SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:52AM
from the What-would-YOU-do-with-a-basic-income? dept.
from the What-would-YOU-do-with-a-basic-income? dept.
The highly-anticipated experiment with basic income from Silicon Valley finance firm Y Combinator appears to be making good progress. The company has chosen Elizabeth Rhodes as the project's Research Director, opting for the little-known PHD graduate over applications from tenured professors working at Oxford and Harvard universities. Oakland, California is where the basic income research will happen: the community has been chosen for its close proximity to Y Combinator's head office, and the much-reported wealth divide in the locality.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Basic Income Experiment by Y Combinator Draws Nearer
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 27 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:39PM
My mind is reeling from thinking of ways this won't work. Starting with where this free money is going to come from. As more people get on basic income, where is the money going to come from? Rather than encourage people to do art and music, it's going to discourage the suckers who still work for a living. Why should I work to pay taxes when I'm just giving other people a free ride? (This issue is not discussed enough. Our US tax code is set up now to discourage people from doing things because if you start something on the side, you pay the maximum marginal tax rate on whatever you earn. Why not reform that before starting basic income?) If we get rid of welfare programs like food stamps, what is going to stop people from spending all their basic money on vices? What will we do with people who make poor decisions on a day-one bender and can't subsist until the next payment? Where are these people going to live? Section 8 housing is already in bad shape, with waiting lists to get into run-down properties. Will the government use the houses it's on the hook for after the mortgage crisis and give them to basic income people? That's actually not a bad idea, except what is going to stop them from becoming drug dens? And so on. Basic income is a bad idea being pushed by people who are either naive or have ulterior motives. It will never work in reality.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:20PM
Basic Income differs from welfare in that it is not clawed back if you decide to start working.
That way, there is no perverse disincentive to work.
If you are on welfare working actually costs you money. Beyond the 50-100% claw-back rate, working incurs transportation costs.
Depending on the job, food an laundry cost may go up. If a single parent starts working, child care costs come into play as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:39PM
Basic Income differs from welfare in that it is not clawed back if you decide to start working.
Only if you do not understand that money if fungible.
What do I mean by that? Lets say your basic income level is 20k. Hey not bad right?
Well now you are willing to work for less 20k less to be exact. So now you are more competitive right? Well not really. As guess who is paying for that 20k. The employer. Also everyone else is doing the exact same thing.
Now how do you pay for this? Taxes. Taxes on employees (you know the 99%). But I hear you say 'no its the employer that is paying it'. Well not really. They just pay less to make it up. Its easy too 'sorry total costs are a bit up this year and we cant give you a raise'. Boom paid for out of my raise.
Money is fungible and can be used for other things.
You see 1%rs calling for it. Which is odd. Why would they do that? Think about who will control the amount. Suddenly you have the ability to control what people do. You can put strings on the basic income. You can say 'to qualify you need to do XYZ'. That is power. That is the ability to control what people say and do. It is not freedom. It is the same economic slavery. It is only just slightly better than welfare.
This is mostly a 'do nothing' other than who signs your check and puts a small select group of people in charge of your money. Creates a even larger bureaucracy for people to jump thru hoops. Under the guise of looking good.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 03 2016, @01:55AM
Basic Income differs from welfare in that it is not clawed back if you decide to start working.
Only if you do not understand that money if fungible.
What do I mean by that? Lets say your basic income level is 20k. Hey not bad right?
Well now you are willing to work for less 20k less to be exact. So now you are more competitive right? Well not really. As guess who is paying for that 20k. The employer. Also everyone else is doing the exact same thing.
I notice that you agree ("now you are willing to work for less"). Money being fungible doesn't change that there is more incentive to work than under a traditional welfare system which cuts off entitlements when you earn too much.
This is mostly a 'do nothing' other than who signs your check and puts a small select group of people in charge of your money. Creates a even larger bureaucracy for people to jump thru hoops. Under the guise of looking good.
We already had that with the current welfare state. Bleedings hearts gotta bleed. At least a basic income would reduce the opportunities and scope for hoop making.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday June 03 2016, @06:12AM
There are two ways to implement Basic income:
1. Negative tax rate for low income
Cheaper to run, you need to file your taxes to qualify
2. Everybody get as payment
You qualify by being a registered citizen (possibly of a certain age).
Putting strings on Basic Income defeats the whole point. Things like mean testing are expensive to administer, and there will be people that fall through the cracks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:40PM
It is strange to me that so many people associate welfare and other types of assistance with drug abuse and vices. The vast majority are the working poor who can barely get by, the abusers are a much smaller proportion. Actually, I'm not surprised, the druggie welfare momma meme is one that has been pushed by Fox news and various radio and news outlets so that people thin socialism is evil, that way the corporate powers can privatize everything and squeeze every penny from the government and its citizens. The reality is that most people on welfare are working but aren't paid enough to get by. There are actually a LOT of such people, and they are one accident or health problem away from becoming homeless and spiraling into that vicious cycle.
If the abusers want to spend their money on getting high instead of a decent place to live and food to eat, then that is their choice. You are ignoring the obvious side effect, that these people will not turn to crime and panhandling to pay for their habits. That alone is worth the savings in prison costs and benefits to public safety for everyone.
You can't declare its a bad idea based on your wild assumptions. Personally without an actual government program I see this as a stunt, and beyond that running a pilot program in one of the most divided areas in the nation risks extreme results which could be bad no matter which way they go. If it is a wild success then that may encourage a blind copying of the program, if it is a total failure then it could be a good idea that was badly implemented but will never see the light of day again.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @06:04AM
We could use Sarah Palin's Alaska as a model.
USA.gov *could* consider all natural resources as the property of ALL USAians, held in trust.
Every resident of the USA gets a check periodically.
Yeah. Mind-boggling. I know.
The Alaska Permanent Fund[1] [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[1] [popularresistance.org]
[1] Recommended temporary AdBlock filter: ##div.widget
I can't believe I'm giving Sarah Palin props twice in one comment. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
The airwaves could also be considered a finite natural resource and for-profit broadcasters could be charged accordingly--instead of giving that away for free.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]