Creating a guaranteed minimum income through crypto-coins

[cloverme]

There's no such thing as free, anyone who tell you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

[Ix]

IF there were so many robots that so many people weren’t working, that would put significant downward pressure on prices, such that more people could buy.

There are a lot of people that aren't working now. There shouldn't be any reason why a society can't support its most down-trodden, because those very people could be doing the labor that supports it, but they are unemployed. This is most often due to economic fluctuations which are typically set in motion by piss poor government policy or machinations of the banks. A minimum income would, in theory, help reduce the impact of such things by keeping currency flowing at the basic necessities level. Certainly there are a lot of subtleties involved, but it is definitely not "giving everyone $1MM". There would no doubt be inflation on luxury items, but the increased demand to basic necessities would simply require and inspire the ramping up of production (or reducing waste) which of course will require additional labor.

But neither Wiki or Khan are not free in other ways as well. SOMEONE has to put time, effort, and resources into creating and maintaining them, and that means labor and money and the costs associated with the other productive uses that such resources could have been put to.

I think the point is that the labor put into such ventures has its value multiplied and spread across the world far more effectively than the capitalistic approach. I don't think anyone is denying the labor costs. It just means a larger increase in GWP per dollar of labor invested.

[brush242]

There are a lot of people that aren't working now. There shouldn't be any reason why a society can't support its most down-trodden, because those very people could be doing the labor that supports it, but they are unemployed. This is most often due to economic fluctuations which are typically set in motion by piss poor government policy or machinations of the banks. A minimum income would, in theory, help reduce the impact of such things by keeping currency flowing at the basic necessities level. Certainly there are a lot of subtleties involved, but it is definitely not "giving everyone $1MM". There would no doubt be inflation on luxury items, but the increased demand to basic necessities would simply require and inspire the ramping up of production (or reducing waste) which of course will require additional labor.

A lot of you like just posting conclusory statements as if that suffices for argument and reasoning. If anyone is unemployed, from tank wipe to CEO, it is because they have not found someone else who values their particular set of skills enough in order to trade with them yet. While there may be some economic fluctuations in the absence of government meddling, ANY government meddling skews peoples choices such that they do things they would not otherwise do, and as the gov't meddling changes, the corrections (the returns to equilibrium) have far more negative impact than they otherwise would have. A minimum income still has to be ~earned~ by someone in order to give it to someone else.

Even your last sentence in that paragraph demonstrates that you understand how the principle works, but you are only applying it selectively. Give everyone $1MM, give everyone $40 bucks a week, give everyone $100 value in crypto currency every week, it doesn't matter. With the $1MM, milk spikes to $40K a gallon because demand is so very high. Then, as producers ramp up the production to take advantage of such huge short term gains, the supply of milk increases, thus putting downward pressure on pressure on prices. As prices fall, people buy more, prices rise, and the system works exactly as it does now. Give everyone one of the other two mentioned above, and the system reacts exactly the same on a much smaller scale. This is a continual process with every single good and service, it happens now, and it doesn't ever stop.

I think the point is that the labor put into such ventures has its value multiplied and spread across the world far more effectively than the capitalistic approach. I don't think anyone is denying the labor costs. It just means a larger increase in GWP per dollar of labor invested.

What is your reasoning for the belief that x venture has spread "far more effectively than the capitalistic approach"? In actual fact, it is PRECISELY the "capitalistic approach" that spread those ventures so well—people chose to use the internet/Wiki with all their flaws instead of paying for an expensive set of far more accurate, but ever more quickly outdated books, because they were cheaper. That is very definition of capitalism: people choose to contract freely (or not) with others. In this case, they chose to stop dealing with Encyclopaedia Britannica, and to start dealing with the internet or Wikipedia. That IS capitalism.

Criminy, look at the "free healthcare" in Cuba. Where does that country get its drugs, syringes, scalpels, and CT scanners? Do they all share the work? Do the fellow travellers labor them into existence? Do people collectively create them in the Cuban Big Pharmas, big medical supply houses, or Cuban Big Technology companies? No. The country BUYS every single bit of it on the open market using Capitalism—it contracts (or not) freely with some corporations and not others to purchase what it needs.

That certainly ain't Communism/Socialism.

[Ix]

A lot of you like just posting conclusory statements as if that suffices for argument and reasoning.

I said specifically "in theory", as there is some logic behind the idea. Whether or not it works in practice is impossible to say as it has never really been tested on a large scale. I am willing to entertain the notion, you are apparently not and are the one laying down economic "laws" in a notoriously difficult to predict field of study.

ANY government meddling skews peoples choices such that they do things they would not otherwise do, and as the gov't meddling changes, the corrections (the returns to equilibrium) have far more negative impact than they otherwise would have.

I'm not sure what your point is other than agreeing with me. No one here is suggesting that the government maintain this system, it is being talked about in light of cryptocurrency. When the government and/or banks screw up, credit crises would presumably have a much less disastrous effect with something like a minimum income. The availability of credit/money being reduced is the heart of every recession, a minimum income would propose to reduce the impact of those corrections. But you can go ahead and say "no it won't" with all the emphasis you like, it does not prove you correct either.

As prices fall, people buy more, prices rise, and the system works exactly as it does now.

This sounds like a conclusory statement if I've ever seen one. Of course there will be variations in supply and demand. I said that it would be easier to provide the production necessary to support those unemployed with those very same people via the increase in currency circulation at the basic necessities level. You did not say anything to contest this.

What is your reasoning for the belief that x venture has spread "far more effectively than the capitalistic approach"? In actual fact, it is PRECISELY the "capitalistic approach" that spread those ventures so well—people chose to use the internet/Wiki with all their flaws instead of paying for an expensive set of far more accurate, but ever more quickly outdated books, because they were cheaper. That is very definition of capitalism: people choose to contract freely (or not) with others. In this case, they chose to stop dealing with Encyclopaedia Britannica, and to start dealing with the internet or Wikipedia. That IS capitalism.

An approach that is not capitalism is not necessarily socialism or communism. I made a simple conclusion that you again ignored: the labor value of the libre approach (call it libre-capitalism if you want) produces more GWP per unit than the (standard-)capitalistic approach. I might be wrong, but the paragraphs you wrote do not contest it, they only provide some wide definition of capitalism.

[Johnny Bitcoinseed]

Look, it has been proven time and time again:

When you pay people to be poor, they tend to stay poor

Poverty becomes their job, my friends.  When it's raining outside and you've partied all night you can choose to

a) go out and earn some money
or
b) sleep in and party again tonight because you know working people are sending you a check

Long term poverty tends to be a choice.  We have all seen 3rd generation welfare families.  'Cmon...three generations of people couldn't make the effort to uplift themselves?  Really???

Need money - come to my place and mow my lawn, rake leaves, weed the garden.  What? No takers?  Oh, the poverty!

Get a job or make one.  It's that simple.

Hell, I know an obese "retarded" guy with a limp named Lenny who makes the rounds every day at the local businesses - he gets them coffee, donuts, lunch etc and they pay him to do it.

Are you saying most "poor" people do not have the skills and energy of a fat, physically impaired retarded guy?

Give me a break.  Long term poverty is a choice.

[brush242]

I am willing to entertain the notion, you are apparently not and are the one laying down economic "laws" in a notoriously difficult to predict field of study.

No, I am noting the main principle behind economics: people respond to incentives. It is not a law like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but for all intents an purposes it is the same. No one here has shown any evidence to the contrary.

The predictions generally are quite simple as well, as long as they are based on valid principles. Over mathmaticalizing them is just going to make them less accurate.

I'm not sure what your point is other than agreeing with me. No one here is suggesting that the government maintain this system, it is being talked about in light of cryptocurrency. When the government and/or banks screw up, credit crises would presumably have a much less disastrous effect with something like a minimum income. The availability of credit/money being reduced is the heart of every recession, a minimum income would propose to reduce the impact of those corrections. But you can go ahead and say "no it won't" with all the emphasis you like, it does not prove you correct either.

I am saying "no, it won't" and providing the reason why, I have said it repeatedly: X minimum income has to be earned by someone's labor first before it can be guaranteed as a minimum to someone else. Once it is distributed, the net result is that the prices of good and services adjust accordingly.

As prices fall, people buy more, prices rise, and the system works exactly as it does now.

This sounds like a conclusory statement if I've ever seen one. Of course there will be variations in supply and demand. I said that it would be easier to provide the production necessary to support those unemployed with those very same people via the increase in currency circulation at the basic necessities level. You did not say anything to contest this.

Except every post here has been precisely to contest this. I don't know how may different ways to say that if you (your terms) increase in currency circulation at the basic necessities level, the cost/price of those basic necessities increases accordingly. Again, principle: more money means more demand, more demand means higher prices, which means more product is made available, which means prices fall, which means more demand, and this happens continuously and very quickly such that the net result no difference.

An approach that is not capitalism is not necessarily socialism or communism. I made a simple conclusion that you again ignored: the labor value of the libre approach (call it libre-capitalism if you want) produces more GWP per unit than the (standard-)capitalistic approach. I might be wrong, but the paragraphs you wrote do not contest it, they only provide some wide definition of capitalism.

Criminy. The point was to show that the libre- or standard- are just capitalism. There is only 1 spectrum. From 100% private ownership of labor (capitalism) to 100% state ownership of labor (communism), yes, every system falls somewhere in that spectrum, including your libre-capitalism. Which likely falls closer to the communist side than the capitalist side.

I haven't ignored your conclusions, or anyone elses. I've asked them to support their conclusions, at a most basic level: how any new scheme will somehow escape the basic principles of economics? They don't show reasoning behind their idea that somehow crypto currencies operate outside of basic economics.

You *may* be right, sometimes, with Wiki or Khan-type things. Like I said, they are significantly fewer costs to sitting around at the computer than there are in creating products. But by no means is that evidence that libre- is always, or even all that often, better/more effective than standard-.

[Cryddit]

If people can do better by not working than they can by working, then yeah, they'll produce nothing.  I don't think anybody's been advocating that.  No matter what happens, working has to keep on showing a marginal profit, and preferably a pretty steep one, over not working. 

Still.  What is, is, what can be, can be, and what will be, will be.  It doesn't matter whether anybody believes it now.  All you can do if you believe in something, is try it.

[brush242]

If people can do better by not working than they can by working, then yeah, they'll produce nothing. I don't think anybody's been advocating that.

Sure. This is why Kennedy reduced the highest marginal income tax rate from 90% to 50% (which is still far too high to encourage productivity). Who in their right mind seeks to work any longer when they are only keeping 10% of their pay for any further work?

No, I don't think anyone is advocating people not producing anything, but they aren't addressing the effects these ideas have on the cost of living.

It is like people who think "we" have to pay taxes to "help" people, and corporations must pay higher taxes for the same reason. They don't address these issues:

1) Let us say you pay $100 in tax. Here in the US, that $100 is instantly worth about $60, after taking off DoD, interest on the debt, and the cost of gov't itself. It's actually worth less than that, given that there is a Social Security "Trust Fund" which isn't a trust fund at all, it is just the gov't loaning itself money. Every try to loan yourself money? Let me know how that works. So paying taxes to "help" or build roads or job training or whatever just means that for every dollar you pay, you get back a little more than 50 cents. That's just brilliant mathematics, but people line to hell up to keep spouting that line.

2) Corporations do not pay one dime in taxes, ever. Every single penny that is taken from a corporation in taxes is passed directly to the consumer because it is just another cost. Nike sells a pair of shoes for $10.00. Tax Nike 10% and the shoes are now priced at $10.10. Tax Nike 90%, and the shoes are now priced at $19.00 because the taxes are no different than the costs of the leather, laces, rubber, labor, et cetera. More importantly, that price increase hurts the poorest, the most because the price of shoes is a much higher percentage of their income.

These are not abstractions on a discussion board, these are how things work in practice. Without addressing these issues when advocating higher corporate taxes (for example) your position lacks credibility. Similarly, if you don't address the problems I've noted with "free" crypto currency skewing the system, that plan can't work either.

[Ix]

Again, principle: more money means more demand, more demand means higher prices, which means more product is made available, which means prices fall, which means more demand, and this happens continuously and very quickly such that the net result no difference.

But "more product" can't just appear from nowhere, it requires labor, therefore there is an increase in the total output of the economy, which is the intent of the minimum income--at least from my perspective.

You *may* be right, sometimes, with Wiki or Khan-type things. Like I said, they are significantly fewer costs to sitting around at the computer than there are in creating products. But by no means is that evidence that libre- is always, or even all that often, better/more effective than standard-.

I think Cryddit was saying that it is becoming possible to be a producer of libre knowledge and innovation. 3D printing is often alluded to as the next step, a Star Trekkian utopia is usually the final. There is no question as technology has advanced that economic output has shifted on the spectrum from being physical-labor intensive to knowledge-labor intensive. The adage of "as more robots take our jobs, we will need more robotic engineers" oversimplifies but does apply. It's no secret that more educated people tend to make more money. But if the education and the knowledge of production (and possibly even means of) becomes free or really cheap, the standard-capitalism approach is probably not going to work very well anymore. "Basic economics" will be flipped on its head. Surely you have to concede the possibility that capitalism can be improved (by a large increase of GWP per labor unit), and such things are more likely/guaranteed to happen as knowledge becomes more powerful and cheaper. Those who are "giving it away" are working to accelerate that process.

[daneel2]

Can anyone see any way to make this work, without tying coin creation to true identity?  Maybe some sort of "proof of work by a real human"?

I don't understand why tying coin creation to true identity is a problem if you are trying to provide free income to individuals. There is no reason that you could not provide basically a faucet of Bitcoin to registered addresses that in fact are tied to a person.

You could even make the private keys public but add another usage validation for public coins, lets say a physical key that you get from the government.

I actually had the crazy idea that Satoshi should do something like this with his million of bitcoins. He could both create incredible hype around Bitcoin by starting to give them away in a methodical fashion and with some implementation that benefited those that truly need it.

For sustainability, Bitcoin could implement a VAT tax to every txn that follows some complex progressive algorith. The VAT tax would replenish a government address which then trickles payments to registered bitcoin addresses.

Anonymity while a feature of Bitcoin is meaningless drivel when solving the worlds problems.

if satoshi comes back and does this, it would be epic

[brush242]

But "more product" can't just appear from nowhere, it requires labor, therefore there is an increase in the total output of the economy, which is the intent of the minimum income--at least from my perspective.

Here, as you bolded, people see increased demand, and so increase production to meet that demand and to therefore profit from it, that is a standard economic principle. But the minimum income idea is reversed. With the minimum income idea you are adding money to the system without the prerequisite work. To put it another way, some people may do some work (earning crypto) to give to everyone. But that work at earning crypto comes at the expense of any and all other productive work that those people could have done, so the net result is no real change. They are just earning something of value, which is the same as if they earn dollars, mine copper, mine gold, or mine bitcoins.

I think Cryddit was saying that it is becoming possible to be a producer of libre knowledge and innovation. 3D printing is often alluded to as the next step, a Star Trekkian utopia is usually the final. There is no question as technology has advanced that economic output has shifted on the spectrum from being physical-labor intensive to knowledge-labor intensive. The adage of "as more robots take our jobs, we will need more robotic engineers" oversimplifies but does apply. It's no secret that more educated people tend to make more money. But if the education and the knowledge of production (and possibly even means of) becomes free or really cheap, the standard-capitalism approach is probably not going to work very well anymore. "Basic economics" will be flipped on its head. Surely you have to concede the possibility that capitalism can be improved (by a large increase of GWP per labor unit), and such things are more likely/guaranteed to happen as knowledge becomes more powerful and cheaper. Those who are "giving it away" are working to accelerate that process.

The standard capitalism approach isn't going to change one scintilla nor will basic economics be flipped on its head because these things ARE simple capitalism and simple basic economics. Nothing that has been suggested here changes the simple economic principles involved: people respond to incentives, or given a choice of two exactly equal things, people will always choose the cheapest one for them.

3D printing is no different. It just means that for some items it will become cheaper to home-produce them than it is to buy them already factory made. Trekkie utopia fails because not everyone will do as Picard says. I certainly won't, and neither will anyone that thinks as I do. That doesn't prevent you from doing it, have at it. It means that I will not participate and will deal with Trekkies as I see fit. I will be the Big Pharma that Cuba (the Trekkies) buys its drugs from.

Certainly, over time, some things become cheaper given reductions in the amount of labor and capital used to produce them. Conversely, other things become more expensive as the reverse is true, given the scarcity of all resources. But what you said above isn't an improvement on capitalism, it IS capitalism, because the economic principles remain the same. There may just come a time where most basic necessities are very very cheap, but that is directly a result of simple economics and capitalism, not some perceived sea change in how labor is used or because some people donate their money to everyone else, no matter what the form that donation takes, labor, dollars, bitcoins, litecoins, diamonds, or whatever.

[Ix]

But the minimum income idea is reversed. With the minimum income idea you are adding money to the system without the prerequisite work.

It is like any other incentive system with money, just more direct and obvious. The government can and does do this all the time. Production gets geared towards where the money is. And basic necessities production generally does not require much skilled labor, so it would be easier to employ those who are currently relying on government hand-outs anyway, and thus create a self-sustaining system that lowers unemployment and poverty.

Certainly it will take value away at least initially from some other sectors--but when the financial sector really adds very little net value to the economy yet possesses such a large percentage of it, you have to wonder if the current incentive system is flawed. I mean, isn't that why we're on bitcointalk.org?

Trekkie utopia fails because not everyone will do as Picard says.

I said Star Trekkian utopia because it isn't a perfect utopia and there probably never will be. But at some point we've got to realize that doing what we can to raise the opportunity level for all humans to contribute to society will bring far greater returns than the temporary control of keeping the status quo. Actually, you don't, it's going to happen whether you want it to or not because cryptocurrency does give us the tools to try other things and see what works without waiting for the approval of those in control.

[thedarklight]

Okay. So can they kick out the Dutch? Black people? Women? More importantly, would those kicked out, be forbidden from dealing with members of the group, or vice versa?

If we are talking about virtual communities then most of these categories of division do not have to exist. If they do exist because it's a separatist community then the separatists have the right to exclusively associate and assist only other separatists. I don't see how it's my business to interfere with these matters whether or not I agree with it.

I don't think you can force a community to support a group of people financially who they don't want to support without initiating force against them. If you're asking about security issues and the use of force that is an area I cannot cover or be involved with but if you're asking about technology to give people the choice to form their own communities in any fashion they like then I can discuss it from a technological and politically agnostic perspective.

But the larger point was that allmost universally these ideas are basically Ponzi schemes. While certainly there are economies of scale, if 10 people cannot afford the healthcare for themselves, then neither will 50 people, or 100, or a million, or in the US, 340 million, especially since the money used (taxes) loses 50+ percent of it's value off of the top.

Shares are capital assets. It's not a ponzi scheme to distribute capital assets which appreciate over time. It's not a ponzi scheme to use a dividend to give out basic income. As businesses in the community generate a profit by providing products and services of value they'll have money to give back to shareholders in the form of a dividend. That is not a ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme, or anything else. No one has to be coerced, it's entirely voluntary and government force does not have to be used so there is no class warfare agenda in my plan.

This is one of the issues that people wanting "free money (anything)" schemes refuse to address.

You don't understand because you did not read my white paper. Dividends are not free money. Dividends are given to shareholders only if the business is profitable. Businesses which fail don't produce any dividends.

Distributing shares isn't the same as "free money" because shares alone aren't worth anything until people make the businesses profitable.

[thedarklight]

Poverty becomes their job, my friends.  When it's raining outside and you've partied all night you can choose to

a) go out and earn some money
or
b) sleep in and party again tonight because you know working people are sending you a check

Getting a job doesn't make you rich. This isn't about rich and poor really. Every human being costs x amount of resources and has to be accounted for one way or the other. Basic income allows the human being to develop their skills, educate themselves and live up to their potential while prison, poverty and some of the other options only suppress human potential.

The idea I have is to use a dividend based around shares in DACs. DACs don't become profitable without any work. If you are going to use 3d printers or develop cool new products you have to be very creative. Artists have to design and render the product. Marketing campaigns have to be developed. It's not as simple as just giving people money and expecting value to generate itself, instead tools have to be built to facilitate value creation.

And value isn't created by a useless 9-5 but by innovation and production.

Long term poverty tends to be a choice.  We have all seen 3rd generation welfare families.  'Cmon...three generations of people couldn't make the effort to uplift themselves?  Really???

It's not entirely a choice if we aren't giving people a better option. If it's impossible to get rich, and easier to go to jail, then people will take welfare. If there is basic income instead of welfare then if people want more than just the minimum then they'll have to create value by making something new or doing something important.

Most jobs people have today are not important, don't make anything new, and will soon be automated. What happens next?

Need money - come to my place and mow my lawn, rake leaves, weed the garden.  What? No takers?  Oh, the poverty!

Machines will do that, so what happens next? You're not thinking of the big picture are you?

Get a job or make one.  It's that simple.

How do you make a job without investors? How do you have investors without people who have enough saved?
Crowd funding allows anyone to become an investor in anyone else. If everyone in the community is a shareholder and anyone can crowd fund anything then there is plenty of money for people who want to start a business to make jobs.

But in order for people to have money to invest they need basic income because you can't invest if you can't eat or pay rent. People who you think should mow your lawn are people I think should be investors and shareholders.

Hell, I know an obese "retarded" guy with a limp named Lenny who makes the rounds every day at the local businesses - he gets them coffee, donuts, lunch etc and they pay him to do it.

Are you saying most "poor" people do not have the skills and energy of a fat, physically impaired retarded guy?

Give me a break.  Long term poverty is a choice.

Long term poverty is a choice? So you know the secret to getting rich and if everyone follows those steps then everyone can do it? I don't think the situation is that simple. You ignore technological unemployment and the effects of automation. People just aren't all that useful for labor anymore.

So if the machines will be doing the labor what should the people who don't want to live poor do? They should own shares in the machines which do the labor. Bitcoin shows the way, let the computer mine for you.

[thedarklight]

There are new conditions there haven't been before.  It's never been possible up to now, but we are moving into unknown territory.

This certainly isn't true simply because you state it as a conclusion without any reasoning or support whatsoever. It has never been possible up to now, because it isn't possible. There are no new conditions that change the principle that the only thing of value a human has to offer in trade for money (or, in other words, in trade for the labor of others) is their own labor. They have nothing else to offer. Ever.

There are a lot of unknowns, that is true, but certainly not with the principle I just mentioned. What is actually unknown is how long people will cling to beliefs that they cannot support.

How do you define labor though? Playing WoW is labor if the coins in WoW can be spent to buy real world items.

The difference is people will be able to do what they want to do because the basic necessities are free. Very few people will choose to do nothing at all except maybe drug addicts, depressed persons, etc.

The people who are depressed or with drug problems is not the vast majority. So as the vast majority has more free time then we will have more art and people playing sports, games, and other kinds of jobs. Work will be between 10-20 hours a week because no one really needs to work more than that and productivity doesn't improve working more than that unless you're trying to start a business and there is literally no one else to do it.

[TCraver]

This thread takes it as a given that a basic or minimum income would be desirable and effective, and asks if it can be done via an altcoin system, and if so, how best to do that.
I understand that some of you don't agree, but that is no reason to effectively DOS attack this thread with an off-topic discussion.

There are other discussion threads covering the topic of whether technological unemployment is possible or not,  and whether a basic/guaranteed income is desirable. 
Why not take that discussion there?   

Here's one:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=318001.460

[brush242]

You don't understand because you did not read my white paper. Dividends are not free money. Dividends are given to shareholders only if the business is profitable. Businesses which fail don't produce any dividends.

Distributing shares isn't the same as "free money" because shares alone aren't worth anything until people make the businesses profitable.

No, I understand quite well, and yes, I did read your paper.

"Any human being instinctively uses this sort algorithm on a daily basis, as well as the path of least resistance algorithm but for computers we must take the actions human beings do in ordinary life, turn them into algorithms and then translate those algorithms into computer code."

This is just cost/benefit analysis, which is what humans do with every single decision they make, no matter how small.

Your paper sounds nice, just like Social Security sounds nice: "we're just asking everyone to pay their fair share to help those less-fortunate." Except, well, in practice it has been almost the dead worst investment ever; it takes an enormous amount of personal income, thus acts as a disincentive to productive work; and it has given the government a further tool to mislead the populace and devalue money.

Beyond that? Well, I'll just mention one here. If you actually create some sort of non-owned autonomous entity, someone else is going to take it away from you.

[brush242]

This thread takes it as a given that a basic or minimum income would be desirable and effective, and asks if it can be done via an altcoin system, and if so, how best to do that.

We are discussing precisely that. My position is that it cannot be done via an altcoin system, hence we discuss.

[TPN]

This thread takes it as a given that a basic or minimum income would be desirable and effective, and asks if it can be done via an altcoin system, and if so, how best to do that.

We are discussing precisely that. My position is that it cannot be done via an altcoin system, hence we discuss.

If you invest enough, you can 

[Ix]

I understand that some of you don't agree, but that is no reason to effectively DOS attack this thread with an off-topic discussion.

Oh come on now, it's a fun discussion. And it's really hard to come to terms with an idea as specific as "minimum income" fitting into a decentralized cryptocurrency system. However...

This thread takes it as a given that a basic or minimum income would be desirable and effective, and asks if it can be done via an altcoin system, and if so, how best to do that.

If you can broaden your definition of minimum income, you might be interested in discussing the Decrits proposal: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=189239.msg1960697#msg1960697. It does not describe anything exactly like a minimum income, but it does have properties that are similar, and it is in development.