|
I really hope a country tries it. A complete, closed loop, long-term attempt will be a glorious trainwreck. A "small" basic income will result in prices for everything rising (partially to cover the additional expenses introduced by all upstream suppliers, partially because the customer can now pay more so why not) to the point where inflation will destroy any gains. A "big" basic income will result in huge taxes, and will make it increasingly attractive to say "screw it, why should I work hard and be massively taxed for it when Bob does nothing all day and survives quite well". Hello ever-increasing pool of
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
You sell Hot Dogs. The Government gives you an extra $30 a day, then ups your Taxes by $40 a day. Your suppliers all raise their prices (because they are getting taxed more and their suppliers are charging more). At the same time, your customers now have extra money and can therefore afford to pay more for hot dogs. Do you 1) raise your prices like everyone else, 2) lose money, or 3) say "screw it, working is for chumps" and quit. Be honest. e: no - it has never been tried in a long-term, closed-loop system. Most people won't quit work when they know the trial is going to end and they will eventually have to explain the big gap on their resume. My Lil Parachute fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
So humor me. What exactly is wrong with my scenario?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
tbh I was actually picturing a fat lazy white guy (hence the name 'Bob') but I guess any issue can be a racial issue if you look hard enough.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Really? Got a link? Because every trial I've seen has either been short and/or subsidized by the rest of the economy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
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"?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Even if your a sociopath, there is also an argument for efficiency and public order, more income in lower income brackets means more consumption, and more demand.  business doesn't care about demand for its own sake, it cares about profit. If you take  from my wallet then use it to buy some stuff from my store, I don't come out ahead. It's only a win for small business and businesses large enough to employ clever accountants.quote:Higher incomes also create a more stable social environment. Agreed, but couldn't we make it better still by tying in a handful of hours of community service a week (for those not in full-time work) to be eligible?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:you could also just make it means tested and available once you meet a thresh-hold ie rather than giving 200 million (ish) adults a 13k check, if someone makes 8,000 a year then will get a check for 5,000 from the government. Isn't this effectively a 100% marginal tax rate on income below 13k?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I want to address this post in detail, even though it's really old at this point and the poster (probably) isn't even following this thread any more. quote:1: Getting something for free is immoral. I would alter the wording to say - "Taking something from someone else, without their approval, is immoral". Additionally things obtained for free are not as valued as things worked for. quote:Why this is wrong: Welfare is an overall net benefit to GDP. Increased GDP leads to more wealth and cheaper goods. You can think of welfare as an investment, like your 401k. Have you got any cites for this? It sounds a little like the broken-window fallacy. quote:The short version is two-fold. 1: Unlike in ancient times, not everyone has to work for there to be enough to go around. We have a surplus of pretty much everything. Hell, the government subsidizes crops because we produce so much extra that the market would crash if they didn't. Bootstraps: Sure, luck can play a huge role in life (are you born an orphan or heir to a billionare's fortune?) but from what I've seen, most people need some luck and a lot of hard work before they get anywhere. Attributing someones success purely (as many people do) to luck shits all over the work they did to get there. quote:2: We should not do things that have a net benefit to society if they are immoral. Hypothetical: Would you brutally murder 100 Americans at random if everyone else in the world got a weeks worth of food? On average, it would save more lives then it would cost, so would be a net benefit to society - whilst still being an abhorrent act. quote:3: We need people to "work in nursing homes or something." There is a fraction of the population I wouldn't trust to make me a sandwich, so we will always see some unemployment. There are jobs at present which are not done because it is simply not economical but would benefit society (eg roaming the beach all day and picking up litter). With adequate supervision I don't see why we can't get a few hours of community service in exchange for benefits. The long-term solution has to be a reduction in working hours imo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really? Taxes are immoral? So we shouldn't have public education, police, courts, national defense, welfare, medical care for the poor, infrastructure or anything else funded by taking something without someone's direct approval? quote:Okay so we should take everything back from the rich who built fortunes on conquest and slavery and exploitation of the rest of the world, right? a question - do you believe all rich people became rich immorally? Is it possible to be rich and deserve it? quote:OK 100% inheritance tax then, since obviously the children of wealth won't value what they don't work for?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh okay so there is actually nothing wrong with funding social programs by taxes then, even if people don't agree to each and every use of that tax money? Beep boop I am a robot who does not see shades of grey. quote:The gift tax exists, and you can't get out of taxes by selling something like property or securities for $1. Would it kill you to know a bitty bit about what you're posting? The "gift tax" in your country is presumably not 100%.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 16:00
|
|