically I'm imagining a politician campaigning on the promise to
increase the basic minimum income. Vote for me and I'll get your basic income
increased. Don't vote for my opponent because they just want to cut your basic
income! It's the tax issue all over again.

~~~
twoodfin
Exactly, and just as likely to be gummed up by complexity. After all, how can
you be against teachers and firefighters receiving just a _little_ more BI for
their essential, thankless jobs?

~~~
pgeorgi
but such considerations are what their actual income is for.

------
vansteen
Next month in Switzerland, there's a votation to establish a basic income. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2016#Basic_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2016#Basic_income_referendum)

------
ancap
In the past century we have countless examples of socialism failing, yet its
proponents devise some new scheme, some new brand and try to sell it as if
something will be different this time. Socialism will always fail because it
is contradictory to human nature.

~~~
inflagranti
We have countless examples of capitalism failing too. But the argument that
socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social
animals. However, as any animal, if you corner them and put them in survival
mode, things can get ugly.

The purpose of modern states is exactly to provide security in multiple ways,
one of them being shared financial security, to remove the need of constant
struggle for survival and allow the social side of humanity to flurish.

As an example on a smaller scale: There were enough articles recently for
instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social
environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to
advance. Pure survival mode. Compare that for instance with companies like
Google, that spoil everyone and even give you 20% time for free. So far they
haven't collapsed. Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I
don't see how such learning don't apply. That exactly is the human behaviour
argument.

Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people
even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human
nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations
as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling.

~~~
ancap
>But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong,
as humans are social animals.

Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it having the word "social"
in it?). Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an
agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that?
How is that in harmony with human nature?

>There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme
example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to
backstab each other and play politics to advance.

And yet people work for Amazon. Willingly. What's wrong with that? Just
because the work environment does not meet your standards of what you expect
from a job, why would you want to deprive others of their jobs? That's very
anti-social.

>Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such
learning don't apply.

Not only are they not countries but trying to extrapolate such scenarios which
happen between free acting, cooperating, social individuals to a generic edict
enforced through threat of violence is foolhardy.

>Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people
even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human
nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations
as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling.

Again, your examples tell us nothing of socialism and are not even applicable.

~~~
fnovd
>Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on
the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in
harmony with human nature?

No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth.
Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a
completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both
worlds.

You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only
does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me
a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or
promoting collective interest.

The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property
and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form
of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make
rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to
accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against
an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased
profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met,
not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking,
walking primates that we are.

~~~
ancap
>No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth.
Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a
completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both
worlds.

Socialism may claim that but the results are very anti-social as demonstrated
in my previous comment. You say "no" in response to my comment concerning
socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I
hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? That's just
one of dozens of possible scenarios I could mention which socialism prohibits.

>You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance

Yes, as that was the idea I was refuting from the parent comment.

>but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any
data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social
programs or promoting collective interest.

Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point?
Hardly. It does not follow. We need not compare state to state, as socialist
programs are typically applied to individual sectors of an economy. Take any
sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs
and you will find a sector which is scraping by. You will find corruption and
you will find greater public outrage. Healthcare being a prime example.
Ironically progressives blame the short comings in these sectors on
capitalism.

>The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of
property and labor.

I agree. I would like to see more thought, more experiment and more results to
see how little of a state might be accomplished.

~~~
fnovd
>You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two
people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an
hour, if that's what they and I agree upon?

Socialism itself doesn't prevent you from hiring someone for $4 an hour.
Current laws (which may be based on socialist principles) do that. You could
argue that, in a future with a universal basic income, we wouldn't need a
minimum wage, as people could survive on even no wage. Would this be more or
less socialist than things as they are today?

>Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point?
Hardly. It does not follow.

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? Of course not. Prove within reasonable
heuristics? Depends on your definition of "reasonable". Our definitions are
clearly different.

>Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist
programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by.

A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a
socialist government. Perhaps it is not the socialist regulation that caused
the failure, but the failure of the industry to meet public need which drives
regulation. You may find this reversal (or un-reversal) of cause and effect
ironic, but it really comes down to the classic correlation vs causation
question. Without better research, we really cannot know.

For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my
behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes. Certainly,
governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless
effort. It sounds like you disagree.

~~~
ancap
>A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a
socialist government.

I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. In my study of
history the case which government lays out for their new intervention is based
on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely downright lies. This has been
the case in anti-trust, social security, medicaid and many more instances.

The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is
economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer
demands?

>For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my
behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes.

Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your
candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your
ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate
really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the
other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election?
How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the
books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these
improved aggregates?

>Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a
pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree.

I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on,
but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being
squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their
competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon
others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they
exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up
people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say
its pointless.

~~~
fnovd
>In my study of history the case which government lays out for their new
intervention is based on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely
downright lies. This has been the case in anti-trust, social security,
medicaid and many more instances.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I guess we fundamentally
disagree on how historical events should be interpreted.

>The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is
economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer
demands?

Industries don't exist to meet demands, they exist to create profit. Meeting
an external demand can create profit, but so can unlawful or immoral business
practices. This is the very reason why people seek an organized entity (like a
government) to negotiate on their behalf. Pristine economic theories work
nicely in a bubble, but we don't live in one.

>Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your
candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your
ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate
really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the
other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election?
How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the
books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these
improved aggregates?

Do I agree with everything that the US government does? No. Would I rather be
a US citizen than one of any other country? Yes. Do I think this country has
the potential to move itself in the right direction? Yes.

>I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on,
but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being
squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their
competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon
others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they
exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up
people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say
its pointless.

In what world is it good socialist policy to squander trillions of dollars?
Obviously things could be improved. Yes, some regulation is bad, just look at
the anti-competitive practices Comcast has lobbied for over the years (and
make no mistake, those policies are only in place because of Comcast's
lobbying). Regulation is not the same thing as socialism. Socialism can impose
regulation to promote certain principles, sure, but that doesn't mean all
regulation is created to further social goals.

~~~
ancap
>Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I guess we fundamentally
disagree on how historical events should be interpreted.

As I said previously, I would love to hear the historical case you have in
mind. Let's examine the facts and discuss further. Saying we disagree in the
interpretation of historical events without even discussing any is a cop out
and intellectually disingenuous.

>Industries don't exist to meet demands, they exist to create profit. Meeting
an external demand can create profit, but so can unlawful or immoral business
practices.

In a free (and freeish) market, businesses cannot survive without meeting
customers' demands. It's possible a business owner could have a myriad of
motivations, but the fact remains they must at least be meeting customer
demands. But this goes back to the comment above. Please provide an example of
an industry that was at least relatively laissez faire and failed to meet
customer demands.

>This is the very reason why people seek an organized entity (like a
government) to negotiate on their behalf.

I know very few people who view the government as an organization which
negotiates on their behalf. In fact I can safely say I have never before heard
anyone describe government in such a manner.

>Pristine economic theories work nicely in a bubble, but we don't live in one.

Unfortunately socialism doesn't even work in the bubble (it has been debunked
thoroughly by economists such as F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray
Rothbard among others), let alone the real world. Thankfully capitalism has an
excellent track record and we know empirically of its efficacy to improve the
standard of living and increase human cooperation.

>In what world is it good socialist policy to squander trillions of dollars?

I have no idea what "good socialist policy" is as it seems like an oxymoron to
me, but I think it's only fair that those who had their money forcefully taken
from them determine whether the money is being squandered.

~~~
fnovd
>As I said previously, I would love to hear the historical case you have in
mind. Let's examine the facts and discuss further. Saying we disagree in the
interpretation of historical events without even discussing any is a cop out
and intellectually disingenuous.

We would only be discussing our subjective interpretations of facts. I don't
think that's intellectually disingenuous. For example, how could you argue
with a Holocaust-denier who believes that all records were forged? You could
be pointing to the exact same things but interpreting them differently. I
don't think we share a common ground, and there nothing I could say to you or
you could say to me to change the way we emphasize or de-emphasize historical
facts and their relation to one another.

>In a free (and freeish) market, businesses cannot survive without meeting
customers' demands. It's possible a business owner could have a myriad of
motivations, but the fact remains they must at least be meeting customer
demands. But this goes back to the comment above. Please provide an example of
an industry that was at least relatively laissez faire and failed to meet
customer demands.

What is a "free" market? I think this is the important question. My core
belief is that actors in an economy will act according to game theory. Is a
free market one with no rules? If so, what is to stop someone from lying,
cheating, or stealing? Is a free market a system with a few basic principles?
If so, who serves as judge to determine if rules were broken? How do you
ensure this judge acts in the best interest of the market rather than their
own best interest? What is the punishment for breaking rules? In my view,
businesses do have a drive to create value. However, businesses also have a
drive to make a cheap buck where they can at someone else's expense. I think
having a government act on behalf of consumers is necessary to keep rent-
seeking motives in check and let value-creation stay at the forefront. I
simply do not believe that large, powerful, independent businesses will act
with my best interests at heart.

>I know very few people who view the government as an organization which
negotiates on their behalf. In fact I can safely say I have never before heard
anyone describe government in such a manner.

Ideally, I do think that is what a government should be. I'm very happy that
my government has orchestrated clean water, built power lines, roads, and
bridges, and ensured basic standards for food quality. In essence, the
government is a sort of corporation of which I received a single share upon
birth. The ultimate morality of being forced into purchasing that share is
debatable, but pragmatically, at least for now, I'm happy with it.

>Unfortunately socialism doesn't even work in the bubble (it has been debunked
thoroughly by economists such as F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray
Rothbard among others), let alone the real world. Thankfully capitalism has an
excellent track record and we know empirically of its efficacy to improve the
standard of living and increase human cooperation.

I think you carry a lot of baggage when you use the term socialism. I'm not
talking full-scale USSR planned economies. The US has been dabbling in
socialist policies since the Great Depression. That track record you attribute
to capitalism I attribute to socialism (or I guess social capitalism). I'm not
advocating for full government control of the economy. I do think the
government can be an actor in an economy for net benefit, and I think certain
powers should be ensured.

>I have no idea what "good socialist policy" is as it seems like an oxymoron
to me, but I think it's only fair that those who had their money forcefully
taken from them determine whether the money is being squandered.

Let's call it social capitalism, then. You seem to have a problem with the
word socialism itself.

~~~
ancap
>What is a "free" market? I think this is the important question. My core
belief is that actors in an economy will act according to game theory. Is a
free market one with no rules? If so, what is to stop someone from lying,
cheating, or stealing? Is a free market a system with a few basic principles?

While clearly defining a free market is an important discussion, I think it
out of the scope of this discussion. The direction for the thread was to
explore your claim that government regulation in a market is initially
introduced to mend a "failing industry". The only way to verify such a claim
would be to explore some historical case. As you refuse to identify such a
case, defining the term "free market" is a diversion.

>In essence, the government is a sort of corporation of which I received a
single share upon birth.

>I simply do not believe that large, powerful, independent businesses will act
with my best interests at heart.

Seems contradictory, don't you think? I find it ironic that you believe
private businesses would do you personal harm, but you have no similar
concerns for government. It is government not businesses who are responsible
for hundreds of millions of deaths in the past century alone. It is government
not businesses which hold a monopoly on violence and perform their every act,
even the ones you deem noble, through the threat of violence.

~~~
fnovd
>It is government not businesses who are responsible for hundreds of millions
of deaths in the past century alone.

This is simply untrue. You cannot blame the concept of government for what
people in governments do. I can be against what a private industry does
without being against the concept of industries altogether.

>I find it ironic that you believe private businesses would do you personal
harm, but you have no similar concerns for government.

I said no such thing. I said that I have more of a say in what happens in my
government than in a private business.

------
vaadu
Where is the incentive to get people off the couch looking for work or going
to school?

~~~
mrfusion
Inside every person, silly.

~~~
lghh
If I had a decent basic income, I wouldn't be working.

~~~
drumdance
But not everyone would. I really love my work. Fewer people in the marketplace
would be good for me because it would drive up my wages, which means I could
afford to do things that the average UBI recipient could not.

Also, it's not like UBI would solve all social problems. Many people who like
to work in nonprofits today would continue to do so. Probably even more people
would because they would have more of a safety net underneath them while they
save the world.

That said, I'm skeptical of a UBI. Too many unknown consequences.

~~~
codeismightier
Money is just an abstraction for actual goods and services produced by the
economy. If your wages go up, presumably so does the wages of those whose
services you consume.

If less people worked, the economy would produce less and we would be worse
off.

------
tgflynn
It seems to me that the question of how to finance a UBI is probably the
largest stumbling block.

Of course it could be done through taxes but a lot of people have legitimate
concerns about government taxation. For taxation to work you need a coercive
government and many of us are very aware of the downsides of such an entity.
Of course taxation isn't the only reason we have a coercive government there's
also the war on drugs and other policies which seem to ultimately derive from
the need of a significant fraction of the population to dictate the choices of
their fellow citizens. This tendency is of course inevitably amplified among
those who self-select for government or political careers. There is also to
some degree a legitimate need for self-defense which also inevitably leads to
some degree of coercive government. But even if these problems could be
solved, say for example through more rational and better focused defense
policies and through evolution of ethical views to give greater weight to the
desires of individuals to lead their lives as they see fit, if we are going to
provide a safety net for everyone we will always need some form of government
and if that government is financed through taxation a level of coercive and
invasive policies is likely inevitable.

Could we find a better way to finance government and a UBI ? Some countries
and regions with extensive natural resources have been able to leverage them
to help finance their governments and provide assistance to citizens (examples
I believe include Norway and Alaska). However most economies are not so
strongly dependent on the exploitation of natural resources so this type of
solution cannot be generalized. What if a nation's government became an
investor in that nation's economy ? I'm not talking about nationalization of
industry but allowing the government to acquire minority ownership of public
corporations as a means not of exerting control but of generating income.
Could we imagine government evolving to the point of relying for its financing
on a financial portfolio much like some universities receive substantial
income from their endowments ? I'm not an economist but I've never encountered
this idea in the press. It would be interesting to know what the experts think
of it.

~~~
branchless
You have to fund it via land value tax or rentiers will take up all the slack.

Get rid of income tax, tax land. We want to stop rentiers, we don't want to
stop workers. Right now it's back to front, by design.

~~~
aaren
Can you explain how land value tax relates to current UK council tax? Is CT
just a really poorly implemented LVT and could LVT be implemented by modifying
the existing CT system?

I advocate for LVT in the abstract but get stuck on explaining implementation
in a relatable way.

p.s. really appreciate your persistent posting on this :)

~~~
branchless
Sorry i missed this msg. Yes CT is not enough. LVT would replace income tax as
the primary govt income.

Read Henry George.

------
tzs
I've wondered if a "guaranteed basic goods" systems might make sense, either
as an alternative to a basic income system, or as a way to slowly transition
to one.

The idea would be that as we figure out how to automate things, we make those
things essentially public goods. We end up with a mixed economy, where we have
one class of goods that are produced in publicly owned automated factories and
do not cost the consumer money, and another class of goods that work like they
do now where private parties produce them and sell them for money which the
buyers earn through paid employment.

For instance, consider vegetables. We're close to being able to make almost
fully automated farms for many crops, and we're close to fully automating most
of the shipping from farm to market. The idea would be that as we achieve
this, the government buys up these farms (or starts its own farms), and
everyone gets a daily allotment of the produce from these farms. Some meat
production is also highly automated, and so we should be able to at some point
in the not too distant future add meat to this.

At that point everyone who has a place to cook has their basic food
requirements taken care of.

How about transportation? Automobile manufacture is very automated. At some
point that too will be almost completely automated. Combine that with self-
driving cars, and we should be able to have a publicly owned nationwide fleet
of self-driving taxis. Ideally these would be electric cars, powered by
publicly owned solar, wind, hydroelectric, or nuclear systems.

As automation gets more and more advanced, more and more goods can be added to
the "made by publicly owned automated factories" list and made available to
all.

When enough stuff is automated and turned into public goods to allow someone
to survive reasonably without a job as long as they have housing, we can start
making publicly owned housing in places where land and construction costs are
cheap. That will be away from the big cities, but for people who decide to not
work that would be fine, as it would for people who can work remotely. So we
should be able to reach a point where everyone can have a basic apartment or
small house and the necessities to survive reasonably there, without an
income.

Will we ever be able to automate everything except creative intellectual work?
I don't think so, at least not for a long time. I think that would require the
development of something like the robots from Asimov's stories--robots that
have human form factors (so that they can work anywhere that a human can work)
and human level intelligence, and I don't think we'll be there anytime in the
next 100 years.

A nice thing about this approach is that it can be done with minimal
disruption. With basic income you have to give everyone enough to reasonably
survive right from the start. With basic goods, you go item by item, industry
by industry.

