
This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours - luckyisgood
http://funding.basicincome2013.eu/
======
sz4kerto
"Unconditional basic income is a new form of total social security for all
citizens. It’s an unconditional monthly sum, paid out to by the government to
every citizen - rich or poor, old or young, employed or unemployed."

Well, they should have written

"Unconditional basic income is a new form of total social security for all
citizens. It’s an unconditional monthly sum, taken from taxpayers and paid out
to every citizen - rich or poor, old or young, employed or unemployed. "

~~~
jaibot
Combined with some progressive taxation this works out to be massively more
efficient and helpful than most other forms of welfare. Replace
foodstamps/subsidized housing/unemployment-insurance/myriad-of-other-safety-
net-programs with a basic guaranteed income and everyone is better off. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income)
.

~~~
jiggy2011
The problem is that not everybody's costs are the same. A disabled person may
have much higher living costs due to needing additional care and special
equipment to help them, they also have less chance of gaining employment in
order to increase that income.

Also consider costs of living/housing etc. For example an unemployed
programmer might be better off staying somewhere like SF where costs are
higher because they are more likely to get a job there.

The risk would be that you ended up with low cost of living slum areas where
the unemployed would congregate , separate from the productive economy.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>The problem is that not everybody's costs are the same. A disabled person may
have much higher living costs due to needing additional care and special
equipment to help them, they also have less chance of gaining employment in
order to increase that income.

This would seem to be the case regardless of the type of government assistance
provided. Suppose we provide enough that a disabled person can live a
dignified, if spartan, life. Should we deny that same level of support to
someone else, who may be more able to contribute to society, just because that
person is _not_ disabled?

> Also consider costs of living/housing etc. For example an unemployed
> programmer might be better off staying somewhere like SF where costs are
> higher because they are more likely to get a job there.

That's the reason why the cost of living/housing is higher there. Increasing
government subsidies in areas with higher costs cause the costs to increase
even more, because recipients of government assistance then have that money
with which to pay, increasing demand without increasing supply and therefore
raising prices. Meanwhile only the poorest of the poor remain in the lower
subsidized areas because they can't afford to live in more desirable areas
even with some government assistance, causing those areas to degrade even
more. This is the same logic that leads to the mortgage interest tax credit
which benefits mortgage lenders much more than homeowners (and screws over
renters even more) -- you're subsidizing the sellers of housing and loans more
than the buyers because you're increasing the demand rather than the supply.
If you want to help the poor live in San Francisco, subsidize the construction
of affordable new high density housing and mass transit there, so that the
cost goes down rather than up.

> The risk would be that you ended up with low cost of living slum areas where
> the unemployed would congregate, separate from the productive economy.

That's what happens already. If anything a basic income can disrupt such
behavior, because it allows people living in poorer areas to take better
risks, and provides them an increased incentive to seek employment because
taking a job doesn't result in the discontinuation of government benefits.

~~~
jiggy2011
The point is more than a disabled person will require a higher subsidy to
attain the same standard of living. The differences can be enormous.

A non-disabled person can walk or cycle around the city to pick-up groceries
whereas a disabled person might need a specially modified vehicle or may
require the services of another person. Subsidizing everyone to the same
amount as required by the most disabled of people would be unsustainable.

I guess by the second point I mean the short term unemployed more than the
"poor" per se. Consider a person who has just graduated from a university in
SF and wants to remain there while they look for a job in SV. If they can't
afford this , they might have to move to a poor area with less opportunity.

Optimistically it might produce more opportunities elsewhere if there is an
influx of educated people, but pessimistically it might mean that those who
are independently wealthy are the only ones who can take the risk of living in
SF.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The "most disabled person" who is not independently wealthy is not going to
achieve the same standard of living as the average person. If you need a
special vehicle and you can't afford it, you can live across the street from a
grocery store and get a job working there.

You're basically talking about the "heart transplant problem." Suppose you
have zero dollars and no job and you need a heart transplant which will cost
$200,000, which will cause you to live for another two years, or else you will
die today. The government can't afford to pay for that -- people can say
"death panels" all day long but the fact is that with the current state of
medicine and technology we cannot save everyone, and it is not productive to
bankrupt the government paying for measures that are more expensive than they
are effective. Moreover, the fairest way to distribute government services is
to give the same amount to everyone. If you need more than that amount, seek
charity. There is a point past which government cannot fix every problem, and
we can't calibrate society to the level of the "most disabled person."

> I guess by the second point I mean the short term unemployed more than the
> "poor" per se. Consider a person who has just graduated from a university in
> SF and wants to remain there while they look for a job in SV. If they can't
> afford this , they might have to move to a poor area with less opportunity.

So how is that different with a basic income than it is today?

~~~
jiggy2011
If you are severely disabled it's really not a case of "just live opposite the
grocery store and work there". Many disabilities will mean that a person
simply can't perform economically productive work at all. If you have a degree
of means testing you can afford to provide for these people because they are a
relatively small % of the population.

In the UK for example we have disabled people who receive more in total
government assistance than many able people would when working a full time
job. For example they might need full time carers. Relying on charity will
favor those who can best play that game, which will by definition make things
harder for people with certain disabilities, particularly mental disabilities
of less "popular" ones.

> So how is that different with a basic income than it is today?

If you give people different amounts of housing based on the relative costs of
housing in different areas then they will not have to move to a different area
and can stay where they are more likely to find work.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>If you have a degree of means testing you can afford to provide for these
people because they are a relatively small % of the population.

The problem is that they're not, because you're just picking some subset of
the population and saying they're more needy than everyone else without
actually providing any proof of that. Why aren't the victims of automobile
collisions just as needy of that money so that they can buy more expensive
safer vehicles? Why don't indigent cancer patients "need" the same level of
care that Steve Jobs got?

You can pick some _arbitrary_ subset of the population and say that we can
afford to provide for them because they're a small percentage, but you can't
pick that population in any just or rational way because everybody needs
something -- everybody dies and would benefit if the government had given them
more resources to fight the thing that killed them.

> Relying on charity will favor those who can best play that game, which will
> by definition make things harder for people with certain disabilities,
> particularly mental disabilities of less "popular" ones.

Charity is exactly as much a "game" as applying for government benefits is. If
you feel for the plight of the mentally ill, by all means donate money to the
charities that help those people, and join together with everyone who thinks
the government should be helping them out of proportion to the rest of the
population to do likewise.

~~~
jiggy2011
I mean people who can't do the basics such as feed or clothe themselves
without assistance, not people who want a better car.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You're making an emotional argument. Let me try. Why are you condemning the
single mother whose job has no access to mass transit and who can't afford to
live within walking distance, who therefore has to drive a death trap and
endanger her life and the lives of her children?

The problem is that we have limited resources. We can't save everyone. And
making emotional arguments gets in the way of doing the most good. Why is it
better to spend money on nurses to change the bed pans of the mentally ill
than to spend it giving opportunities to those who want to go to medical
school, who may one day ultimately cure them?

------
ck2
Nice to see but what is with the mountain climber image which reminds me of
someone who would have plenty of free time and cash for such a hobby.

Is the idea to be "upwardly mobile" ? I mean I have to grasp for that idea.

~~~
grimtrigger
No one likes looking at poor people.

------
KiwiCoder
I'd not heard of the basic income concept until now so my reaction might be
naive, but what benefit could possibly justify the collection and
redistribution of a fixed amount of cash to _everyone_ , regardless of their
situation?

For example, if 1 person in 10 is thirsty, what benefit derives from giving
water to all 10 versus the 1 - isn't that simply a wasteful distribution of
resources?

Even in the extreme case where a blind distribution of resource would save a
life I cannot see it being superior to a distribution based on actual need.

~~~
jrkatz
To construct a trivial example, say we give every citizen $2000 a month in
post-tax basic income. Of course, most citizens have jobs and other sources of
income. To make math easier, assume this government has a flat income tax of
20% If you earn $0, you are pay $0 in tax and get $2000 in basic income. If
you earn $9000, you pay $1800 in taxes and get $2000 in basic income, netting
you $200. Basic income washes at $10,000, and after that serves only to defray
your tax costs until it is hardly noticeable.

I can't speak to what levels of taxation and basic income might be useful --
these ones have been selected for convenient math -- but that's the general
idea of it.

Or, in terms of your water metaphor, if one person in ten is thirsty, we give
water to all ten, but we also take from the nine, so they actually see a small
loss. The water didn't come from nowhere.

~~~
transfire
FYI, for the States at least, $2000/mo is too high. It always strikes me... I
don't think people who make good money often understand just how poor most
people really are. The lower 50% of U.S. tax payers only average around
$15,000/yr. If I were to guess, approx. 50% of the poverty level would make a
good peg. I also think parent should get additional allowances for no more
than two children.

That said, the system has a tendency to balance itself (the marvels of free-
market capitalism when allowed to work properly) so no mater how much was
granted per month, the system could self-adjust. Unfortunately there are so
many entrenched interest gumming up the works these days, I'm not sure
anything about the markets are really working "freely" as they should.

~~~
JackFr
Parents should get no allowance for any children, and children should get the
same benefit as everyone else.

------
kfk
I will never support this idea. This is kind of thinking is extremely
nationalistic: I am entitled to free money because I was born in XYZ.

On top of this, this idea has very weak economics fundamentals, there is no
prove that growth comes from redistributing wealth. There is plenty of prove
growth comes from innovation and innovation comes from people actually
working.

We are in denial. The whole Europe is in denial. We don't realize the only way
out of this mess is working more and cutting public spending. Instead we
propose the exact opposite.

~~~
anoncowherd
Good to see someone thinking for himself here.

~~~
kfk
If I were thinking for myself I would support this idea and then go on basic
income for life, I can live with very little, so why not?

~~~
anoncowherd
You seem to be talking about "pursuing personal gain", whereas I meant
thinking for yourself in contrast to group-think / herd-mentality.

------
luckyisgood
The goal has been set at 15,000 EUR and the duration of the campaign at only
14 days. There are still 12 days left in this campaign and the donations keep
coming in.

------
SanderMak
Maybe I'm missing something, but if they want to gather signatures - why not
add a link to the petition so people can actually sign?

~~~
luckyisgood
Because you need to be focused on one goal only. This campaign's goal is to
reach 15,000 EUR. The target audience for this particular campaign are people
who already signed the initiative and who are mostly informed about the
Initiative.

~~~
SanderMak
Hence you post it to HN, who have all obviously signed the initiative? Sorry,
but that seems like a missed opportunity.

------
achy
The problem I envision with a basic income model is that it could have an
inflationary effect - shifting the baseline. The only way this doesn't happen
is if our basic income economies exploit non basic income economies - and even
this wouldn't prevent housing, energy, and (non artificially) scarce items
from inflation.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Why do you expect inflation? Inflation only occurs if the source of the money
comes from creating currency. If it comes from taxation then you're not
increasing aggregate demand at all, you're just eliminating the large
disincentive to seeking employment created by the discontinuation of
government benefits if you succeed.

~~~
achy
sorry, _price_ inflation. Supply and demand.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
There is no difference between "inflation" and "price inflation."

Suppose that yesterday you received $50 from government assistance programs
(e.g. food assistance) but today you receive $50 as a basic income and no food
assistance. You have the same amount of money to spend.

Suppose that yesterday you received no government assistance and paid no net
taxes but today you receive $50 as a basic income and pay $50 in new taxes.
You have the same amount of money to spend.

There will be some people who, on net, receive more or less from a basic
income (less the taxes required to pay for it) than they do now -- mostly the
very rich would pay more and the working class would receive more -- but the
net amount of money in the average person's pocket remains the same. The
difference is that you don't have the disincentive to seeking employment that
the current unemployed do when they lose government assistance by taking a
job.

------
RivieraKid
One important advantage of BI would be that it would allow the labor market to
be more liberal (especially in Europe, I don't know about the situation in the
US). Employees wouldn't need to be protected that much, because they would be
less scared of being fired.

------
stanjourdan
If you are EU citizen, don't forget to sign the petition:
[http://sign.basicincome2013.eu](http://sign.basicincome2013.eu)

------
w_t_payne
With little administrative overhead, this should be a more effective way of
stimulating demand than QE.

~~~
JackFr
Even if I assume your premise, why would you assume that this is a more
effective way of stimulating demand? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing its just
not obvious to me that one mechanism is better than the other.)

~~~
w_t_payne
As I understand it, the QE strategy is for the central bank to buy bonds.
Bonds become overbought, so investors shift to stocks and shares, lifting the
stock market. Investors benefit, as do companies seeking to raise funds
through share issues, but uninvested consumers do not. As a result, the stock
market goes up, and borrowing costs for companies go down, but the "Real"
economy stagnates. Companies can borrow easily to fund expansion, but have no
real market to sell into, because the stock market is disconnected from the
underlying "main street" economy. Basic income provides another mechanism for
Keynesian reflation, but targets the "real" economy rather than the stock
market, so stimulates actual demand, rather than pumping up the bubble. Of
course, inflation is a massive risk with both of these strategies ... and may
happen more directly and more quickly with the basic income strategy rather
than with QE ... so on second thoughts ... it might not be too great an idea.

------
kabdib
People voting themselves bread. I'm sure this will turn out well.

~~~
JanezStupar
Technology and automatization of production is changing everything, the more
we raise productivity the less people can satisfy our needs for products.

Do you propose we just start shooting people who are below the skill level
required for sustaining the economy?

I for one would like to avoid living in a Logan's run type of universe. Thank
you very much...

