Basic income guarantee - opinions&criticism welcome

[miln40]

Hello BTC community!

I am a member of the German Pirate Party and am excited about their promotion of the idea of a Basic income guarantee.
You can read about it here, among other places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

The idea is that:
1) People are producing more than they need, and with the further development of technology even less people will be needed to produce even more. Since less people will be working to produce, society as a whole would earn less, and therefore the population will not be able to afford to purchase all the goods being produced, eventually leading to bigger and bigger problems.
2) To overcome that, everyone is given a certain sum by the state every month that should provide for the basic amenities of life. Luxury goods will be available to those who can earn more money in the usual way, thus continuing to encourage private initiative.
3) Since the basic amenities will be covered, people will be free to pursue activities not directly related to their survival - like coding for Bitcoin
4) Financing for this whole venture would be obtained by taxes on products purchased and by abolition of unemployment subsidies (among other methods)

Now, this is definitely a big state solution and I suppose that the multi-headed libertarian hydra on this forum will not like it, but I am ready to defend it

Some more arguments already for your critique: the unemployment subsidies + underlying bureaucracy in Germany can be redistributed among the 80 million Germans at the rate of about 12.5k EUR per year. So 1000k EUR of basic income guarantee per month is realistic. This can be further expanded with several different approaches to taxation.

So yeah, I'm curious to see what the community thinks about it.
Thanks for reading,

M

[1713994626]

1713994626

[1713994626]

1713994626

[1713994626]

1713994626

[1713994626]

1713994626

[Stephen Gornick]

am excited about their promotion of the idea of a Basic income guarantee.

Perhaps you might like ... the Occcu:




Introducing The Occcu - 99% Unlike Bitcoin
 - http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/17199295201


New Epic Fail Currency? 'Occcu'
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62983.0


Or Freicoin:

Freicoin: bitcoin with demurrage
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3816.0

[SpontaneousDisorder]

1/It reduces or eliminates incentive to work
2/It diverts money from investment to consumption, reducing long term capital accumulation
3/There are no guarantees in nature, the subsistence of life does not produce itself. Man must adjust himself to the market not the other way around.

[CJGoodings]

Everyone? Including my kids?

"Honey, time to make more babies!"

That happens now, with welfare.

[finkleshnorts]

There are no guarantees in nature, the subsistence of life does not produce itself. Man must adjust himself to the market not the other way around.

What a great quote.

[malevolent]

Interventionism never works. I would prefer to not receive any 'free' money from the government in return for zero taxation.

[herzmeister]

I'm German too, and I actually was at the Grundeinkommenskongress in Munich yesterday (briefly only though). My view on it is divided.

I welcome it in a very pragmatic sense for drastically reducing bureaucracy of our social system (only in theory though... we're in Germany after all  ). I furthermore welcome the idea of eliminating existential fears, which I'm confident will create a better and more human standard of living with more care and happiness, and I do believe (unlike most libertarians) that a society with insufficient equality can not realize its full potential.

My main issue with it then is that most models require the "big state" solution which may become corrupt over time (see GEMA - what a great idea in its beginning, democratic and all, but look what it has become  ). Unconditional my ass, more and more conditions *will* sneak in through the back door, just watch.

So I'm looking for other ways to achieve something similar to a basic income guarantee. The best would be when people can issue their money themselves (think Ripple etc). Some friends and me, we're working on the concept of some kind of network economy.

About automation and technological unemployment, most libertarians will argue that your point here is a Luddite fallacy, and I agree to a degree. New technology opens more possibilities, creates more desires and demand for those possibilities, and thus creates new jobs. For example, we software developers are in huge demand right now in order to achieve this automated society, and we will be the working class of the 21st century. They're already trying to streamline our productivity into industrialization-like schemes with all those agile/scrum/kanban (Toyota!) methodologies. The problem with technology is rather always structural. People lose old obsolete jobs and cannot learn new things fast enough, hence these phases of recession. In 200 years, everyone will want their own spaceship, then soon after everybody will actually *need* their own spaceship in order to be able to get a job at all somewhere in our solar system. And you'll be there then demanding an unconditional spaceship for everyone. In 500 years, maybe there'll be interstellar travel, and the new working class will be, I don't know, maybe space-time curvature architects.

[FreeMoney]

Make sure your plan details what happens to people who refuse (rape, murder and imprisonment generally get decent compliance rates). And don't forget to budget for that too, institutionalized rape costs a lot even if you do it in a bare concrete room and serve animal food with it.

[miln40]

Very interesting and fully agree with you on overproduction making much of our labour unnecessary.

This would put anyone who does produce under a much larger burden. Instead of huge increases on taxes on the existing structure would it be possible to buy existing production through crowd funding and use the profits to fund further expansion until the goal in reachable?

I think crowd funding is not reliable - if you are going to support a whole population, you need a strict and reliable way to redistribute the money.

Perhaps you might like ... the Occcu:

Hah, thanks for the links. I'd look into that, but it is a bit different in its concept, as it penalizes saving, which I am definitely not against.

1/It reduces or eliminates incentive to work
2/It diverts money from investment to consumption, reducing long term capital accumulation
3/There are no guarantees in nature, the subsistence of life does not produce itself. Man must adjust himself to the market not the other way around.

1) the incentive is still there - you want a bigger house, a nicer car and the opportunity to vacation in Maiorca? Get a job and make more money.
2) The Vienna school will disagree with you; they'd claim that you need to encourage consumption and investment comes only when you create that consumption need
3) The argument whether something is "natural" strikes me as bizarre. Society is not natural by definition, on the contrary, by creating the social contract it defies the violence inherent in nature in order to ensure a happier life for people. The market is a tool, not a living being, and as a tool it can be modified when need be.

My main issue with it then is that most models require the "big state" solution which may become corrupt over time (see GEMA - what a great idea in its beginning, democratic and all, but look what it has become  ). Unconditional my ass, more and more conditions *will* sneak in through the back door, just watch.

So I'm looking for other ways to achieve something similar to a basic income guarantee. The best would be when people can issue their money themselves (think Ripple etc). Some friends and me, we're working on the concept of some kind of network economy.

About automation and technological unemployment, most libertarians will argue that your point here is a Luddite fallacy, and I agree to a degree. [...] And you'll be there then demanding an unconditional spaceship for everyone. In 500 years, maybe there'll be interstellar travel, and the new working class will be, I don't know, maybe space-time curvature architects.

Danke für den langen Post
For conditions being added over time - if you have a transparent state mechanism and popular participation through technologies (another of the Pirates' goals), chances are this will not happen. A bit idealistic, but hey, new technologies are a game changer, right?
I would be interested in looking into your concept if you want to share some info on that.
One thing that the Luddites did not reckon is the fact that Earth resources are close to being exhausted. If we continue to develop technologically, there might not be enough rare earth metals to build all those shiny spaceships. Even disregarding that, the BIG system does not only focus on consumption, but rather on the freedom of an individual to pursue their goals without fear of starving to death. But that is the part you agree with, so I will not argue further.

Now to a practical concern of mine:
One thing which I acknowledge as a problem is the inflationary pressure on prices. If everyone suddenly got 1000 EUR richer, the rent for flats would increase accordingly, as well as goods prices. So then you either have to have the state regulate such things (not a good idea?) or somehow circumvent that. I'm still looking for a practical way to do that, suggestions are welcome

[miln40]

Make sure your plan details what happens to people who refuse (rape, murder and imprisonment generally get decent compliance rates). And don't forget to budget for that too, institutionalized rape costs a lot even if you do it in a bare concrete room and serve animal food with it.

People who refuse what? To take the money? Then they are free to not do it, and it can be donated to needy stand-up comedians on the Bitcoin Forum
Or perhaps you are talking about people who refuse to pay taxes - then they are free to move to another country, of course. One that has ghettos, higher infant mortality and low societal stability because of the income inequality.

[mobodick]

Hello BTC community!

I am a member of the German Pirate Party and am excited about their promotion of the idea of a Basic income guarantee.
You can read about it here, among other places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

The idea is that:
1) People are producing more than they need, and with the further development of technology even less people will be needed to produce even more. Since less people will be working to produce, society as a whole would earn less, and therefore the population will not be able to afford to purchase all the goods being produced, eventually leading to bigger and bigger problems.
2) To overcome that, everyone is given a certain sum by the state every month that should provide for the basic amenities of life. Luxury goods will be available to those who can earn more money in the usual way, thus continuing to encourage private initiative.
3) Since the basic amenities will be covered, people will be free to pursue activities not directly related to their survival - like coding for Bitcoin
4) Financing for this whole venture would be obtained by taxes on products purchased and by abolition of unemployment subsidies (among other methods)

Now, this is definitely a big state solution and I suppose that the multi-headed libertarian hydra on this forum will not like it, but I am ready to defend it

Some more arguments already for your critique: the unemployment subsidies + underlying bureaucracy in Germany can be redistributed among the 80 million Germans at the rate of about 12.5k EUR per year. So 1000k EUR of basic income guarantee per month is realistic. This can be further expanded with several different approaches to taxation.

So yeah, I'm curious to see what the community thinks about it.
Thanks for reading,

M

My tought is you'll create a lazy nation with way too much free time on its hands and no incentive to move forward.
Most people will not go to school anymore and the nation will split in a learned upper class doing all the work and an unlearned lower class that will play computer games all day long.
It's a great way of ruining a perfectly good country.

[Akka]

I personally think a basic income is the wrong way to go.

I see only 2 Ends to this:

1. Prices adapt to the higher income to a level where the basic income is just enough not to starve.

2. The lazy nation argument.

This is IMO the wrong direction to handle the problem.

Making Germany more attractive for low income jobs would be way to handle unemployment problems in the long term.

For example:

The company I work for is currently shutting down its complete production in Germany an reallocating it to Hungary, Romania, Mexico and China (don't worry I work in development so I'm not affected, ...yet).

Our assembly workers earn 1.400 to 2.200 € a month, you see this is only slight more than the proposed basic income. If the state would have used the money it now pays all this workers for their current unemployment instead to make production in Germany more attractive, these people would still have a job and therefore paying taxes. A way I could think of would to pay companies a bonus or a tax reduction for newly created jobs (a way to prove this is really a new job that wasn't there before must still be thought of).

Kind Regards

[Domrada]

Everyone? Including my kids?

"Honey, time to make more babies!"

That happens now, with welfare.

+1

What you describe is basically welfare. And it's a demonstrably horrible idea. No debate necessary.

[Bitware]

There is only one basic income guarantee.... work.

Get off your ass and trade your time, blood, sweat, and tears for food, shelter, and clothing.

Otherwise you die, and rightfully so, unless you lived a life of charity and good will that allows you to be helped voluntarily by others of like minds.

No one has a right to life without doing whats necessary for survival.

I can think of many examples... take someone that relies on the state stealing my labor transfer under penalty of death should we resist this theft, in order to survive.

Society tells us that MY money is not as important as THEIR life, and they agree... right up to and until the time where someone elses life is more important that their ability to survive and thrive.

[kronosvl]

is a bad idea because of 2 main very bad consequences

1. human population, like other species, is multiplying as much as possible depending on resources. Give a basic income for each person and you will see overpopulation until consumption reach the level of production helped by technology. After that upgrade technology or produce even more if possible. If the resources are enough for greater number of people and you have no problem there, pollution is a fact and is related to that increased number, affecting all citizens.

2. stupid people will make more children easier. idiocracy in making.

[mobodick]

There is only one basic income guarantee.... work.

Get off your ass and trade your time, blood, sweat, and tears for food, shelter, and clothing.

Otherwise you die, and rightfully so, unless you lived a life of charity and good will that allows you to be helped voluntarily by others of like minds.

No one has a right to life without doing whats necessary for survival.

I can think of many examples... take someone that relies on the state stealing my labor transfer under penalty of death should we resist this theft, in order to survive.

Society tells us that MY money is not as important as THEIR life, and they agree... right up to and until the time where someone elses life is more important that their ability to survive and thrive.

So what happens when you are unable to do work that pays enough to survive?

[fornit]

So what happens when you are unable to do work that pays enough to survive?

you become a burglar and rob people until someone puts you out of your misery with his hunting rifle. ancap takes care of its own 

[miln40]

My tought is you'll create a lazy nation with way too much free time on its hands and no incentive to move forward.
Most people will not go to school anymore and the nation will split in a learned upper class doing all the work and an unlearned lower class that will play computer games all day long.

Sounds a bit simplistic to me. You'll have people who want to earn for the sake of earning - the upper capitalist class, you'll have people who earn to get some luxury in their life, which is more or less the middle, and of course you'll have people slacking off. But at least they won't be selling drugs, prostituting themselves and stealing care stereos to get by, since they will have the survival basics covered. Of course, crime will still be an issue, just not out of need, but out of greed. That won't change, ever

What you describe is basically welfare. And it's a demonstrably horrible idea. No debate necessary.

If you hold a statement to be unarguable, then I won't argue with you. However, be careful - thinking in dogmatic terms and not questioning ideas leads down a very dark road.

There is only one basic income guarantee.... work.
Get off your ass and trade your time, blood, sweat, and tears for food, shelter, and clothing.
Otherwise you die, and rightfully so, unless you lived a life of charity and good will that allows you to be helped voluntarily by others of like minds.
No one has a right to life without doing whats necessary for survival.

What would happen if there is no work for you at the moment, and you get laid off because of market fluctuations closing down your place of work? Would you still think you deserve to starve? I can twist the argument in another way. Say that for some reason I can't get a job at the moment and my landlord is knocking on the door. If there is no social net to help me, I would break the law to make money. I would just be doing it to survive.
Doesn't make me a very productive member of society, does it? And anyway, we have to be pragmatic - many people, even in developed countries, are kept from realizing their potential because they have to stick to low-paying jobs to support their families. If they had the freedom to pursue higher education or their true interests, then we might end up with a valuable piece of art, or a new book, or the code for a great alternative online currency.

I personally think a basic income is the wrong way to go.

I see only 2 Ends to this:

1. Prices adapt to the higher income to a level where the basic income is just enough not to starve.

2. The lazy nation argument.

For the lazy nation argument, I'm not sure that that holds. People will still have the incentive to earn, since perceived value is not absolute, but relative. Low-income jobs will continue to decline in the future no matter what we do. And as for keeping companies here, with BIG you could actually afford to pay less, since people would have basics covered.

Your comment on the prices is regrettably true and the biggest problem I can see with BIG.

[miln40]

is a bad idea because of 2 main very bad consequences

1. human population, like other species, is multiplying as much as possible depending on resources. Give a basic income for each person and you will see overpopulation until consumption reach the level of production helped by technology. After that upgrade technology or produce even more if possible. If the resources are enough for greater number of people and you have no problem there, pollution is a fact and is related to that increased number, affecting all citizens.

2. stupid people will make more children easier. idiocracy in making.

Very true! Less educated (not stupid) people tend to have much more children! If you give people the opportunity to learn and develop, then you see populations decrease. People in low-income jobs and crime-ridden areas do not tend to get this opportunity nowadays.

[Bitware]

There is only one basic income guarantee.... work.

Get off your ass and trade your time, blood, sweat, and tears for food, shelter, and clothing.

Otherwise you die, and rightfully so, unless you lived a life of charity and good will that allows you to be helped voluntarily by others of like minds.

No one has a right to life without doing whats necessary for survival.

I can think of many examples... take someone that relies on the state stealing my labor transfer under penalty of death should we resist this theft, in order to survive.

Society tells us that MY money is not as important as THEIR life, and they agree... right up to and until the time where someone elses life is more important that their ability to survive and thrive.

So what happens when you are unable to do work that pays enough to survive?

I live in an area with very poor populations in terms of money, but rich in terms of heritage, culture, resources, and morality and work ethic.

If you need fruit, you harvest from the orchard. If you need veggies, you harvest from the garden. If you need meat, you harvest through hunting or livestock slaughtering. If you need anything else, you process your harvests into usable materials for trade and barter or monetary sales.

In other words, you produce or you die.

By being employed by someone else, you are relying on that someone else for your survival. It comes down to personal responsibility. Youmade the choice. Live (or die) with it.

It is my belief that anyone making the claim they cant survive hasnt done whats required TO survive in the first place, and they should die, unless someone else VOLUNTARILY helps them. We are no different than an insect, mammal, or fish in this regard. We just THINK we are.

It is my belief that people are being intellectually dishonest about this, especially when they claim poverty through no fault of their own while trying to pick the pockets of the rest of us, all after previously spending money on cell phones, cosmetics, hdtvs, games, consoles, computer, fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, fancy clothes, gambling, and/or thousands of other useless items or services that do nothing to help them survive. They do not deserve ANY of my time, blood, sweat, and tears when they have done absolutely nothing to help themselves first.