"Guaranteed income"

[AnCap Dave]

This is an idea I've seen going around for a while.

Here's an FAQ on it as well.

What do you guys think about this.

Personally, I have 2 questions.

1. Who pays for it?

2. If it's being paid for by the taxpayers to begin with, why bother taxing them at all? That just comes off as a waste of everyone's time.

Sounds like another form of welfare to me.

[Ibrahim90]

it's like asking "what if we can directly travel at or greater than light speed?": it's meaningless, as it is not possible. where will we come up with at least 8 trillion dollars? that's 8 trillion that could go to actual useful activities. Does he think money rains from the heavens? Does he think the annual budget could afford this? it can't even afford 4 trillion dollars, and he wants this on top of that as well? And how about the wasted potential of siphoning such an amount from the market--it will almost certainly cause mass unemployment, since there won't be enough free money to create businesses (and you remove any need for work). I've seen this happen in Kuwait with the Kuwaitis, and he thinks it will work here?

and since he brought it up: fuck the UN--who gives a damn about their opinion on human rights? those jackasses fucked over Sierra Leon just because the "wrong soldiers" were actually helping the people, and unilaterally disarmed the Muslims in the Central African Republic, while letting the majority Christians have free reign (I'll leave you to figure out what happened next)*.

David Wheeler is just another naiive simpleton who needs a nice big cup of STFU. people like him should not be suggesting such absurd notions. (EDIT: no, I'm not saying censor him. I'm saying he needs to know when he's being a jackass).

(P.S. in case you're wondering, I just assumed everyone was a single dad with child, and took the 2010 census, dvided by 2, and multiplied it by the amount he suggests. bear in mind my math skills are fuck all).



*in case you're wondering, a rebellion broke out a while back in the Northern part of the CAR, which is Muslim-majority. a faction from that region called the Seleka deposed the government, and installed their own president. however, he was unable (or unwilling) to disband the Seleka, who in idleness started terrorizing people in the capital. the UN came in, and in trying to disarm the Seleka (who weren't entirely Muslim, nor religious in motivation), disarmed all Muslims in the Capital, without disarming the rest of the population.

[dallen68]

I believe it would have its advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, it would eliminate having to apply for benefits and such for those without jobs, or those whose jobs do not afford them enough to meet their needs. Also, since there would be no applying, it would eliminate this thing where "Oh, there's assistance but you don't qualify because (your situation)." On the other hand, it would be paid for by people who have jobs. There is the potential that many on the lower end of the earnings scale would just take the allowance, and not work. At this point, any speculation as to whether it would cost more or less than our current system is pure guessing.

[MrBogosity]

What incentive would people have to find jobs and work?

[dallen68]

What incentive would people have to find jobs and work?

To get more money than the minimum allowance, I suppose. Although, as I indicated previously, there probably would be those to whom that wouldn't apply. I suppose the amount could be set somewhat similar to the current food stamp amount, so it's not actually enough to meet the recipients needs, but just enough that they have a resource to try to do something.

[AnCap Dave]

What incentive would people have to find jobs and work?

For some, that's kind of the point. You don't.

According to the FAQ, a lot of this comes from the idea that many lower income jobs are becoming obsolete and therefore, lower skilled workers would be unable to work.

Still sounds like a crock of shit to me though.

[MrBogosity]

To get more money than the minimum allowance, I suppose.

Okay, let's throw some numbers in, and make it a bit extreme/simplistic to show the effect:

Let's say the guaranteed minimum is the equivalent of working $7/hour for 40 hours a week. You're then offered a full-time job at $7.50/hour, but you'd lose your guaranteed minimum benefits. Effectively, and as far as the economic incentives are concerned, you're only working for 50 cents an hour! Because that's how much better off you are for taking the job.

Of course, in the real world, they'd do a graduated thing, and you've also got issues of, is it based on your pay before or after taxes etc., but you get the idea: the fact that you get reduced benefits for working reduces the incentive to work.

[dallen68]

Okay, let's throw some numbers in, and make it a bit extreme/simplistic to show the effect:

Let's say the guaranteed minimum is the equivalent of working $7/hour for 40 hours a week. You're then offered a full-time job at $7.50/hour, but you'd lose your guaranteed minimum benefits. Effectively, and as far as the economic incentives are concerned, you're only working for 50 cents an hour! Because that's how much better off you are for taking the job.

Of course, in the real world, they'd do a graduated thing, and you've also got issues of, is it based on your pay before or after taxes etc., but you get the idea: the fact that you get reduced benefits for working reduces the incentive to work.

OR... They could set it up so you get the allowance regardless, and your employer only has to pay you the difference between the minimum allowance and what the job pays. Of course, if I was your employer, I'd pay you $6.50/hr, in this case, so you'd owe me 50 cents for allowing you to work!

Kidding aside, I don't think it would be close to that, it would probably be like $150-$200/ month for the first person (i.e. the parent) and then another $30-50 for each additional person in the family - much like foodstamps work now - or at least how foodstamps worked the last time I looked, which has been about 15 years. (Being a absawd, I didn't qualify)

Oh, they'd probably put a asawd requirement on it.

[evensgrey]

For some, that's kind of the point. You don't.

According to the FAQ, a lot of this comes from the idea that many lower income jobs are becoming obsolete and therefore, lower skilled workers would be unable to work.

Still sounds like a crock of shit to me though.

Well, since the state insists on controlling education, that problem is entirely the fault of the state.

Of course, no state will ever accept the idea that removing the cause of state-created problems is the solution, so instead they invent another 'fix' that will create new problems instead.

It's a wonderful racket, as long as you can keep the sheep believing that the problems will go away if you have enough of the cause of the problems.