
Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people - joeyespo
http://www.basicincomecanada.org/basic_income_doesn_t_emphasize_divisions_between
======
IsaacL
"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity
problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more
closely."

I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you
arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's
going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of
government money, and those who are net contributors.

Don't let basic income advocates evade the question of who pays for their
utopian scheme.

The current welfare systems are a messy parcel of compromises, but they at
least acknowledge that people have to demonstrate need to be the recipients of
government handouts. Once you establish that people have a permanent,
inalienable right to an income, you imply that others are obligated to provide
them with that income.

~~~
duaneb
> Don't let basic income advocates evade the question of who pays for their
> utopian scheme.

Have you witnessed this?

~~~
1123581321
I have seen it in every discussion. Some of the forms of evasion include:

* focusing on the wealth/profit generated by a surge in entrepreneurship from the millions suddenly motivated to start successful businesses

* focusing on the unlimited wealth created by robots/asteroids/solar in space which will fund any program we wish

* focusing on how we can't afford _not_ to try BI, i.e., the default system is a financial failure anyway so comparison is pointless

* taking the position that BI is only replacing current welfare programs (until it's pointed out that current programs would not support anyone if spread around)

Occasionally, someone will admit that they are proposing a 100% tax rate,
which is about what such a system requires. Even more occasionally, it's
admitted that every country must implement a 100% tax rate at once to avoid
mass emigration of anyone earning more than ~$20k/year.

~~~
mseebach
The most common evasion is in the handwaving around the size of the proposed
UBI check. Total US tax revenue per person comes out to just over $20000/year,
that's $1666/month (in comparison, a 40 hour workweek at the federal minimum
wage of $7.25/hr, no holidays, comes out at $15080/year or $1256/month).

If you abolished every single government program and fire every single
government employee, right from the DoD down to your local playground, from
congress to the schools, never mind every single existing welfare program,
assuming that tax revenue somehow managed to stay at the same level, what with
no IRS to collect it and 22 million newly unemployed public sector workers,
you could barely afford to pay a UBI at the minimum wage, never mind attending
to the people who might legitimately need more help (also, no roads or
schools).

UBI is _either_ going to require cuts of a depth never proposed, much less
enacted, in any western country, ever -- or be too small (perhaps a hundred
dollars a month) to live up to its promises.

~~~
majewsky
Or you raise taxes for the rich 1%.

~~~
mseebach
The top 1% of americans are about 3 million people and have an average income
of 1 million. They already account for just short of half of all income taxes.

Every time you want to raise enough revenue to give the 99% another $1,200
($100/month), you need to raise taxes on each single member of the 1% by
$120,000. And that's on average incomes of a million.

------
krupan
Every time basic income comes up people seem to missunderstand the key points:

1) It's _basic_ income, like, enough for beans and rice and a small apartment.
Nobody who is willing to work at least a part time job is going to just sit
back and live off of basic income alone for their whole life.

2) It's a huge reduction and simplification of government, replacing several
huge bureaucratic entities with one that effectively just mails out checks to
everyone periodically.

~~~
epistasis
I'm not sure if there's agreement on either of those points, honestly. A good
number of people who talk about basic income are talking about giving less
than is enough for subsistence living. And many talk about keeping additional
programs in place, such as disability (somebody with special medical needs
will not be able to live on the same income as somebody that can care for
themselves and does not need additional medical care).

It's important to come up with concrete proposals. I don't think that there's
going to be much overhead savings from your point number (2), and I'm not sure
if we're ready for the tax levels that (1) would bring.

~~~
VLM
That would seem to assume we're not already funding (1) already for everyone
who isn't too mentally ill to participate in existing more expensive to
administrate programs.

A classic example would be something like working poor on food stamps. We've
decided as a nation to provide corporate welfare by allowing corporations to
under pay employees and taxpayers will pick up the tab by providing food
stamps to the employees. A lot of pointless administrative money is spent to
make sure yes indeed they work at Walmart and Walmart doesn't pay a living
wage. An interesting side effect is many jobs are going to have massive wage
deflation down to minimum wage. Sort of a communist system where everyone gets
the same pay.

------
shams93
Basic income shouldn't be welfare imagine you have an ai or robot doing your
job who owns the output? If only a few people benefit from this productivity
the system eventually implodes. In order to keep capitalism functioning in a
post human work society you need a mechanism for redistribution . Basic income
shouldn't be welfare it's supposed to represent your share of the productivity
of a post human economy.

------
paulsutter
Assume for the sake of argument, that we woke up one morning and there were
machines that could write code. Really good code, 30,000 debugged lines a day.
They invented better languages that we couldn't even understand and were
willing to do this work just for fun.

In that world of super high productivity but few jobs,

Would basic income make sense? And if not, what's a better system? (asking the
BI opponents here) I'm asking as a sincere question, I'm not trying to be
persuasive.

I'm not saying this will happen, I'm hoping to avoid that debate, I'm just
saying assume-for-the-sake-of-argument that this does happen, in some other
world, a world we don't need to debate about.

~~~
gremlinsinc
I think this is actually highly feasible... I mean who better to talk to
machines and write code at a deeper machine-level than the machine itself?
They have bots now that can write whole news stories, coding wouldn't be that
difficult for a sophisticated AI to do in 10-20 years from now. Medical
doctors, and even lawyers may be displaced by AI at least in part. It's not
just service jobs that will be going away, just wait till the high earning
jobs start being automated away.

------
throw2016
You only get one life and anything that let's everyone and not just those born
to privilege get a shot at doing more than just surviving can only be a good
thing.

It may unlock a whole new level of untapped human creativity and potential
leading to a happier and perhaps more dynamic and productive society.

There is a risk of focussing on narrower narratives rooted in the current
economic context and missing the proverbial woods for the trees. Maybe freed
of that bigger ideas can emerge.

------
gremlinsinc
There's also the fact that growing up in poverty ALMOST ensures that you
continue in poverty. Most people who break out of poverty as pop singers,
artists, entrepreneurs - their entire family changes, so does future
generations from them on..

A recent article exposed how poverty and the stresses from it actually
literally affect the brain and cause poor brain development. Essentially this
makes Poverty a mental health issue, and should be covered under healthcare.

[http://europe.newsweek.com/how-poverty-affects-
brains-493239...](http://europe.newsweek.com/how-poverty-affects-
brains-493239?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news&yptr=yahoo)

If we had a UBI for one generation we would see less crime, we would need less
police, less militarized toys for police, and see increase in benefits like 30
hour work weeks, time off for births, etc. When technology displaces 40% of
jobs by 2030 - why not make it so everyone can contribute but less time?

When you say how lazy people on welfare are, let me ask you how lazy are rich
people too? Especially generational wealth (wealthy brats), how many playboys
are out on their private jet, or yacht for 4 months of the year? What makes
them matter more than someone who's working at a strip club because it's the
only thing she can do to put food on the table.

A good portrayal of this is in Les Miserables where Cosette's mother became a
prostitute just so she could send $10 per week to the evil caretakers of her
daughter, when she was laid off. There are so many people who are desperate
like she was.

There's also this thing where we all want to think we're 'equals' in America,
but do you really think your kid is equal to the kid slumming it in the bad
sector of town, who might get dinner every other night if he's lucky? Who's
parents have completely given up hope so yes, they do drugs - but should he
suffer because his parents are fuck ups?

------
todd8
I've found a recent government report (June, 2016) very useful in thinking
about the economics of taxes and UBI. See _The Distribution of Household
Income and Federal Taxes, 2013_ [1].

[1] [https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-
congress-2015-...](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-
congress-2015-2016/reports/51361-HouseholdIncomeFedTaxes_OneCol.pdf)

------
err4nt
As a Canadian entrepreneur I worry that mincome/basic income will serve to
knock the wind out of the sails of many innovators and entrepreneurs who, like
me, are currently DRIVEN to work hard, research, push the industry along and
crank up competition.

I would much, much rather work hard, earn more money, and feed my neighbour -
than have no hope of digging myself out of my situation no matter hos hard I
worked, being taxed, and then myself being supported by taxes I lost after
they've been spread around.

Rigt now I see a need and want to help by helping to educate entrepreneurs on
how to make more money, when I see somebody trying really hard to succeed that
makes me WANT to invest anything I can in their success. But the moment people
want to pillage my profits Im finding greener pastures. I dont think Im alone
in this - if mincome is a big tent that relies on a few strong tentpoles to
hold it up and cover everybody - those tentpoles are hard working
entrepreneurs. If mincome ever becomes a reality those tentpoles will leave
and what was a tent sheltering and protecting people will collapse and
suffocate all left inside.

~~~
ep103
Most of the reports I've seen have stated that actually, it works the other
way around. That the vast majority of people who go into entrepreneurship only
do so if they have money to fall back on, one way or another, should their
business fail. So by that logic, basic income should actually significantly
increase the likelihood of entrepreneurship, because while mincome will still
be low enough that people will want to work, it will be high enough to remove
the barrier to entrepreneurship of: "but if this idea doesn't work out, I
won't be able to eat"

~~~
err4nt
Maybe on paper, or in theory.

In my life I'm not ashamed to say it was the hunger of having nothing, no
safety net, and having no job that STILL drives me today. That fire that got
started when I had bills and no money is still burning strong today.

But I worry if theres too mucb cushion perhaps I would have not hurt as bad,
and ever achieved what Ive accomplished since then.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In my life I'm not ashamed to say it was the hunger of having nothing, no
> safety net, and having no job that STILL drives me today.

Canada is a first-world country, and like all first-world safety nets, hasn't
had "no safety net" for quite a long time (even the US, which has a fairly
weak safety net for a first world country, especially given its relative per
capita wealth and income, has had significant social safety nets for a long
time.)

~~~
err4nt
Yeah, I applied for Employment Insurance (EI) one time when I got laid off
and, though approved, no cheque ever arrived so I still had to make do without
it. The second time I found myself in a tight spot I didn't qualify for
Employment Insurance - so even though I have paid into it, when I needed it it
wasn't there for me.

------
yummyfajitas
It's extremely counterproductive to, as the article puts it, "take the
question of the moral quality of the poor off the table."

The fact is that a large amount of poverty is directly correlated with "moral
quality". Most poor people in the US (maybe Canada is different?) have low
"moral quality", which I define as engaging in behaviors that are likely to
keep a person poor. These behaviors include not seeking work [1], substance
abuse [2], single motherhood [3] and crime [4] (including crimes with no
economic motive such as intimate partner violence).

There are direct causal relationships between all of these behaviors and
poverty. Not seeking work will result in not having a job, drug abuse will
make you lose your job, and having no job makes you poor. Etc.

Why would we want to take the _primary cause of poverty_ off the table if our
goal is to solve it?

It's almost as if this guy's primary goal is to create a vote bank of
government dependents rather than reduce poverty.

[1]
[http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication...](http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf)

[2]
[http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2013MHDetTabs...](http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2013MHDetTabs/NSDUH-
MHDetTabs2013.pdf)
[https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf](https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf)
[http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/adultsmoking/](http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/adultsmoking/)

[3] [https://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-
Marriage...](https://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-
Marriage/dp/0520248198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323532894&sr=8-1)
[http://www.economics21.org/html/great-gatsby-curve-
revisited...](http://www.economics21.org/html/great-gatsby-curve-revisited-
part-1-755.html#.U8KmDXV53UY)

[4]
[http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf)

~~~
bvinc
I think this is a super simplistic view. You're basically saying: Bad
decisions leads to being poor. Not a single person is under the impression
that all poor people made good decisions. Of course there is a causal
relationship! But it's much more complicated than that. Some people are poor
because they were born physically disabled, or mentally disabled. Some people
got sick and lost their job and savings. Some people are poor because they're
taking care of loved ones. Not all women choose to be single mothers. And many
people living in poverty have jobs.

The causal arrow also goes in both directions. Does a poor man on the street,
with no shower, no transportation, no cell phone, and barely enough money in
his pocket to eat, really have the ability to seek work? Does a poor man on
the street have any reason to worry about the problems of substance abuse?
Does a poor man on the street worry about going to jail for a while?

I'm not even sure what you're suggesting though. It sounds like you're
suggesting that we should continue shaming poor people as an effective means
to prevent poverty. You don't think absolute desperation and lack of safety,
security, health, and food, is enough of a motivation? You think shaming
works? I don't get it.

None of these ideas even matter though. With basic income, what matters is the
end result for a society. Maybe life isn't just better for the poor people,
but maybe it's better for you too. Maybe more poor people end up being
functional members of society. Maybe you end up safer, healthier and happier
in a society with basic income. Maybe people still want to work. Maybe there
are more entrepreneurs. Maybe a basic income system is necessary for our
society to function in the future. There are a lot of indications that this is
the case. This is why we need to do basic income studies.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Does a poor man on the street, with no shower, no transportation, no cell
phone, and barely enough money in his pocket to eat, really have the ability
to seek work?_

Yes. Hundreds of thousands of people manage to do this even with the
additional hindrances of _no tengo permiso de trabajo_ and _no hablo Ingles_.
But I'm sure that those illegal Mexicans are suffering from privilege, unlike
the white man born into a country where welfare benefits usually exceed the
mean GDP/Capita of Mexico.

The book Scratch Beginnings is well worth a read:
[https://www.amazon.com/Scratch-Beginnings-Search-American-
Dr...](https://www.amazon.com/Scratch-Beginnings-Search-American-
Dream/dp/0061714275)

 _I 'm not even sure what you're suggesting though. It sounds like you're
suggesting that we should continue shaming poor people as an effective means
to prevent poverty. You don't think absolute desperation and lack of safety,
security, health, and food, is enough of a motivation?_

Apparently not.

 _You think shaming works?_

No, I think ignoring the cause of the problem is not a road to a solution.

 _Maybe a basic income system is necessary for our society to function in the
future. There are a lot of indications that this is the case._

I have yet to see even a back of the envelope calculation suggesting these
benefits will occur.

~~~
someguydave
I appreciate you taking BI supporters who are unable to rationally justify
their positions to task.

------
partiallypro
A basic income isn't meant to be progressive or recessive; that's the point.

------
someone7x
> Mincome was not unlike the un-stigmatizing benefits that can come at tax
> time

Why is it purposefully difficult to read.

This is the mental effort that I have to go through.

1\. Ok so not and unlike, let's say the cancel each other out. Not dissimilar
can become similar.

2\. un-stigmatizing, does this mean that it's just not stigmatizing or that it
is removing a stigma?

2a. "mincome is lacking stigma, similar to tax time benefits"

2b. "mincome removes a stigma, similar to tax time benefits"

edit:format

