I Think People Should be Paid not to Work, if That's What They Want: Switzerland to vote

[JonSnow4President]

For the sake of argument - if it could be conclusively shown that this policy would work and be an economic net positive would you still think it despicable? Or would your moral aversion override any and all practical benefits?

That's like asking me if I would like unicorn steak.

[Fragile Bird]

I suspect in order for the minimum income concept to work well there would have to be modifications made to the income tax systems in the countries using it.

In particular, people would have to declare not only what they make, they would have to show what they spend.  The target for doing this would be the underground economy, the payments people make in cash to avoid taxation.  I don't know what things are like in your country, but in Canada there are huge numbers of people who operate cash-only lives.  The most efficient tax system is the VAT, but people resent paying 15% (the amount of our VAT, and it has to be shown as a separate line item, a mistake made on implementation, imo)  on top of fees for services.  People renovate their houses for cash, go to the dentist and pay cash, fix their cars for cash, every service sector has people who will take cash under the table.

This issue, to me, is the largest one that would derail a guaranteed minimum income plan on a country wide basis. (Currently we have guaranteed minimum income levels for seniors, to raise them out of poverty, but lower than $20k.)

[MerenthaClone]

 

That's like asking me if I would like unicorn steak.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a hypothetical, or just unwilling to engage with it?

[McCracken]

I really don't understand the link between universal income and the black market or why you would need to completly overhual the tax system.  It would make no sense to make people declare what they spend for tax purposes and there is no reason why universal income would change that.

zelticar - ofcourse this benefit would replace many current benefits.  I think it should replace unemployment, child and pension benefits.  Disibility benefits are different however as people with disability often need more money than someone who doesn't have a disibility.

 

EDIT - Also for those who think this commie pie in the sky thinking I'm pretty sure MIlton Freedman advocated a type of universal income.  I think he called it a negative income tax.

[JonSnow4President]

 

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a hypothetical, or just unwilling to engage with it?

I think it is so inherently problematic to the point of impossibility, it's a moot point. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around a hypothetical that I can't see occurring. 

[lacuna]

I think it is so inherently problematic to the point of impossibility, it's a moot point. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around a hypothetical that I can't see occurring. 

 

And yet your member title is "Only the wolf would dare to love the dragon". Which is speculation on a staggeringly impossible set of hypotheticals.

 

ETA: On topic

Are these basic income funds earmarked in some way? Can you only use them on rent/mortgage and food? Otherwise, I see some problems relating to addiction and other unwise spending. What happens when your monthly $ 1666 runs out after 5 days in stead of 30, because you lost it all at the track?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Well if the guy with the avatar of a three headed dragon fucking a direwolf says it's impossible, I guess that's that.

[JonSnow4President]

 

And yet your member title is "Only the wolf would dare to love the dragon". Which is speculation on a staggeringly impossible set of hypotheticals.

Well, clearly it is metaphorical.  (I know you're being sarcastic.)

Just like comparing if eating unicorn steak is ethical to this discussion.

 

Edit:  For what it's worth, I think we now need a thread for the ethics of eating unicorns.

[lacuna]

Well, clearly it is metaphorical.  (I know you're being sarcastic.)

Just like comparing if eating unicorn steak is ethical to this discussion.

 

Edit:  For what it's worth, I think we now need a thread for the ethics of eating unicorns.

Only partially sarcastic. You have shown that you can speculate on the fictional stories of GRRM. Can you not do likewise in regard to the alternate reality tale of the Westeros board where the 46th president of the USA has managed to institute a basic income scheme? Specifically, would such a system be inherently immoral, even if, in our fictional story, it solved many of society's problems?

[JonSnow4President]

 

Only partially sarcastic. You have shown that you can speculate on the fictional stories of GRRM. Can you not do likewise in regard to the alternate reality tale of the Westeros board where the 46th president of the USA has managed to institute a basic income scheme? Specifically, would such a system be inherently immoral, even if, in our fictional story, it solved many of society's problems?

It depends so much on the specifics.  Pure utopian version, no it wouldn't.  We don't live in a pure utopian version though.

Is my unicorn endangered, or is it farm raised?  Can it be raised relatively humanely?  Is it resource efficient?  Can it be harvested relatively humanely?  Does it offer benefits over beef, pork, chicken?  Is it the same from a health standpoint?  Is it substantially worse?  

The specifics matter.  Generally, no.  I'm not against the general concept of universal healthcare (unicorn farts and puppy kisses world, I'm all for it).  I'm against a lot of the ways, or specific features, that it often includes in the corrupt, dirty world.

[Masonity]

I suspect in order for the minimum income concept to work well there would have to be modifications made to the income tax systems in the countries using it.

In particular, people would have to declare not only what they make, they would have to show what they spend.  The target for doing this would be the underground economy, the payments people make in cash to avoid taxation.  I don't know what things are like in your country, but in Canada there are huge numbers of people who operate cash-only lives.  The most efficient tax system is the VAT, but people resent paying 15% (the amount of our VAT, and it has to be shown as a separate line item, a mistake made on implementation, imo)  on top of fees for services.  People renovate their houses for cash, go to the dentist and pay cash, fix their cars for cash, every service sector has people who will take cash under the table.

This issue, to me, is the largest one that would derail a guaranteed minimum income plan on a country wide basis. (Currently we have guaranteed minimum income levels for seniors, to raise them out of poverty, but lower than $20k.)

You give the minimum income to everyone. No means testing. The lack of having to check this shit is part of what pays for it... The running costs are almost nil. 

 

In exchange, you remove tax free allowances and increase the tax charged on lower earners, along a line that ensures that with the extra money they are given they are always equal or better off under the new system compared to before. 

 

People who evade tax? They are tax evaders now, and will be tax evaders then. There's no difference. Sure we should tackle them, but we should regardless.

[zelticgar]

I really don't understand the link between universal income and the black market or why you would need to completly overhual the tax system.  It would make no sense to make people declare what they spend for tax purposes and there is no reason why universal income would change that.

zelticar - ofcourse this benefit would replace many current benefits.  I think it should replace unemployment, child and pension benefits.  Disibility benefits are different however as people with disability often need more money than someone who doesn't have a disibility.

 

EDIT - Also for those who think this commie pie in the sky thinking I'm pretty sure MIlton Freedman advocated a type of universal income.  I think he called it a negative income tax.

4.6% of the working population in the US is currently on disability (approx. 9 million people). It would seem like the vast majority of these people would be the audience that would benefit the most from a program like this. Why would you just not set the benefits to account for the average annual payment? Its around 13,000 per year that goes to those 9 million people. I dont buy into the theory that people with disabilities need more money. A lot of the cost of the actual disability is handled through government medical benefits which I would agree would make sense to keep separate. The disability payments are mostly for income missed because of the loss of ability to work.

As i think about this idea one other unintended consequence might happen that I would love to see. If you eliminate disability and replaced it with universal income the shell game of working your way through the "system" in order to qualify might go away. The cost of administering welfare, unemployment, housing etc. might lessen if we eliminated those programs and replaced them with a check (although i am sure the government will figure out other ways to create waste

 

[gregsjt]

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Not sure about that MSJ. I think the unintended results might cause more harm. Someone upthread talked about the potential of housing prices spiking and creating an even bigger gulf between the haves and have nots.

 

 

Yea, I won't pretend to know much about the economics that would go into this. I just look at it and see a way to help everyone in some way. And, I believe it would give people more incentive to go out and work for what you want. I didn't mean to say that this would make it easier for those who dont work. Probably won't. But, it would help out the vast majority of the working poor. Who, I feel, deserve help when none is there for them. They work their buts off to make ends meet, and still end up struggling just to get by. There would be no incentive to those looking for a free ride, sure. If, you was a single artist looking to get by on this, you would probably have to find someone like of mind and pull your resources together. Meh, its all hypothetical, with a bunch of positives and negatives. I just see more good coming from it, though.

[Liffguard]

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

Why?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

 

And yet your member title is "Only the wolf would dare to love the dragon". Which is speculation on a staggeringly impossible set of hypotheticals.

 

ETA: On topic

Are these basic income funds earmarked in some way? Can you only use them on rent/mortgage and food? Otherwise, I see some problems relating to addiction and other unwise spending. What happens when your monthly $ 1666 runs out after 5 days in stead of 30, because you lost it all at the track?

While there are always going to be people who spend money unwisely, studies have shown that best and most cost effective way to alleviate poverty is give the poor money directly.

http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly

[McCracken]

Zelticgar i can assure you that people with disabilities do need more money.  The money they receive is not just for loss of work, at least not in the UK.

[MerenthaClone]

Why?

Some people really don't like it when you try to take away their right to feel smugly superior to others based on life circumstances, I guess.  

[gregsjt]

Why?

Who will pay for it?

Let's take two people, Sam and Bill.

Sam is ambitious, he is smart, he is a hard worker. He got good grades in school, he worked nights during college to pay his rent, he took out student loans to pay for tuition. Now he works in a law firm, he works 80 hour weeks and makes 60k per year. He is still paying off student loans, his wife is pregnant, and he is getting ready to buy a house.

Bill didn't give a shit about school, he is lazy, he got shitty grades, he didn't go to college, he started working in a mine when he got done with school. He hates his job.

Now the government decides to pay people a minimum wage to stay at home. Bill loves this idea, the government will give him enough money to pay rent and buy some food, he can now sit on his ass all day, drink beer and watch TV.

But guess what, in order for the government to pay Bills rent, they're going to have to raise taxes on Sam. So now Sam, the guy who has done everything right in life, the guy who worked hard in school and at his job, has to foot the bill for Bill to stay home.

Tell me this, what incentive is there for Sam to continue working 80 hours a week? Heck, if he made the choice to not work he could spend more time with his family, he could catch up on his favorite TV shows, he could go camping, he would have the time to do whatever he wanted. So Sam decides to stop working and he too is going to take the minimum wage and stay at home.

How long would it take until everyone decided to stay at home? In order for the government to give they first have to take. What happens when they're isn't anyone to take from?

[Starkess]

I'm intrigued by the amount of effort expended to clarify that there will always be some Bad Lazy People but instead focus on the benefits to the Good Ones.

Being lazy may certainly be unwise, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily immoral. Maybe I'm just saying that because I'm lazy, but seriously. Why is it so terrible that some people don't want to work? Especially when your argument is "I hate working but I do it so therefore everyone else ought to do it too." Ever think that maybe you could just be one of the ones who doesn't have to work anymore? 

So, in the hypothetical unicorn steak scenario, no I am definitely not against it. Working makes me fucking miserable. If I had a way out, I would take it. I don't think I need to devote my life to misery just so someone else's misguided moral work ethic can be satisfied. Now if my not working was propped up on the backs of a bunch of people being forced to work to support my leisure, I would consider that immoral. But in a system (remember, we're talking "unicorn steak" here--the assumption that we could make a basic income work economically) where everyone has the option to work or not and to seek the fulfillment they personally need in life, then I don't attach any moral significance to opting out of work.

I think we are still a ways off from being able to implement this, both economically and politically, but I do think that as we progress towards an automated, post-scarcity society it will become more plausible and even necessary. Doubt it would be in my lifetime, sadly.