
Thomas Paine's Argument for Basic Income Explained - micaeloliveira
http://fermatslibrary.com/s/agrarian-justice
======
notahacker
Paine's arguments, which have been widely expanded on by geolibertarians, are
compelling but what he's specifically advocating here is most naturally
interpreted as _extremely_ limited compared with what developed world
governments offer their populace instead.

Fundamentally, he's arguing that people should be compensated to allow them to
reach the same standard of living as would have been possible in the absence
of civilization and proposing a subsidy in the region of £1000 per annum in
today's sterling to compensate. That's far closer to the Alaska Permanent Fund
in both ideological underpinnings and magnitude than it is to being an
adequate welfare state replacement[1]. Of course, we could speculate that he'd
advocate a much higher subsidy in today's land of relative plenty, but his
1797 argument is quite explicit in suggesting that people are owed no more
than the value of the life they could have enjoyed in a Native American "state
of nature" and the landed classes owe no more than that.

Fortunately today we have new arguments for the economic benefits of universal
education and necessity of unemployment insurance in an economy managed to
ensure some level of involuntary unemployment persists.

[1]£1k per year for Paine's average 30 year adult remaining lifespan plus
£1.5k at 21 is less than my government's investment in my education...

~~~
ctdonath
Finally, someone recognizes there's a vast range between truly _basic_
income/expenses, vs maintaining a standard of living exceeding the norm of
most people on the planet. The US "poverty line" is at the ~80th percentile of
world income, and one way or another one below it can get enough aggregate
welfare payments to step well above that line. Contrast that with really basic
costs of food ($1/meal traditional diet, or $12/day Soylent ready-to-drink),
housing (one 100 sq ft simple "tiny house" per person, $1-10/day), data
service ($1/day), plus other comparably humble-yet-sufficient services add up
to something like $5000/yr (and much less in bulk or with other careful
reductions). But that is, of course, outrageous to most BI advocates - viewing
"basic" as a complete-and-served product, not a collection of staples
requiring the recipient put some real effort into.

~~~
solipsism
> The US "poverty line" is at the ~80th percentile of world income

This figure doesn't matter much, unless a person in the US can decide to buy a
loaf of bread from Kyrgystan for 25.86 Som, does it? You'd have to adjust to
make a meaningful comparison with the rest of the world.

> Contrast that with really basic costs of food ($1/meal traditional diet, or
> $12/day Soylent ready-to-drink), housing (one 100 sq ft simple "tiny house"
> per person, $1-10/day), data service ($1/day), plus other comparably humble-
> yet-sufficient services add up to something like $5000/yr

$5,000? Come on now. This guy[1] apparently lives on $7,000, but it is quite
an extreme lifestyle. And he has an RV, the cost of which he doesn't count in
his expenses. And he has a garden in which he grows his own food, which we
don't all have a place to put. etc. Combine that with the fact that this
lifestyle won't be feasible for everyone -- some of us need more medical
insurance than he pays for, for example -- and when the lifestyle fails for
people they end up in the ER or prison or otherwise taxing everyone else.

I agree with your general premise, but let's not exaggerate, $5k/yr is not
realistic.

[1]: [http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-
yea...](http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-year.html)

~~~
notahacker
> This figure doesn't matter much, unless a person in the US can decide to buy
> a loaf of bread from Kyrgystan for 25.86 Som, does it? You'd have to adjust
> to make a meaningful comparison with the rest of the world.

If you adjust for purchasing power parity, US poverty lines are all still
above the _median_ world income. Around half the world lives on less than
$10000 in notional US purchasing power per annum.

------
aaron-lebo
Nation-states are too large to effectively test things like basic income.

Those pushing basic income and expecting it to fix many problems aren't paying
attention to the fact that that's how every policy got started, as a cure-all
massive policy proposal. Over the years, like object-oriented programming, we
realize that in practice it isn't as ideal as we thought, and indeed we've now
abstracted and complicated our systems even more.

We need a more scientific, incremental form of governance and policy-making,
one that is evolutionary and takes natural organic approaches. Basic income is
the exact opposite of that - a massive (the most massive) policy ever
constructed which presupposes way too much.

If you want to and can test it at the state level great. States should be the
"laboratories of democracy". But we need some realism about it, because far
too many discussions about it are not.

~~~
jonathankoren
That's a very US-centric view. Finland disagrees.[0] Now you can say, "Well
Finland has the population of Colorado, so whatev'", but that's just silly.
The entire, "Well this is just too big," argument has no merit. It's just
arguing for the status quo for the sake of the status quo. It's an argument
from helplessness. What's too big? Who says? Why can't we kick the can down to
a county or town, or a ward, or a street?

It's not a hard project to implement you cut an identical check to every tax
payer. The tax collection agency already has everyone's name and address, and
has the infrastructure to cut checks, as does the welfare agency. It's really
really simple. Anything beyond arguing what the check size should be, is a
distraction.

[0]
[http://yle.fi/uutiset/kela_to_prepare_basic_income_proposal/...](http://yle.fi/uutiset/kela_to_prepare_basic_income_proposal/8422295)

~~~
cubano
> It's not a hard project to implement you cut an identical check to every tax
> payer. The tax collection agency already has everyone's name and address,
> and has the infrastructure to cut checks, as does the welfare agency.

Who pays for this? The bottom 46% of income earners already pay zero tax, and
the top 10% pay almost 50%. Yes you can argue, I guess, that they should pay
more but careful...at what point do you kill the golden geese?

We keep borrowing, you say? Well we are almost $20tril in debt right now and
_current_ unfunded federal liabilities are somewhat north of $200tril.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The bottom 46% of income earners already pay zero tax

No, that's not true.

Not even if you are just referring to federal taxes.

And not even if you are just referring to federal taxes _on income_ (which
include both the "income tax" on the "payroll tax".)

~~~
cubano
What are you talking about?

Yes of course we all pay state and local transaction taxes, but we were
talking about transfer payments from the federal government to individuals.

Not only do the bottom 45% pay NO federal income tax, most already are net
beneficiaries of federal outlays.

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-
fede...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-
income-tax-2016-02-24)

------
nwah1
As many classical liberals noted, when you take the Law of Equal Liberty to
its natural conclusion, it necessarily entails equal rights to the use of the
Earth.

However, since exclusive access rights to locations are a practical necessity,
all those who are excluded must be given restitution.

~~~
djschnei
I disagree. Rights to locations are a practical necessity to classical
liberalism itself, and are not at all at odds with its logic. The basic
foundation of liberty is the ability to own private property. I think most (if
not all) classic liberal thinkers would object to the assertion that my
ownership of private property requires restitution to be given to anyone.

~~~
danharaj
> The basic foundation of liberty is the ability to own private property.

I think you're perfectly allowed to define liberty that way, but there are
plenty of people who wouldn't call that liberty.

~~~
knieveltech
Indeed. Freedom to seek rents or horde resources isn't what I'd define as
liberty. More like the foundation of exploitation.

~~~
vixen99
So don't let's have any enterprise which depends on 'hoarded' resources! Life
is, exploitation - eventually bugs and other life forms will make use of
everyone's personal resources. This is not to say that exploitation can't be
nuanced. People who throw the word 'exploitation' around often mean they and
their comrades want to do the forcible exploiting based on their personal
moral preferences.

~~~
danharaj
Exploitation has a narrower sense when people are talking about capitalism. It
describes the relationship between those who do wage labor and those who
extract profit from the product of wage labor.

Your sense of the word 'exploitation' is much too broad to be useful, imo.

------
zeteo
>To create a National Fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person,
when arrived at the age of twentyone years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling
[...] And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person
now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive
at that age

This essay advocates a pension system, not basic income. The one-time payout
at 21 is negligible in comparison with the annual payments after 50.

------
my5thaccount
I've been looking through the GDP for a Living Stipend and this is what I have
found thus far:

    
    
      Living Stipend				
      	    	tax/share	0.01	
      Population	 320,000,000 			
      NYSE	   802,026,511,675 		 8,020,265,116.75 	
      Forex	   5,300,000,000,000 		 53,000,000,000.00 	
      CBOE	   1,274,776,218 		 12,747,762.18 	
      Nasdaq	 671,175,892,500 		 6,711,758,925.00 	
      			 $67,744,771,803.93 	TOTAL REVENUE
      				
      OIL	 6,970,000,000 	10	 69,700,000,000 	
      FIN SERVICES	 1,260,000,000,000 	15%	 189,000,000,000 	
      TECH	 606,000,000,000 	15%	 90,900,000,000 	
      Entertainment	 546,000,000,000 	15%	 81,900,000,000 	
      PROFESSIONAL Services	 1,500,000,000,000 	15%	 225,000,000,000 	
      			 2,263.26 	STIPEND PER PERSON PER YEAR
    
    

I think we need more than this. There could be more if we stop asking the tax
payers to subsidize the salaries of high level executives as well, but I
haven't done that math yet.

To explain the numbers above, $10/barrel for oil, a penny per share traded on
the major stock exchanges. 15% tax on services, which aren't taxed. Why aren't
we taxing lawyer fees for example or computer consulting services or massages?
Of course we can take those numbers up a bit or down a bit in the appropriate
areas, but we need about 10x that I think to really give people food and
shelter security.

I'm really shooting for $2,000 per month per household. I think there is a
place somewhere in the country that any family could live on that amount of
money and feed their families. Of course this would be adjusted based on
family size and the numbers above are per person. An individual could survive
on $1,000 per month I think and a family of 3 or 4 could survive on $2,000 per
month if they do it right. If they don't they can get a job to supplement
income. If they want to work more, they can do that too.

Sorry for the formatting. I'm pasting from Excel.

~~~
theseatoms
We do tax lawyer fees, computer consulting, and massages already. Right?

~~~
my5thaccount
No, not specifically at a federal level. Some states have business excise
taxes but they are less than a percent for most businesses. I'm talking a tax
on services like when you go buy food and the receipt has the tax added.

The income tax on those professionals is the closest thing we have now, but
blue collar workers pay that too and the products they make have a sales tax
at the other end on top of their income tax.

------
djschnei
A negative income tax is, imho, the least morally reprehensible replacement
for our current welfare state (which is extremely immoral).

~~~
Inthenameofmine
Negative income tax + citizen dividend would be awesome. Also completely
dynamic and self adjusting.

