cardoor Posted December 26, 2012 Author Share Posted December 26, 2012 10 Undisputed Reasons Here For Citizens Income The Economy Needs Basic Income We inhabit a highly industrial society and industry depends on demand. It is necessary for industrial societies to stir up artificial demand to spur production on, and it only becomes more necessary as time goes on. There is a kind of prisoner’s dilemma when it comes to business: any particular business benefits by automating its workforce and reducing salaries, but if every business does this, then who will buy products? Technology is advancing in sophistication. You know IBM’s “Watson” robot, who just beat the world champions at Jeopardy? Within a decade or less, Watson’s going to be hitting the workforce. No job is safe from automation, nor should it be: it is below humans to do work a robot can do, and there is very little work that a robot cannot, in principle, do. So as time goes on, there is going to be less and less need for human labor. How, then, can the economy continue? Who will businesses sell things to, if nobody has a job? They will sell things to recipients of Guaranteed Minimum Income. Crime Prevention Needs Basic Income Expanding on the above, what happens when peoples’ jobs are automated in a world where money is life? Gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat, otherwise we get along. If every citizen were given an automatic stipend sufficient to support a modest life, thefts would plummet. You might complain about taxes or wealth redistribution, but mark my words, you are already taxed and your wealth is already redistributed: every time you shop, you pay a markup to offset theft, a highly inefficient and twisted dark-world version of basic income which rewards the unscrupulous. Government Stability Needs Guaranteed Minimum Income Want to see the natural fate of a government whose people cannot get enough money for a modest life? Look to North Africa. I bet Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, and Moammar Gadhafi are starting to wish they’d thrown their people a bone when they had the chance. Once the protesters hit the streets, it’s too late (and frankly, to any leader who would only give their people a basic income to save their own hides, and not because they care about the peoples’ well-being, good riddance!) Human Decency Needs Guaranteed Minimum Income What does the worker do when he feels he’s been told to do something unethical? He sucks it up and follows orders. He does not have much choice, knowing his boss can casually fling him to destitution. Guaranteed Minimum Income provides a safety net so that people can make the right choice instead of the financially forced choice. The current financial situation actively penalizes those who stand up for what’s right. That needs fixed. It needs Basic Income. Innovation Needs Basic Income Conventional laboratories and research provide incremental progress, but they suffer diminishing returns. Bound by the need to put food on the table, would-be innovators are forced to take the cautious road. Real innovation needs thinking outside the box, and it is inherently risky and dangerous. Basic Income is needed so that people can pursue their ideas without the horrible prospect of losing the game of capitalism. Sure, most ideas will lead nowhere, but the occasional idea will revolutionize everything. In our society, when an idea leads nowhere, it’s a financial disaster. As teachers are being laid off, universities are hiring fewer professors, and automated education looms troublingly on the far horizon, there are fewer and fewer fallback positions for the failed innovator, and without a guaranteed stipend, doing anything new or risky will become increasingly suicidal. We need to avoid that, and provide a fertile environment for innovation, by guaranteeing everybody we won’t let them go hungry if their idea doesn’t pan out. Means-Testing Disincentivizes Work Existing welfare is based on means-testing, and is a brutal disincentive for work. On one extreme, the government cuts you a very modest check, and on the other extreme, an employer cuts you a not-so-modest one, but the road between these extremes is littered with roadblocks and potholes. If you get a very basic job with low pay, that’s not worth giving up your welfare for! And the natural course of capitalism is for those crummy jobs to proliferate while higher-paying jobs get cut. In short: if a man wants more money, let him work for it, and let him have it in addition to the basic income he already had. Welfare is Inefficient Often if not always, it costs more to enforce means-testing and draconian rules telling welfare recipients how to spend their money, than it would cost to just give it to them no-questions-asked. I’ve heard horror stories where people go to court because they bought some trifling cheap luxury object that was deemed outside the rules. Judges and jurists deliberate, costing a huge amount of labor and effort, all over some trivial offending charge. Again, qualifying for a government handout often involves so much paperwork and interviewing. Social workers proliferate. It would be more efficient to just flat-out give the basic income to everyone, whether they be truly disabled or whether they be a billionaire. Yes, that’s right, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet need their guaranteed minimum income as much as anyone else, and part of that is because otherwise… Welfare Offends Human Dignity In addition to the inefficiency and the work disincentivization, means-based welfare creates an implicit caste system. It is human nature that if something distinguishes the have-nots from the haves, it will become stigmatized. If everyone on welfare were required to wear an identifying badge, it would become a scarlet letter, no matter how noble the original intentions of the law. Whether we mean to or not, distinguishing the poor and giving them special treatment brands them and causes them to be outcast. If a man gets his government check and his friends don’t, how can he sleep at night? “Poor” will become a part of his identity. He’ll have no self-esteem, no self respect, and a vicious cycle will develop, preventing him from bettering himself. Screw that! Give everybody their basic income equally. We Need Our Money To Reflect Human Generosity The whole point of money is to relieve us from having to manually keep track of who we should do things for. If your neighbor comes and asks to borrow something, of course you’ll let him, but suppose he shows up every day, always asking to borrow the same thing, and of course never giving you anything in return. Eventually, your patience would wear thin. But maybe that neighbor actually provides a lot of value to the world, say, by calibrating machinery in a warehouse. You wouldn’t know that, not being the warehouse owner, but if your neighbor has money to show for it, then presto, we have a way of conveying favors-earned. Your neighbor can give you a little money for your stuff, or better yet, go to the store himself! But the point of all this is, money or not, warehouse or not, you wouldn’t deny him the occasional request, as long as he isn’t abusing it. You’re a naturally generous person. But money doesn’t reflect that. We need money to reflect the basic generosity of neighbors, the fact that you wouldn’t let a man starve in front of you if you had any way to help it. We need a regular, guaranteed basic income. We Need Our Money to Reflect the True Source of All Wealth All wealth ultimately traces its source to something no man can own, whether it be God or whether it be the thermal energy of the sun. The truly strict objectivist would pay his fair share of the Sun Fee, an expense so prohibitive that to pay it would require so much labor and energy that it would leave the Earth a cold, lifeless rock. (Can a helpless young child be expected to financially re-compensate his parents for their time, effort, and love?) Yes, all life on earth exists because of a basic income of sunlight, without which no feat of willpower or pulling-up-of-bootstraps would save us for long. A man might own the earthly means of production but he does not own the elements! To have all the wealth and deny a fellow man his basic income is to abuse the elemental generosity of the universe. Link http://www.xamuel.com/ten-reasons-for-guaranteed-minimum-income/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymondo1952 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 by the time we have choped and changed benefits the cost could out weigh the actual benefits paid,its not strait forward to chage over or replace it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 How about a flat rate negative income tax. Everybody is given an amount of money by the government, then taxed at a flat rate on what they earn. So say it's £10k/year & the tax rate is 50%, you get £10,000 for doing nothing, plus 50% of everything you earn above that. It'd be much easier & cheaper to administer than the current benefits system & it'd get rid of any benefit traps, so there would be no situation where somebody is better off not working. I'd keep certain benefits, like disability & mobility benefits, to reflect the higher costs of living & lower chance of finding work for the disabled. Children would need to get some money too. The admin costs for some benefits are already higher than the benefits paid. There might be some initial set up cost, but the long term savings would be significant by simplifying the tax & benefits system. All those bureaucrats checking whether people are entitled to benefits or not could do a useful job instead. Just realised I posted something similar in this thread a while ago, it's still a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardoor Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 Yes I'm also in favour of flat rate taxes, this way you close many tax loopholes big corps use and enable people to work for financial gains. I'd also partner it with a Land Value Tax. And as you say it costs more now to administrate most benefits than what they actually pay out. The system we have now is bureaucracy on crack as one poster put it. The transition from all the other benefits to a CI would be a difficult and would have to done gradually, to stop people been left with nothing for essentials then I'd be in favour of weekly payments which maybe more costly but cheaper than all the hassle and crime it could create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Yes I'm also in favour of flat rate taxes, this way you close many tax loopholes big corps use and enable people to work for financial gains. I'd also partner it with a Land Value Tax. what loopholes do flat rate taxes close? corporation tax is a flat rate tax and that hasn't really been a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardoor Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 what loopholes do flat rate taxes close? corporation tax is a flat rate tax and that hasn't really been a success. There is lots of schemes which use offshore accounts like Jimmy Carrs K2 case. Then there are lots of other confusing tax codes to use for different purposes. Lets scrap all these and keep it simples, if you earn more, you pay more. If you earn less you pay less. It just makes sense, easier to understand and allows transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dentzler Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 10 Undisputed Reasons Here For Citizens Income The Economy Needs Basic Income We inhabit a highly industrial society and industry depends on demand. It is necessary for industrial societies to stir up artificial demand to spur production on, and it only becomes more necessary as time goes on. There is a kind of prisoner’s dilemma when it comes to business: any particular business benefits by automating its workforce and reducing salaries, but if every business does this, then who will buy products? Technology is advancing in sophistication. You know IBM’s “Watson” robot, who just beat the world champions at Jeopardy? Within a decade or less, Watson’s going to be hitting the workforce. No job is safe from automation, nor should it be: it is below humans to do work a robot can do, and there is very little work that a robot cannot, in principle, do. So as time goes on, there is going to be less and less need for human labor. How, then, can the economy continue? Who will businesses sell things to, if nobody has a job? They will sell things to recipients of Guaranteed Minimum Income. Crime Prevention Needs Basic Income Expanding on the above, what happens when peoples’ jobs are automated in a world where money is life? Gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat, otherwise we get along. If every citizen were given an automatic stipend sufficient to support a modest life, thefts would plummet. You might complain about taxes or wealth redistribution, but mark my words, you are already taxed and your wealth is already redistributed: every time you shop, you pay a markup to offset theft, a highly inefficient and twisted dark-world version of basic income which rewards the unscrupulous. Government Stability Needs Guaranteed Minimum Income Want to see the natural fate of a government whose people cannot get enough money for a modest life? Look to North Africa. I bet Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, and Moammar Gadhafi are starting to wish they’d thrown their people a bone when they had the chance. Once the protesters hit the streets, it’s too late (and frankly, to any leader who would only give their people a basic income to save their own hides, and not because they care about the peoples’ well-being, good riddance!) Human Decency Needs Guaranteed Minimum Income What does the worker do when he feels he’s been told to do something unethical? He sucks it up and follows orders. He does not have much choice, knowing his boss can casually fling him to destitution. Guaranteed Minimum Income provides a safety net so that people can make the right choice instead of the financially forced choice. The current financial situation actively penalizes those who stand up for what’s right. That needs fixed. It needs Basic Income. Innovation Needs Basic Income Conventional laboratories and research provide incremental progress, but they suffer diminishing returns. Bound by the need to put food on the table, would-be innovators are forced to take the cautious road. Real innovation needs thinking outside the box, and it is inherently risky and dangerous. Basic Income is needed so that people can pursue their ideas without the horrible prospect of losing the game of capitalism. Sure, most ideas will lead nowhere, but the occasional idea will revolutionize everything. In our society, when an idea leads nowhere, it’s a financial disaster. As teachers are being laid off, universities are hiring fewer professors, and automated education looms troublingly on the far horizon, there are fewer and fewer fallback positions for the failed innovator, and without a guaranteed stipend, doing anything new or risky will become increasingly suicidal. We need to avoid that, and provide a fertile environment for innovation, by guaranteeing everybody we won’t let them go hungry if their idea doesn’t pan out. Means-Testing Disincentivizes Work Existing welfare is based on means-testing, and is a brutal disincentive for work. On one extreme, the government cuts you a very modest check, and on the other extreme, an employer cuts you a not-so-modest one, but the road between these extremes is littered with roadblocks and potholes. If you get a very basic job with low pay, that’s not worth giving up your welfare for! And the natural course of capitalism is for those crummy jobs to proliferate while higher-paying jobs get cut. In short: if a man wants more money, let him work for it, and let him have it in addition to the basic income he already had. Welfare is Inefficient Often if not always, it costs more to enforce means-testing and draconian rules telling welfare recipients how to spend their money, than it would cost to just give it to them no-questions-asked. I’ve heard horror stories where people go to court because they bought some trifling cheap luxury object that was deemed outside the rules. Judges and jurists deliberate, costing a huge amount of labor and effort, all over some trivial offending charge. Again, qualifying for a government handout often involves so much paperwork and interviewing. Social workers proliferate. It would be more efficient to just flat-out give the basic income to everyone, whether they be truly disabled or whether they be a billionaire. Yes, that’s right, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet need their guaranteed minimum income as much as anyone else, and part of that is because otherwise… Welfare Offends Human Dignity In addition to the inefficiency and the work disincentivization, means-based welfare creates an implicit caste system. It is human nature that if something distinguishes the have-nots from the haves, it will become stigmatized. If everyone on welfare were required to wear an identifying badge, it would become a scarlet letter, no matter how noble the original intentions of the law. Whether we mean to or not, distinguishing the poor and giving them special treatment brands them and causes them to be outcast. If a man gets his government check and his friends don’t, how can he sleep at night? “Poor” will become a part of his identity. He’ll have no self-esteem, no self respect, and a vicious cycle will develop, preventing him from bettering himself. Screw that! Give everybody their basic income equally. We Need Our Money To Reflect Human Generosity The whole point of money is to relieve us from having to manually keep track of who we should do things for. If your neighbor comes and asks to borrow something, of course you’ll let him, but suppose he shows up every day, always asking to borrow the same thing, and of course never giving you anything in return. Eventually, your patience would wear thin. But maybe that neighbor actually provides a lot of value to the world, say, by calibrating machinery in a warehouse. You wouldn’t know that, not being the warehouse owner, but if your neighbor has money to show for it, then presto, we have a way of conveying favors-earned. Your neighbor can give you a little money for your stuff, or better yet, go to the store himself! But the point of all this is, money or not, warehouse or not, you wouldn’t deny him the occasional request, as long as he isn’t abusing it. You’re a naturally generous person. But money doesn’t reflect that. We need money to reflect the basic generosity of neighbors, the fact that you wouldn’t let a man starve in front of you if you had any way to help it. We need a regular, guaranteed basic income. We Need Our Money to Reflect the True Source of All Wealth All wealth ultimately traces its source to something no man can own, whether it be God or whether it be the thermal energy of the sun. The truly strict objectivist would pay his fair share of the Sun Fee, an expense so prohibitive that to pay it would require so much labor and energy that it would leave the Earth a cold, lifeless rock. (Can a helpless young child be expected to financially re-compensate his parents for their time, effort, and love?) Yes, all life on earth exists because of a basic income of sunlight, without which no feat of willpower or pulling-up-of-bootstraps would save us for long. A man might own the earthly means of production but he does not own the elements! To have all the wealth and deny a fellow man his basic income is to abuse the elemental generosity of the universe. Link http://www.xamuel.com/ten-reasons-for-guaranteed-minimum-income/ Excellent !! I would also partner CI with a Land Value Tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.