Universal Basic Income

[Sunset Rose]

That's an idea that sociologists and futurists have been thiking about at least since the 1950s. It was clear that as fewer and fewer people were able to do more and more work, there was a potential mis-match between consumer demand and available labor. How does one address that mis-match?

There are lots of potential solutions. For example, one could, by law, dictate shorter hours for people, with long paid vacations, lots of holidays, and overtime pay rules to encourage shorter work-weeks. To some extent, some European countries have taken that route. In the Netherlands, for example, workers work an average of 1381 hours per year, or less than 27 hours per week. That's more than a fifth fewer hours than we work here in the US, and about a quarter fewer than we worked just a few years ago, when the economy was stronger.

Similarly, you could have people retire younger. If 45 years of working used to be enough to have earned, say, 12 years of retirement (3.75 working years per retirement year), and people are twice as productive per hour now, then couldn't 37 years of working be enough to earn about 20 years of retirement (@1.875 working years per retirement age)? We could, in theory, have people retiring around age 55. And some European countries aren't so far off from that. In Luxembourg, the average person retires at 57.6 years (versus 65.0 in the US). Right now the US looks more like Mexico, with very high number of hours worked per year and very late retirements.

Or your could have it handled through increased consumption. But, as we see during recession, consumption doesn't necessarily keep up with productive capacity, and that's especially true if income inquality is high. Although most peope are twice as productive as their counterparts were in the past, they aren't paid twice as much, in real terms, as their counterparts, and so their consumption doesn't rise much. Vast piles of money sitting in the hordes of the wealthy just don't stoke consumption the same way.

So, as a practical matter, the US is mostly dealing with this mismatch between productive capacity and consumption tendencies by way of having a persistent elevation in the unemployment rate, to keep actual production down. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem if unemployment weren't terribly painful, thanks to a guaranteed minimum income. The wealthier European countries provide something of a model for that -- generally their uneployment rates are elevated relative to ours, but it doesn't tend to show up in the form of social disfunction that we associate with poverty (squalor, obesity, crime, teen pregnancy, infant mortality, preventable diseases, etc.), because the Social Safety net there makes unemployment a very different thing for a person in a wealthy European country than in a more laissez faire country.

I work with a lady from East India. She said the retirement age there is 55 years old. Isn't that nice?

 

[Arkady]

I work with a lady from East India. She said the retirement age there is 55 years old. Isn't that nice?

I'm aiming for 57. That's a "sweet spot" for my pension. But few people in this country will have that luxury. Most will be slaving away into their 70s, by which time they'll be physically and mentally beyond fully enjoying their retirements (it takes a pretty extraordinary septugenarian to backpack through Europe, much less climb Kilamanjaro, or all the other stuff I hope to be able to do in retirement).

 

[justoffal]

An idea that some progressives have been pushing, lately, to try to meet conservatives half-way, is a universal basic income, in lieu of welfare. The idea is that rather than things like food stamps, with all the rules about what people can buy with it and what they can't, and other things like subsidized housing, etc., you just have a simple cash payment the government hands to everyone, with which people can do whatever they want. Traditionally, this has been seen as a conservative alternative to liberal jobs- and welfare programs. Some conservatives like it because there are very low costs: no auditing for eligibility, no overhead for jobs programs, no policing what the money gets spent on, almost no bureaucracy, etc. And the distortions to the market are minimal, since government isn't trying to dictate where the demand and investment will be.

Switzerland, which is an arch-conservative nation by Western European standards, is considering a monthly basic income of around $2800 for its citizens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501

For practical purposes, Alaska, one of our most conservative states, already has something like this (although it's quite low, relative to what Switzerland is considering). Fans of the minimum income concept include arch-conservative economic godfather Milton Friedman, and Austrian Economic god-to-the-libertarians Friedrich Hayek.

Of course, in the US, implementation of this conservative-friendly idea would be confounded by the nature of our partisan politics. The moment some major Democrat starts pushing it, it will be labeled "socialism" and the Tea Party crazies will all go around screeching like little girls who got their hair pulled. Before long the very conservatives who promoted the idea will be leading the charge to attack it, and every ninny dittohead on the Internet will memorize the new talking points so they can provide the obligatory denunciations in chat forums. We saw that happen already with Obamacare, which started life as a conservative pet project, designed by the right-wing think-tank the Heritage Foundation, and championed by Mitt Romney. We've seen how quickly support of something by leading Democrats can cause conservatives to turn 180-degrees on their prior convictions. But it's an interesting idea, nonetheless.

Yes...yes and YES!

OK let's reveiw a few pertinent things minus any of the possible moral barriers and let's begin by accepting that there will be abuse, something totally unavoidable with any system as large as this one is. We cannot focus on that small percentage of dick heads who will always be dick heads. Now then from the standpoint of pure system dynamics lets talk:

1.) Just picking a dead body up off of the street, transporting it to the cemetary or crematorium and then either prcessing or burying it is about 10K.

2.) Most people will buy food and necessities some won't but most will....there will always be a certain percentage of douche-bags....it cannot be helped or stopped.

3.) This fits well with my constant cry for a consumtion based tax since it's more or less a back door version of the same thing.

4.) Additionally skills and jobs training could be offered at higher tiers of compensation....pay them to go to school not the other way around and watch this country grow like a weed in a miracle grow bottle!

5.) There will still be millionaires, billionaires and rich people.....this is just a fact of human nature.....however there will be so much more wealth available for recycling in that kind of system that the growth of the economy will be unstoppable, boundless and continuous.

6.) We easily spend this much already times ten on every man woman and child living here without giving them the benefit of that expenditure which makes no goddamed sense at all! The money is already flowing out so it might as well go into thier hands.

7.) I suppose there has to be some kind of policing....for those who are exeptionally dull, stupid and habit prone...after numerous offenses they shold lose their benefit for up to a year at a time and more as they continue to be abusive..... But in actuality it is more expensive to police something like that than it is to simply administer it and the cost efficiency of such an action is highly questionable.

I believe that the GDP would double or triple in just five years with this approach....I have always advocated for this kind of wealth management because I know that this kind of systemic approach inevitabley yeilds a stronger system and a more productive one. I am sure thre would need to be some kind of oversight but the less the better barring running across the border with the money and spending it outside the system.....that would have to be dealt with.

JO

 

[justoffal]

you can have anything you want, as long as you can figure out a way to pay for it.

since the federal government has already indebted every american family to the tune of $150,000, what's your plan to pay for these new entitlements?

I would recommend a consumption tax ( after eliminating payroll taxation that is ) ....it is nearly limitless in it's capacity to earn revenue and would be sculpted effectively by market forces.

Instead of seeing this as an entitlement I would rather call it maintenance costs. You're going to pay out one way or another to keep the streets from filling up with dead bodies like they do in places such as Pakistan and India.... What this does is use the already present system of distribution to eliminate the costly middle bureaucracies. Like the IRS for instance......

 

[Pogue Mahone]

what utter horseshit

 

[justoffal]

what utter horseshit

Well I think the basic idea is sound but I don't believe it could ever be administered honestly.

250 million adults times 2800 bucks a month is about 60% of GDP as it stands now. Assuming that most of that money would cycle back into the economy the potential for growth would be gigantic. The real problem is that the influence peddlars would lose their leverage and that ain't never gonna happen. It would create a nation of conservative thinkers in one hell of a hurry.

JO

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Well I think the basic idea is sound but I don't believe it could ever be administered honestly.

250 million adults times 2800 bucks a month is about 60% of GDP as it stands now. Assuming that most of that money would cycle back into the economy the potential for growth would be gigantic. The real problem is that the influence peddlars would lose their leverage and that ain't never gonna happen. It would create a nation of conservative thinkers in one hell of a hurry.

JO

not only is it not a sound idea but the entire premise is crap.

 

[Dawg]

I'm aiming for 57. That's a "sweet spot" for my pension. But few people in this country will have that luxury. Most will be slaving away into their 70s, by which time they'll be physically and mentally beyond fully enjoying their retirements (it takes a pretty extraordinary septugenarian to backpack through Europe, much less climb Kilamanjaro, or all the other stuff I hope to be able to do in retirement).

they wouldn't if you divided your pension with them..........I'm sure that's what you are planning to do☼amazing is how libs call for helping the poor but with others $$$$$$$$$$$.......retiring at 57 and backpacking instead of doing what libs say should be done.......hypocrisy at it's finest☻

 

[justoffal]

not only is it not a sound idea but the entire premise is crap.

Well.....theoretically speaking it's actually brilliant.....problem is not the idea....the problem is human nature.

As far as being sound....not sure if you mean moral or mechanical. But I tell ya mecahnically speaking this thing has massive potential.


We are probably spending the same amount of money right now ( per capita ) as it is being cycling it through the economy in a multi layered game of feed the pig.

What I am saying is that we are already doing the spending per capita but it's not getting to the people....instead it gets sucked up by the massive government bureaucracy that is there to administer ( ahem ) in behalf of the populous. If you cut out the middle man and go straight to the populace you get a mega infusion of cash stimulating the economy like a stick of dynamite. But like I said the middle man would have to be cut out . I have no problem with dumping at least half of the useless, bloated government agencies that are out there and I don't think we would see any difference at all in our services frankly.

It all boils down to a pretty simple model. Take 100 dollars bound for a certain person and then hire 99 people at one dollar a piece to take the 100 dollars to the person one step at a time. Result.... 100 dollar expenditure..... 1 dollar of effect.

Take the money straight to the person .. Result... 100 dollar expenditure. 100 dollar effect.

In the final analysis greed for power and control would no doubt derail the effort. Oh hey....that's what we have right now ... I almost forgot!





JO

 

[Arkady]

they wouldn't if you divided your pension with them..........I'm sure that's what you are planning to do☼amazing is how libs call for helping the poor but with others $$$$$$$$$$$.......retiring at 57 and backpacking instead of doing what libs say should be done.......hypocrisy at it's finest☻

I favor higher taxes for people like me. I vote for politicians, like Obama, who attempt to raise taxes on people like me. I praise politicians, like Clinton, who succeeded in raising taxes on people like me. And I pay every dime of the taxes I owe. I do not, however, pay more than I owe under the current rules. There is no hypocrisy in that. I submit you don't know what that word means.

 

[Dawg]

I favor higher taxes for people like me. I vote for politicians, like Obama, who attempt to raise taxes on people like me. I praise politicians, like Clinton, who succeeded in raising taxes on people like me. And I pay every dime of the taxes I owe. I do not, however, pay more than I owe under the current rules. There is no hypocrisy in that. I submit you don't know what that word means.

Of course.......while making others think you give a damn about the 'poor' and brag that 57 is the majic number for pension and backpacking all over the world......why not do as you preach and continue working and give the pension to the poor......I know......know many like you..all talk with no walk........if it's YOUR $$$$$$$$$$$☻

btw: you can pay whatever you wish to, taxes don't need be raised......just pay more at tax time☻

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/108417-talk-liberals/

 

[Arkady]

Of course.......while making others think you give a damn about the 'poor' and brag that 57 is the majic number for pension and backpacking all over the world......why not do as you preach and continue working and give the pension to the poor......I know......know many like you..all talk with no walk........if it's YOUR $$$$$$$$$$$☻

btw: you can pay whatever you wish to, taxes don't need be raised......just pay more at tax time☻

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/108417-talk-liberals/

I favor collective action by rich people generally, by way of higher taxes. I work towards that goal. I do not, however, favor individuals paying more taxes than the owe under the rules as they exist for the tax year. If I did favor that, but didn't do it, I'd be a hypocrite. But I don't favor it.

 

[Sunset Rose]

I'm aiming for 57. That's a "sweet spot" for my pension. But few people in this country will have that luxury. Most will be slaving away into their 70s, by which time they'll be physically and mentally beyond fully enjoying their retirements (it takes a pretty extraordinary septugenarian to backpack through Europe, much less climb Kilamanjaro, or all the other stuff I hope to be able to do in retirement).

I'm aiming for 62. My full retirement age for Social Security is 66 years and 7 months old. No way am I working that long. They can forget it. I'll happily take less Social Security.

 

[Sgt Staples]

All the po folk I knew growing up smoked menthol. In fact, smoking the longer cigarette forget the name - slims or something - was sort of a sign that you weren't low class smoker. Trailer park types are the menthol smokers I knew growing up - all of them white by the way. Perhaps what Arkady is missing - is that menthol is the poor folk's cigarette. Perhaps more black people purchase it - but perhaps that is because a larger percentage of the black population is poorer. The thing about smoking is - you tend to smoke what your group smokes. So, if you are poor - and hang out with poor people - you likely smoke what other poor people smoke. Be it black or white.

Now we pay for the Po' folks food so they can use their welfare check to buy beer and cigarettes. The vast majority of those that still smoke are welfare recipients in one way or another.

And they still bitch that the 'rich' aren't paying their fair share.

 

[Sgt Staples]

I favor collective action by rich people generally, by way of higher taxes. I work towards that goal. I do not, however, favor individuals paying more taxes than the owe under the rules as they exist for the tax year. If I did favor that, but didn't do it, I'd be a hypocrite. But I don't favor it.

Guess what, it's their money not governments. Taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution is slavery; and theft of labor, either intellectual or physical, is theft of the portion of one's life spent earning that money.

Note, instead of putting a target on the back of anyone with enough $$$$$ to create a job, causing them to sit on the sidelines, why don't you concentrate on making YOUR labor worth more so you can earn more, instead of bitching about the rich.

 

[Arkady]

I'm aiming for 62. My full retirement age for Social Security is 66 years and 7 months old. No way am I working that long. They can forget it. I'll happily take less Social Security.

My plan is to defer collecting SS until full retirement benefits, so I need to save enough to cover living expenses for a decade without any SS help, plus to cover buying healthcare on the individual market until Medicare eligibility That's a heavy lift, needless to say. So, my wife and I max out our 401K contrbution every month, and avoid any debt, since debt would raise our expenses. We're even trying to make it so we can pay for my daughter's undergrad education without anyone having to borrow money.

 

[Sunset Rose]

My plan is to defer collecting SS until full retirement benefits, so I need to save enough to cover living expenses for a decade without any SS help, plus to cover buying healthcare on the individual market until Medicare eligibility That's a heavy lift, needless to say. So, my wife and I max out our 401K contrbution every month, and avoid any debt, since debt would raise our expenses. We're even trying to make it so we can pay for my daughter's undergrad education without anyone having to borrow money.

That is an excellent plan