Will we need a basic income in the future?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will we need a basic income in the future?

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Any recommended reading on how to craft talking points? I want Basic Income talking points and if none already exist would be willing to try cobbling some together to spam/test.

Edit: Also, I'm seeing cost/affordability calculations using GDP. Would Total Personal Income* be a good substitute?

_{*For which the 2012 figure is $13,401,868,693.}

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 4, 2014

# ¿ Nov 4, 2014 06:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 15:30

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

TwoQuestions posted:

How the hell are you going to sell GMI to a bunch of hateful fuckers like us?

Appeal to greed and hierarchical gut-level thinking? With basic income, everyone gets a check. You could call it a 'Citizen's Income.' Tie it to citizenship & permanent residency and it'll automatically elevate them above foreigners and especially illegal immigrants. Rhetoric which rings of nationalist ideology and economic pragmatism would probably be a good pitch for your average American.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2014 22:03

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Freakazoid_ posted:

I don't have all the numbers, but last I checked, every $1.00 spent on the food stamp program $1.72 is created in revenue. It's one of the better if not the best return on investment for the government.

The way I see it, food is necessary. We're got a bit more than just food, water and shelter as necessities these days, so a GMI has a pretty good shot at being revenue positive.

Not to nitpick but that's GDP, not revenue. For example, this 2010 report (PDF) has the ratio at $1 : $1.79.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 01:51

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Anyone have insight into hiring Frank Luntz types? As in, hypothetically, how much would it cost to get some ~words that work~ on Basic Income?

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 06:21

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Helsing posted:

Liberal organizations have their own versions of Frank Luntz, such as George Lakoff. But the problem isn't about messaging, the problem is that the oligarchs and elites who currently control the United States don't have much of an appetite for any form of wealth redistribution.

Now in the past reforms have been pushed through against the objections of powerful vested interests, but that requires a populist movement pushing up from below. Right now no such movement really exists at the national level. And that is probably a much bigger hurdle than finding the right buzzwords or anecdotes or narrative for selling this thing to the public. There has to be some actual constituency demanding it, and building infrastructure to support that demand. That's the real missing link here as far as implementing something.

Yeah, in my head I've got the issue split into three parts:

Selling the System
Selling the Citizens
Forcing the Issue

Thus advocacy requires white papers, propaganda and agitation. But I know the least about PR.

Edit: poo poo, I need to split consideration of 'the system' from 'the elites.' I wonder if pre-existing elite support would be enough if combined with having the above three items on lock?

SedanChair posted:

Luntz's insight works because it trades on the fundamental selfishness and wickedness of Americans. It doesn't work in the other direction.

It's a bit more complex than that. There's a lot of psychology in it these days. I read a book from George Lakoff years ago where he discusses the role of framing in modern propaganda. The most operationalized definition of framing I've come across is something like 'a psychological device offering perspective and manipulating salience in order to affect subsequent judgement.'

Here's a couple excerpts from an interview with Cognitive Linguist George Lakoff:

quote:

You've written a lot about "tax relief" as a frame. How does it work?

The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.

"Tax relief" has even been picked up by the Democrats. I was asked by the Democratic Caucus in their tax meetings to talk to them, and I told them about the problems of using tax relief. The candidates were on the road. Soon after, Joe Lieberman still used the phrase tax relief in a press conference. You see the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.

...

How does language influence the terms of political debate?

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.

'Conservatives understand what unites them, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.'
-George Lakoff

If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" - something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves.

Here's another example of how powerful framing is. In Arnold Schwarzenegger's acceptance speech, he said, "When the people win, politics as usual loses." What's that about? Well, he knows that he's going to face a Democratic legislature, so what he has done is frame himself and also Republican politicians as the people, while framing Democratic politicians as politics as usual - in advance. The Democratic legislators won't know what hit them. They're automatically framed as enemies of the people.

Why do conservatives appear to be so much better at framing?

Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In 1970, [Supreme Court Justice] Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. [There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which date from the 1940s.]

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.

...

It's less about targeting selfishness and wickedness than it is about manipulating hearts and minds in a target group through exploitation of psychology. Propaganda techniques generalize and they can be used for good.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Nov 5, 2014

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 06:57

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

SedanChair posted:

Yeah but there you go, it's in the service of "tax relief." It's an idea that only selfish, thieving people would see as beneficial. I don't really think there's an example of appealing to people's fundamental decency with this kind of rhetorical gaming.

That's just what the GOP chooses to target. You could use happy framing to sell cupcakes to children who like happy things (like tiny cupcakes and your framing).

Some examples of more benign, accepting frame-manipulation would be:

Immigrant Tax-Payer
Undocumented Worker
Prosperity is Security

If you're interested, I just found a poo poo ton of material at Cognitive Policy Works.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Nov 5, 2014

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 07:32

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

My Lil Parachute posted:

I honestly don't see why it is morally right to literally pay people to do nothing. At least tie it to trivially easy volunteer work like a few hours a week helping in nursing homes or something.

It's not that. It's making zero-poverty default.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Nov 5, 2014

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 09:43

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

My Lil Parachute posted:

Isn't that another way of saying "I will force other people will grow food for me, build the house I live in, and supply me with entertainment, even though I contribute nothing to them"?

Not remotely. Do you say these things about highways? Or Medicaid? It's public policy. Do you say these things about fire departments and food stamps? Because if not, then this is simply more of what you already accept, which is government using tax revenue to maintain and improve society.

Besides, GMI test cases suggest minimal reductions in employment. Off the top of my head, the one in Dauphin, Manitoba found that only new mothers and students worked less.

Edit: Seriously, think of everything poverty does to society. Think of what it does to people and what it does to the economy.

How can preserving that be moral?

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Nov 5, 2014

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 10:07

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

My Lil Parachute posted:

If you take from my wallet then use it to buy some stuff from my store, I don't come out ahead.

What feeds your business would be untaxed, and you'd have more than one customer while paying only the one tax (and don't forget the others effects like your community having less crime, less hunger, less mental illness, etc).

I'll point this out real quick, the terminology here isn't nailed down. Usually it's something like:

Universal Basic Income (UBI) - Everyone gets a check
Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) - Means-tested Basic Income; Everyone gets their income topped off.

So with that in mind, I did some back-of-the-napkin calculations for a UBI.

Total Personal Income (TPI) (2012): $13,401,868,693,000
US Pop. (2012): 312,780,968 _{[Source: Google]}

If the program simply paid out revenue, then every 1% of TPI paid out $428.47 in 2012.

So...

code:

TPI Captured            UBI Dividend
0.0%			$0.00
2.5%			$1,071.19
5.0%			$2,142.37
7.5%			$3,213.56
10.0%			$4,284.75
12.5%			$5,355.93
15.0%			$6,427.12
17.5%			$7,498.30
20.0%			$8,569.49
22.5%			$9,640.68
25.0%			$10,711.86
27.5%			$11,783.05
30.0%			$12,854.24
32.5%			$13,925.42
35.0%			$14,996.61

If you run that as a flat-tax, your gains/losses zero-out at $42,847. Since that seems low to me I'd recommend a progressive tax-scale.

(Top marginal income tax rate, historical:

[i]Year, # of Brackets, First Rate, Highest Rate)

I'll pitch for a progressive income tax here, too, with some utilitarian logic about the progressive income tax scale:

Marginal Utility (MU) and Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) are important concepts here.

MU is the idea that as income increases, the utility garnered form each additional dollar starts to decrease. Cost of Living in the US ranges, basically, from $15k to $25k. Accordingly, the first $15k to $25k will be your food and shelter money. Dollars $160,001 to $170,000 of a surgeon's salary are going to be scotch and savings money. Taxing high utility dollars, Food & Shelter money, is more harmful than low utility dollars, Scotch & Savings money.

And MPC is the idea that as income increases, the proportion spent of each additional dollar starts to decrease. Your food and shelter money will get spent, but part of your scotch and savings money will go toward stocks, mutual funds, REITs and all kinds of poo poo. High MPC dollars are more economically stimulative than low MPC dollars, especially when the economy's suffering from low aggregate demand. Thus, taxing high MPC dollars is more harmful than taxing low MPC dollars.

A progressive income tax scale eschews taxation of money at the low end in favor of taxation at the high end. It biases against taxing high utility, high MPC dollars in favor of low utility, low MPC dollars thus minimizing the taxation's proximate negative impact.

How's that tie into UBI discussions? Capitalism is a game of upward capital accumulation. Money flows to money; it naturally separates out into low utility, low MPC contexts. UBI corrects for that dynamic. It'll increase the health of the system, the citizenry and capitalism itself.

My Lil Parachute posted:

My job pays 8k, due to GMI I end up with 13k. I work harder to find a job paying 13k, due to GMI I end up with the same amount.

Why would anyone work any job that pays less than 13k under this scheme?

You can address that a few different ways. With a UBI, it's a non-issue because everyone gets the same size check, rich and poor. With a GMI, you could do like Dauphin did and decrease benefit by $0.50 per $1 of income.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 5, 2014

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 18:43

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Ardennes posted:

It is a loss of potential income, not income you already earned. I prefer to make sure the "bottom line" is raised higher and then decreasing the support from there.

I think the salient point would be that under a GMI regime, we're no longer taxing food & shelter money, so the dynamic's different. Cost of living's covered either way (if the benefit's high enough, of course)

Also, I wonder how it'd play politically? How would 'Welfare Queen' rhetoric play when recipients are, de facto, taxed 50% until they're off benefit?

quote:

My point is more focused, it would be great to just give everyone a check but ultimately I expect there will be a budget crunch at a point, so if you had to cut back, how would you do it?

How much of a factor would cost be, anyways? A UBI's overhead could be practically zero, so what's taxed-out would be paid-out immediately.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 19:43

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

enraged_camel posted:

Again this assumes that the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for the increased income, in which case demand will go back to its original level.

What suggests it will?

Edit: ~ You're assuming the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for increased income concentration, in which case we won't be able to afford food and clothes anymore. ~

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Nov 5, 2014

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 20:14

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

wateroverfire posted:

The prices of status goods that people with money compete for, like homes in neighborhoods with the best schools, have gone up as the rich have gotten richer. It's a thing that happens.

F - 0/10

"most if not all goods"

quote:

What is your argument for why the prices people pay won't go up if those same people are all at least, say, $15,000 richer every year?

F - 0/10

They will go up. Never said they wouldn't. People're saying they won't go up commensurate to $15K.

I have no interest in tilting at strawmans.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 21:06

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

enraged_camel posted:

In contrast, a basic income scheme would affect everyone on the demand-side. So the guy who made $35,000 now makes $50,000 and can now comfortably afford a $10 burrito. So why not increase the price to $10? You would sell the same number of burritos but would make more per burrito. Higher margins like that are a no-brainer from a business perspective.

As income rises, so will tax liability. Effective-benefit will decrease along a gradient as income rises. Few will be +$15k.

Also, you've got competition, reservation prices, product substitution and I know there's more I'm forgetting. There's real hurdles to price increases

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 22:22

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

archangelwar posted:

Like seriously, if all of the theories concerning prices in economics can be boiled down to "charge whatever the gently caress I want, I think these mooks can pay it" then why have prices dropped on anything ever? Why is gas now $3/gallon? I am pretty sure that people were still buying gas at $4/gallon.

Delayed impact. Any day now the US will collapse into a mountain of skulls.

We need to abolish the minimum wage and legalize company towns or we're all dead!

# ¿ Nov 5, 2014 22:31

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

on the left posted:

A good campaign slogan for mincome: American citizens, heed the call of doubling or tripling your income tax burden so that a bunch of autistic shut-ins are freed from the burden of work.

The average beneficiary would be the average American, and I've gotten traction with people using, "There's only so many ways to unwind plutocracy," lines of argument.

Data like this always helps, too.

People want a healthier economy and greater equality. This gives it to them.

Besides, there's plenty of unsavory Russian oligarchs we could plaster everywhere as models for who would pay the most into the system. Make them the role models of the opposition.

Edit:

THE OLIGARCH TAX

BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR THAT

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 6, 2014

# ¿ Nov 6, 2014 01:11

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

asdf32 posted:

For reference assuming 40 trillion of "hoarded wealth" (first number I found) that's something like 2-5 years of GMI.

That's something like to $25,000 to $63,000 per resident funded solely from wealth. No one suggested payments that high and no one suggested using this to destroy all "hoarded wealth."

# ¿ Nov 6, 2014 02:13

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Yeah, according to national MIT's Cost of Living estimates for the US, you're pretty much looking at a bare minimum of $15k to $25k for a single adult living alone in a 1 bedroom depending on whether you're in Walla Walla, WA or New York, New York. With some corner cutting, $20k has totally got you covered in almost all of the US.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2014 03:38

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Nice article about UBI in developmental contexts from The Guardian:

quote:

...

Recently, we have conducted three unconditional basic income schemes in India, funded by Unicef. A basic income is a modest cash payment (in this case, a third of subsistence), paid individually, unconditionally, universally and monthly, guaranteed as a right. Altogether, more than 6,000 men, women and children received it, with the children�s money paid to the mother.

In one pilot, everybody in eight villages were provided with a basic income for 18 months, and their experience evaluated by comparing what took place in 12 otherwise similar villages, in a modified randomised control trial.

Making the experiment unique was that it tested for the independent and combined effects of the basic income and a collective body working on behalf of recipients. In half the villages, SEWA (the Self-Employed Women�s Association) operated; in the rest, it was absent.

The only condition was that every adult had to open a bank or co-operative account within three months, into which the basic income was paid. Despite scepticism from our advisory board, a 98% bank account rate was achieved in that period; the rest followed.

The methodology is described in a new book. What the pilots show is that a basic income can be used as development aid and as regional policy in the European Union to deter migration from poor to richer countries. The main conclusion is that a basic income can be transformative. It had four effects, most accentuated by the presence of the collective body.

First, it had strong welfare, or �capability�, effects. There were improvements in child nutrition, child and adult health, schooling attendance and performance, sanitation, economic activity and earned incomes, and the socio-economic status of women, the elderly and the disabled.

Second, it had strong equity effects. It resulted in bigger improvements for scheduled caste and tribal households, and for all vulnerable groups, notably those with disabilities and frailties. This was partly because the basic income was paid to each individual, strengthening their bargaining position in the household and community.

Third, it had growth effects. Contrary to what sceptics predicted (including Sonia Gandhi), the basic incomes resulted in more economic activity and work.

Conventional labour statistics would have picked that up inadequately. There was a big increase in secondary economic activities, as well as a shift from casual wage labour to own-account farming and small-scale business. Growth in village economies is often ignored. It should not be.

Fourth, it had emancipatory effects.These are unappreciated by orthodox development thinkers. The poor�s liberty has no value. But the basic income resulted in some families buying themselves out of debt bondage, others paying down exorbitant debts incurring horrendous interest rates. For many, it provided liquidity with which to respond to shocks and hazards. In effect, the basic income responded to the fact that in such villages money is a scarce commodity, and as such that has driven up its price, locking most in a perpetual cycle of debt and deprivation.

To appreciate the full extent of the emancipation, one should hear the story of the young women who at first wore veils and were reluctant to offend their elders when having their photographs taken to obtain eligibility for the basic income. Within months, they had confidence enough to be sitting and chatting in the centre of the village unveiled. They had their bit of independence.

These four effects � welfare, equity, growth and emancipation � combine to be transformative.

Critics claim a universal scheme is unaffordable. But they would be a substitute for subsidies that in India account for a huge share of national income. They are distortionary, inefficient, regressive and prone to corruption. Switching is feasible and would have substantial positive effects.

Another criticism is that a basic income would be inflationary. But it would be a substitute for more expensive policies. The criticism also neglects the elasticity of supply. Thus, it generated a sharp rise in food production, resulting in better nutrition and productivity and in lower unit prices.

...

# ¿ Dec 18, 2014 21:40

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Pingui posted:

If you want to convince people mincome is something that should happen, being able to tell them that it could be done within budget will surely go a long way, red herring or not.

Hell, in that article I just posted, they found large effects from paying out only as much as 1/3 subsistence. This can be small and still worth doing.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2014 23:41

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

VitalSigns posted:

The crisis is now.

Fun supplemental:

# ¿ Dec 19, 2014 01:27

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

asdf32 posted:

Yes because employers deduct healthcare from the wages in that chart.

Can you provide numbers for your point?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2014 01:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 15:30

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

I'm pretty sure Mr. Gamingo was being satirical. If he kept going the next paragraph would've been about shock collars for the poor that're like how if you stand still too long in Counter-Strike: Source you lose some health? You might not know what that means but I guarantee you the poor generally do so they'll be familiar with the concept immediately.

Helsing posted:

...putting money into the hands of folks with a high MPC...

Are there other angles on how it induces domestic consumption?

I always go with MPC, too, telling people it shifts dollars down the income gradient, 'converting savings into spending, converting this guy's stock and savings and money into this guy's food and shelter and money,' that kind of thing.

But I've only got the one pitch on that point.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Dec 19, 2014

# ¿ Dec 19, 2014 19:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will we need a basic income in the future?