Why the world should adopt a basic income

That's pretty much it. Except that it's not communist (communism means everyone must work .. no exceptions), and fails to grasp that the productive would become unproductive very quickly.

It's just the dribbling dreamscape of people with the vision of amoebas.

 

Well it's just a recent observation that the word "socialist" as it's being bandied about in current US politics and on this forum, isn't really an ideological or economic system discussion; it's just people wanting a whole bunch of stuff for free. There may be good or bad reasons on why people should have free stuff, but it's probably long since stopped being about ideology and started being about free stuff and I'm just catching on.

 

Basic income works out the same doesn't it?

Everyone gets paid benefits. All benefits get paid out of tax.
If you have a job you pay more in tax than you get back in benefits.

Net result.
If you have a job, you pay a bit less in tax, and if you don't, you get benefits.
Everything has to come from the taxpayer. So basically those with jobs pay benefits to those without jobs.

No change.

Same system. Different name.
Waste of time and money changing to it.

 

Given the tax and benefit policy is liberal in design (and goes in conjunction with Friedman's analysis into avoiding high effective marginal rates of tax), whining 'socialism' isn't going to wash

 

I thought @Lil Mike just said it wasn't socialism but was just wanting free stuff. So he's not whining socialism.

 

Bringing up socialism, when its liberalism twinned with the Chicago School, is whinge by definition

 

Like @Lil Mike, I don't call it socialism. I call it wanting free stuff.

 

It's neither and pretending a link, or even pretending to reject a link, between the two is guff.

The basic income guarantee merely integrates tax and benefit systems. It's an example of liberalism corrupted by the Chicago School. Is it required? It's certainly superior to the current mish mash. However, it's not radical.

 

Guaranteed income will give lots of people free stuff.

 

Compared to the current welfare state? Nope. We do know that it will eliminate high effective marginal rates of tax and therefore create work incentives.

The minimum income can be set at a poverty threshold. However, unless the wage distribution is targeted (e.g. worker ownership,), the effects tend to be minimal

 

Reiver's responses seem to be running on automatic and don't seem to have much to do with the comments he is reply/quoting. Or at least that's my experience.

 

But it's still giving people free stuff.

 

Sometimes I wonder if bots have infiltrated Political Forum.

 

You'd have s point if we were referring to switch from zero welfare to welfare state. We're not. The basic income guarantee simply ensures integration of tax and benefit system.

It's impact on overall outcome? There is no reason to assume any significant impact on the social wage.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

You obviously think people are as stoopid as you are, and don't want to better their lives by enhancing income.

Ask any psychologist if this a "Modern Phenomenon" afflicting humanity. Then watch them laugh ...

 

A guaranteed income is free money. Who are you trying to kid?

 

We need to end the welfare state. People who are dependent upon the state are weak and have more in common with cattle than human beings. The Constitution states our government should promote the common welfare. The "common welfare" is not promoted by making citizens dependent upon the state itself. It's promoted by helping citizens maximize their potential and being able to provide for themselves.

 

Then you also want to end capitalism? Maintaining the physical efficiency of the involuntary unemployed is crucial for maintaining the status quo. Worker compliance is maintained, ensuring that profit isn't threatened.

Your extreme viewpoint here is hopefully inconsistent with your Constitution. If it isn't, then it's not worth much.

Welfare does help to enable economic choice. See, for example, the higher risk taking enjoyed in social democratic countries. That's the interesting aspect of welfare (and probably accounts for the similarities between liberal basic income guarantee and right wing negative income tax): it's economic rationality.

 

Nice rant, but completely wrong. I forgot how young you were and that you mostly likely attend HS all dressed in black.

The problem with your young idealism is that it’s the complete opposite of the maxim “It’s better to teach a man to fish than give a man a fish”.

 

You sure you're not in a parallel universe? You've compared people with cattle. I've simply referred to economics, describing how that economics encompasses both left and right wing ideologies.

Semi retired self employed. I just can easily dismiss right wing nonsense for its non-economic grunt.

You're not making any sense. I haven't referred to my own preference (though market socialism would eliminate efficiency wage rationale for involuntary unemployment). I have merely referred to the importance of welfare state for reproducing profit in capitalism. There are of course differences in the level of interventionism that can be tolerated. This will often reflect efficiency versus equity arguments within capitalism. However, eliminating the welfare state would be clear irrationality

 

Stupid people who want to suck off the government tit for all of their lives are simple herd animals. They are weak and would be the first to die in a catastrophe.

Dressed in black? Anarchist with a mask?

 

This is just more far right claptrap. Get back to me when you have a coherent economic argument.

 

Eliminating the dole does not require the end of capitalism. Capitalism existed before the dole and it could exist after it.

 

Capitalism thrives with involuntary unemployment. I appreciate that you play utopian pretend. However, we can't get away from the facts. Labour market analysis evolved to try and explain the 'reserve army. Marxism became mainstream

 

This doesn't address my statement. I said that capitalism existed before the dole and therefore could exist after the elimination of the dole. Capitalism does not rely on the dole.

This is not an argument.

This is also not an argument.