Senate Universal basic income

And example attempt

HERE IS A WIKI

HERE is non wiki info

Yes? No? Evil? You tell me.

 

I suppose in FantasyLand where money just magically appears out of thin air (yet somehow without impacting inflation) it might work, but I just don't see a thing as remotely feasible in a place I like to call "The Real World."

 

I keep scanning the news for evidence of Seattle's collapse after raising its minimum wage to $15, but nothing yet.

 

Apparently this was tried in Manitoba in the mid-late 70s and it was supposedly pretty successful.

 

I am highly in favor of guaranteed income-- replacing unemployment, social security, food stamps, welfare, etc.-- but it's a pipe dream when even the jurisdictions that are raising the minimum wage to something remotely livable still want to wait years to fully implement it.

 

Hey, wouldn't that be more efficient and streamlined? Less bureaucracy and government? More… conservative?

 

Either you're deliberately derailing the thread for some reason, or you are blissfully unaware that Universal Basic Income has nothing to do with minimum wage requirements.

 

They both come from the same basic idea that people shouldn't have to struggle to meet their needs.

The fathers of the Chicago and Austrian schools were in favor of it in some form, for ****'s sake.

 

OH GOOD GRIEF

One of many things you can read before you start mouthing off. Minimum wage and UBI can be used in a combo or one or the other. Read the stuff I post and or look it up please.

 

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nope, sorry, not even close.

One comes from the idea that people shouldn't have to struggle to meet their needs.

The other comes from the idea that people shouldn't have to so much as even lift a finger to meet their needs.

 

That MTV show is anything but real.

And DarthGuy is right. Chicago's Milton Freidman had the negative income tax as a form of universal basic income and the Austrian Frederich Hayek advocated for a universal basic minimum income. The latter is actually in my sig as a quote from FA Hayek.

 

I've never heard of it so I cannot speak to that point.

I think I am the only one who actually read the OP's links, so my remarks are addressing those. People keep trying to address my statements by bringing up things completely different from what the OP presented.

The OP was not talking about the minimum wage. The OP was not talking about a universal basic minimum income. The OP was not talking about unemployment, social security or food stamps. My comments addressed the issue the OP raised, and that issue would be an abject failure if it was ever implemented.

 

...

 

Elegantly stated, VLM.

 

And Canadians went, "Oh, that's interesting," and despite the strong success just did nothing with it. Just...ugh. Such potential.

 

Okay, you have to be a sock of another user here just playing games. The OP absolutely was talking about a universal basic income as the links state it in the headlines.

Whose sock is this?

 

Why should be support universal basic income?

This is a nice explanation of the difference between UBI and communism, what the success has been where it has been tried, and a few of the ideas floating around to pay for it.

If I were handed an extra $1,000 per month my new net would be greater than my current gross. Instead of paying off my car in 5 years i could do it in one if I dedicated all of it to do so, or two or three if I took my time. Saving one or two months worth would allow a travel vacation to virtually anywhere. I need a new couch, bed, and want a new tv. 1 or 2 months and bam, there they would be. The meltdown of 2008? I got hit hard during that. With the UBI amount it would have been nothing.

 

I think UBI would do a lot to restore dignity to those living on the poverty line. Beyond that, it would let people feed and clothe themselves. It's still astounding that, even with study after study demonstrating that helping people pays massive dividends in the long run, people won't get behind these ideas.

 

Negative Income Tax is a very effective way to replace growing expensive welfare budgets. It's much more progressive, too.

 

Dutch experiment

 

OK so if the concept is that everyone receives a payment from the government, can I ask:

1) What counterinflationary measures are employed?
2) Is it means tested?
3) The publicly owned enterprises that pay a dividend which funds this income; are they competing in the open market? Does their ability to inject capital to the bottom line give them an advantage that inherently undermines competition?
3) (a) would you instead fund it through taxation?
4) In the examples you've cited, they're short term experiments and therefore known to lack permanency to their participants. If there was a regular, real payment without an end-date how would you stop it acting as a disincentive to stopping work if the payment, which is unconditional, it approximate your income? And how do you replace those jobs if people decide they can get a salary of X or a payment of 9/10th X for doing nothing?
4a) Noting that some jobs just aren't worth being paid more for - retail jobs, unspecialised manual labour, logistics etc - the answer can't just be "pay those jobs more".


I'd like to hear these questions addressed if I could.

 

I think this inevitably what is going to happen in the future.

like decades from now.

I will maybe actually explain my position just as the thread goes on not sure if I'm down for a book length #cockatoopost atm lol.

 

I would support this assuming it is not 'means-tested' (until a realistic point) and the payment is held at a rate so as not to create a disincentive to work.

 

If it's not means tested then everyone gets it. It's like the government is Oprah.

If it's not a disincentive then it's sub-min wage. Right?

I want VLM and Penguinator and all the other advocates to answer my questions.

 

The Alaska permanent fund dividend is an interesting example, not exactly of a universal basic income, but of a windfall payout that has had a long term economic impact on the state. It's not means tested, but it helps lower income Alaskans by providing a significant portion of disposable income. It's a useful place to look as I imagine it's been heavily studied.