New Epic Fail Currency? 'Occcu'

[Explodicle]

"Basic Income" is a reasonable idea.  Sometimes called citizen's income or citizen's dividend.  It goes very nicely with land value tax.

However; implementing it is a function of the state not of the currency.

Basic income as a dividend requires that the state generates a surplus. Some do, such as Norway.

Just imagine how much tax revenue is required to finance this: If 300 Million Americans get $500 each (not really a sufficient income), $1.8 Trillion would be required per  year.  Financing this with a tax on land would devaluate the land to the point that most morgage loans get canceled because the backing is no longer there. The result would be a default of the house owners and a subprime crisis of unprecedented proportions. Oh, wait - we can tax the farmers. They own a lot more land.

Or we could not do it that way, because you're not the only one who sees those problems coming. The Henry George Foundation of America is possibly the biggest supporter of land taxes, and even they advocate a very slow and gradual transition to avoid disruptions, like massive defaulting. In the long run though, the economy would be more stable if normal people didn't take out massive loans for expensive volitile assets. Land bubbles always eventually burst, and neo-serfdom isn't much fun either.

Also, farmers would pay a lower amount per acre due to their location. Most of the revenue would come from city land.

[robocop]

Don't get me wrong, I like Occupy and basic incomes, but the problems inherent to this concept are more practical than ideological. For any basic income, SOMEONE has to maintain a list of recipients. You need to verify that each person only has one account. You need to update the records swiftly when an identity gets stolen. Then, we have to trust that your organization won't be corrupted by power. Every single person you employ to handle all this is paid for by a regressive "inflation/demurrage tax".

We (the left in general) need to be supporting Bitcoin because it already works well and is still undergoing major upgrades. It is resistant to corruption unlike the Fed and any centralized currency. If your problem is hoarding and a deflationary money supply, EnCoin can use your help. If you want a basic income, it has to come from your government - consumers will not opt in to paying for it.

Yes you´re right. I think the basic income should come from the goverment. If the government would controlled not by less politics but from all the people who live there then the basic income like the occcu-principle of 25% tax / loss per month then i could imagine that it could make sense.

And what would happen if the government would use Bitcoin for this? For example every people can register one basic-income account and every transaction from this account could followed and must paid with 25% of taxes. If the people would sent Bitcoins from the basic-income address/account then a much higher tax like 50% would payed. So it would be more sense to exchange Bitcoins in other Values.

[realnowhereman]

"Basic Income" is a reasonable idea.  Sometimes called citizen's income or citizen's dividend.  It goes very nicely with land value tax.

Basic income as a dividend requires that the state generates a surplus. Some do, such as Norway.

Just imagine how much tax revenue is required to finance this: If 300 Million Americans get $500 each (not really a sufficient income), $1.8 Trillion would be required per  year.  Financing this with a tax on land would devaluate the land to the point that most morgage loans get canceled because the backing is no longer there. The result would be a default of the house owners and a subprime crisis of unprecedented proportions. Oh, wait - we can tax the farmers. They own a lot more land.

I don't really want to get into a land value tax debate; but almost universally its proponents want to replace existing taxation (as Explodicle says, gradually is better) with land value tax not augment.  Also; typical calculations don't actually weigh heavily on farmers.  You see it would be more accurate to call LVT a location value tax and farmland is low value.  For example, in the UK, you can buy farmland at about £6,000 an acre.  The centre of London would be more like £100 million an acre.  Farmers would not be bearing the brunt.

Citizen's income is also generally proposed to be a replacement for other benefits and would be fiscally neutral.  Depending on how many you replace (as Explodicle says, gradually would be better) sets the amount.  A prime one is your tax free allowance being an easy universal benefit to spot.  Job seekers allowance would go; CI making it so that working always paid, as there would be no means testing or tailing off -- you get CI whether you work or not.  Child benefit could probably go, since they would be entitled to CI by virtue of existing.  And so on...

Anyway -- there is a lot you could argue about CI, but "needs a surplus" is not one of them.

[robocop]

As to "not hoarding".  That's just stupid.  There's nothing wrong with "hoarding"; it is simply deferred consumption.  e.g. I would like to have a car next year instead of a bicycle this year.  Or, I'd like two hospitals next year instead of one pedestrian crossing this year.  What's wrong with letting people choose when they spend?

I don't think so because the result we can see now with the fiat money system.
consumption which is deferred don't need parking money because money must go through a lot of hands in less time.
And the next problem is that a lot of hoarding money will never see the money cycle again because the holder have so much money that they can't or want not spend it.

[realnowhereman]

And the next problem is that a lot of hoarding money will never see the money cycle again because the holder have so much money that they can't or want not spend it.

From the point of view of the rest of the economy, never-ever spent money is no different from money that never existed.  In which case, the money in the economy increases in value to compensate.  The hoarded money does absolutely no harm.

However, if hoarded money is hoarded anywhere other than under the mattress, then it is stored somewhere that will allow it to be loaned out.  In which case it is being used to do work in the economy.

Either way, hoarding money is not a problem.

[anu]

Anyway -- there is a lot you could argue about CI, but "needs a surplus" is not one of them.

Sure it is. You can create part of that surplus by eliminating all or much of the social benefits of today, including it's bureaucracy, but that is insufficient. Any basic income that deserves the name must allow people to actually survive on it. It must be paid from revenues (taxes, oil revenue....) it cannot be paid with debts.

It's a real bad dilemma. Increased productivity and more AI may well toss us into poorhouses without basic income (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm), but basic income reduces competitiveness. In the end, the future may really not need us.

Only way out I see is to keep the economy growing until we're ready. Spacesteading and Seasteading may do the trick.

[Explodicle]

Anyway -- there is a lot you could argue about CI, but "needs a surplus" is not one of them.

Sure it is. You can create part of that surplus by eliminating all or much of the social benefits of today, including it's bureaucracy, but that is insufficient. Any basic income that deserves the name must allow people to actually survive on it. It must be paid from revenues (taxes, oil revenue....) it cannot be paid with debts.

It's a real bad dilemma. Increased productivity and more AI may well toss us into poorhouses without basic income (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm), but basic income reduces competitiveness. In the end, the future may really not need us.

Only way out I see is to keep the economy growing until we're ready. Spacesteading and Seasteading may do the trick.

First off, thanks for the interesting story - I got halfway through the first chapter before I realized it was fiction.

Back on topic - a basic income only reduces human labor by about five percent, which IMHO doesn't outweigh the benefit of a more just society, especially as robot labor grows and this penalty decreases. Maybe even when we have everything we need, greed continues to motivate the selfish.

[SgtSpike]

Anyway -- there is a lot you could argue about CI, but "needs a surplus" is not one of them.

Sure it is. You can create part of that surplus by eliminating all or much of the social benefits of today, including it's bureaucracy, but that is insufficient. Any basic income that deserves the name must allow people to actually survive on it. It must be paid from revenues (taxes, oil revenue....) it cannot be paid with debts.

It's a real bad dilemma. Increased productivity and more AI may well toss us into poorhouses without basic income (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm), but basic income reduces competitiveness. In the end, the future may really not need us.

Only way out I see is to keep the economy growing until we're ready. Spacesteading and Seasteading may do the trick.

First off, thanks for the interesting story - I got halfway through the first chapter before I realized it was fiction.

Back on topic - a basic income only reduces human labor by about five percent, which IMHO doesn't outweigh the benefit of a more just society, especially as robot labor grows and this penalty decreases. Maybe even when we have everything we need, greed continues to motivate the selfish.

I am curious to know where this 5 percent figure comes from.  You mean to say that if everyone had a minimum paycheck coming from the government, only 5% fewer people would be seen in the workforce?

[Explodicle]

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee#Criticisms

[BrightAnarchist]

A promotional flyer for the Occcu describes it as “a fair global currency”.  To prevent hoarding the Occcu imposes “demurrage” (negative interest).  You’ll want to spend your Occcus right away as anything you don’t spend loses its value — 25% of any unspent balance after thirty days goes back to the community chest.

People would try to get around the auto-destruction rule by “trading” nothing among themselves to make it look like they didn’t hoard. It’s ridiculous.

[MCWey8]

signed up, still have 0 Occcus days later


Guess Occupy movement doesn't want me to have a Mincome.

[Explodicle]

signed up, still have 0 Occcus days later

Guess Occupy movement doesn't want me to have a Mincome.

That's weird, I got my 20 immediately upon joining.

[the joint]

Hilarious that 2 of the 4 product listings on the occcu website are from people offering to buy Bitcoins for occcus   

One guy is offering 5 occus per BTC, the other is offering 1 occcu per BTC lol

[Bitcoin Oz]

It would be interesting if your forum posts had demurrage

[SgtSpike]

It would be interesting if your forum posts had demurrage

What, the letters slowly disappear as time passes?

Pretty soon, "A quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" turns into "I b ump te l ag"

[Explodicle]

It would be interesting if your forum posts had demurrage

I just imagined LoupGaroux's eloquent essays slowly degenerating into psy's crude attempts to smash his fists on the keyboard. 

[Bitcoin Oz]

It would be interesting if your forum posts had demurrage

I just imagined LoupGaroux's eloquent essays slowly degenerating into psy's crude attempts to smash his fists on the keyboard. 

lol. Something like that. No I meant your status on the boards would degrade if you didnt keep posting. A hero member would eventualy go back to newbie status if they stopped posting for awhile.

[westkybitcoins]

It would be interesting if your forum posts had demurrage

I just imagined LoupGaroux's eloquent essays slowly degenerating into psy's crude attempts to smash his fists on the keyboard. 

lol. Something like that. No I meant your status on the boards would degrade if you didnt keep posting. A hero member would eventualy go back to newbie status if they stopped posting for awhile.

Hence, creating post inflation.

[Delia]

It turns out they fail even harder than I thought, which is actually kind of an accomplishment.

First, they suspended demurrage for April, presenting this as a good thing. So even they don't believe their own bullshit philosophy.

Second, the email in which they announced this put all the recipients' email addresses in the To: line. So now I have the emails of everyone on their list. (link)

[SgtSpike]

It turns out they fail even harder than I thought, which is actually kind of an accomplishment.

First, they suspended demurrage for April, presenting this as a good thing. So even they don't believe their own bullshit philosophy.

Second, the email in which they announced this put all the recipients' email addresses in the To: line. So now I have the emails of everyone on their list. (link)

LOL.