- This topic has 40 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by toys19.
-
Unconditional Basic Income
-
6079smithwFree Member
http://basicincome2013.eu/ proposes
What is the Unconditional Basic Income?
The Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) is a recurring, universal payment to everyone – as an individual right, without means test or any obligation to work or perform other services in return, and high enough to ensure an existence in dignity and participation in society. The current social security systems are demeaning and inadequate in addressing the roots of poverty. UBI would transform social security from a compensatory system into an emancipatory system, one that trusts people to make their own decisions, and does not stigmatize them for their circumstances.
If we collect one million statements of support for Basic Income from the 500 million inhabitants of the European Union, the European Commission will have to examine our initiative carefully and arrange for a public hearing in the European Parliament.
It’s better explored here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDDZEJnK5NE#t=12m45
By being born on this planet IMO you’ve earned the right to live.
Only capitalists and their apologists will argue with this, who will reveal themselves in 5….4….3….2….1…..legendFree MemberOnly capitalists and their apologists will argue with this, who will reveal themselves in 5….4….3….2….1…..
LOLZ! The old “if you dare say anything bad it means you’re such n such cause I say you are” approach! Love it! Always goes down well around these parts too
Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition
Latest Singletrack VideosFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...6079smithwFree MemberThanks legend!
chewkw – Member
Get rid of the money … simple. I agree. We need to take steps there of course, an overnight change would confuse the hell out of most people
ninfanFree MemberSo, I’m guaranteed an income which leaves me comfortable enough to enjoy society without any obligation to work or put anything back in?
Sign me up now!
cranberryFree MemberI remember when the trolling on here was of an acceptable quality.
boxelderFull MemberWho earns the money (or grows the food, mines the minerals, creates the arts) to pay the UBI?
And who deals with the mental anguish of those who aren’t ‘constructively occupied’?
Does owning a decent bike come under “dignity….participation in society”?busydogFree MemberWho earns the money (or grows the food, mines the minerals, creates the arts) to pay the UBI?
This ^
john_drummerFree MemberWho earns the money (or grows the food, mines the minerals, creates the arts) to pay the UBI?
And who deals with the mental anguish of those who aren’t ‘constructively occupied’?
Does owning a decent bike come under “dignity….participation in society”?and more to the point, do those of us that do “earn” a living get it too? If we don’t then it’s not “unconditional”, is it?
you get it on condition you’re not “earning”
matt_outandaboutFull MemberI remember when the trolling on here was of an acceptable quality.
chewkwFree Memberbusydog – Member
Who earns the money (or grows the food, mines the minerals, creates the arts) to pay the UBI?
This ^
Slaves. You capture those that you can and put them to hard labour. 😈
I then become King of kings.
gofasterstripesFree MemberI remember
whenthe trolling on hereBitcoin, simples.
I remember
when thetrolling on herebearnecessitiesFull MemberYou do try to start some desperately divisive threads OP; I’m sure there’s a name for that…
teamhurtmoreFree MemberIt’s not a troll. The idea has quite a history with a reasonable body of literature for and against. But the OP makes an error in the “troll- like” final line (and in the penultimate one). Either that or he/she doesn’t understand UBI enough. Both Hayek and Friedman supported (derivatives of) UBI and supporters and opponents can be found on both sides of the political spectrum for pretty obvious ( if conflicting) reasons.
NZ is a good place to search for some sensible arguments of the merits and demerits of UBI. And Switzerland for a more recent case study. Get ready for debates on income and substitution effects…..bloody dry stuff!!
toys19Free MemberLOLZ! The old “if you dare say anything bad it means you’re such n such cause I say you are” approach! Love it! Always goes down well around these parts too
Its called poisoning the well, and is a logical fallacy. Shame he presented it like that as the UBI is a great idea.
John_drummer its called unconditional as everyone gets it. Read the link.
Unless the minimum wage is increased to a significant margin above this then it wont work.
Some of the the money to fund it comes from the fact that millions of people capable of some form of work would be lifted from the benefits trap:
1) disabled people who need benefit support, but the system penalises them for working, could now work as much as they want without fear of losing their basic income
2) Those who claim and work on the side, can now get proper jobs and pay tax..
3) Those who earn around about the same as their benefit level and hence are not encouraged by the system to work, as benefits pays the same.
4) possibly those slackers who manipulate the system to their own gain might actually get some work too.. (I know a fair few people on benefits and none of them fit this category, anecdotes don’t make science, but the so called evidence of benefit scroungers is minimal in my opinion)teamhurtmoreFree Membertoys19 – Member
Shame he presented it like that as the UBI is a great idea…..…for discussion (true) but has very debatable outcomes (including not necessarily delivering better equality of income). Plus there needs to be clarity of what UBI entails – the Swiss idea is different from the US version. But it does unite some very unexpected bedfellows.
john_drummerFree MemberOk. I read the link. So who pays for this pie in the sky then?
teamhurtmoreFree MemberGovernments do not have money, the source (as always) is the same….
Where this has gained traction, UBI is funded AND administered via the tax system.
A lot depends on how people react (the unknown) to the introduction and how this affects the supply of labour.
Not really fair to dismiss it as “pie in the sky” – lots of very intelligent philosophers, economists and politicians have spent many years studying the idea and to repeat it does the odd thing of uniting LW and RW authors alike.
Capt.KronosFree MemberIf we just divided the current benefits bill amongst the adult population it would only come out to £58.80 per week each, so there would need to be some more money made available somewhere to make it universal and meaningful.
I do like the idea though – it allows everyone in the country to attain a basic standard of living, and if they want to increase this they work and retain all the benefit so better that standard of living considerably. There is a lot of merit in it….
The question is, what does the figure need to be per capita and how is it funded? I suppose it would allow tax rates to be tweaked which would help – but if the idea is to increase the standard of living across the board and particularly at the lower to mid end of the scale then that in itself would be a challenge (since it is the wealthy that seem to call the shots in this country).
toys19Free Memberthm yeah ideas are not necessarily policy but I often think no policy is a one size fits all, so if there is to be a mistake I would prefer it ended up being positive. The whole concept of benefit/nhs scroungers just makes my blood boil, there is little evidence and lots of prejudice.
teamhurtmoreFree MemberI am not disagreeing with you toys just saying that the results are far from proven. Almost capt, except for the retain all the benefits point. You can’t, the scheme has to be funded via (high?) progressive forms of taxation. Govs don’t have money.
I think there is a lot of merit in discussing the idea – it is very interesting in theory and possibly in practice.
andytherocketeerFull Membercommunism.
if the UBI is there, it has to be at soup kitchen levels, as an absolute minimum amount deemed necessary to survive, and “minimum wage” needs to be at a level highenough to make it attractive to work.
Probably would just end up being a scheme funded by the rich to increase the wealth gap between rich and poor. UBI bit needs guaranteed non-financial elements too… free training, free education, free tokens to go to job interviews.
or just plain communism.
toys19Free MemberCareful this will turn into a love in..
yeah it needs to be thought through I agree entirely. We already kind of have the roots of it in the tax allowance.
For me the the issue is that a broad spectrum of the legislature, population and newspapers have had an empathy bypass and think if you didn’t land on the lucky side of the fence then tough shit..
the results are far from proven
I agree, but the current system has proven results: divisive, discriminatory, poverty and encourages people to stay on benefits and not work..
surferFree MemberThis is not Communism at all! Communism doesnt advocate a UBI but argues for a fairer re-distribution of the fruits of labour. Work (even enforced work) was a characteristic of Communism.
One significant risk is inflation.
MSPFull Memberbut the current system has a proven results: divisive, discriminatory, poverty and encourages people to stay on benefits and not work..
I wouldn’t say the current system encourages people to stay on benefits, in fact I think quite the opposite it is a horrible demeaning system that most would want to break free from.
The problem is if your trapped in it for any length of time it breaks your spirits, your will and your mental health. Those caught in the system have lost hope, they don’t have any vision of a better future. Unfortunately many others (and most politicians) seem to think that beating them further down is the answer.
toys19Free MemberMSp, semantics.. I don’t disagree with you, but I think my point is valid too. It is called the benefits trap for a reason.
I know people who are so terrified of losing their benefits that the idea of work is just too much to bear. I do not mean that as a moral judgment, it is just a fact of their life.bokononFree MemberMinimum basic income – aka negative income tax – is a Friedmanite far right verging on anarcho capitalist idea, the idea that it’s anything but a pro-capitalist idea designed to prop up the capitalist system seems completely bizarre to me – as a communist trouble maker.
surferFree Memberthe idea that it’s anything but a pro-capitalist idea designed to prop up the capitalist system seems completely bizarre to me
Can you explain what you mean by this?
toys19Free MemberI think it makes sense, it will prop up the system. People often say that politics is circualr, ie extreme left and right meet each other…
mogrimFull Memberbut the current system has a proven results: divisive, discriminatory, poverty and encourages people to stay on benefits and not work..
It also has proven results: few (if any) deaths from starvation, access to health care, a roof over the person’s head. Obviously not a mansion, or a life of luxury, but the current system does a pretty good job of providing for basic needs.
UBI’s certainly interesting, though, and not something you can just dismiss immediately.
toys19Free MemberIt also has proven results: few (if any) deaths from starvation, access to health care, a roof over the person’s head. Obviously not a mansion, or a life of luxury, but the current system does a pretty good job of providing for basic needs.
I do not think anyone doubts this, are you implying that UBI will lead to the reversal of this? The idea is to prevent some of the downsides that come along with this, ie to make it even better..
pslingFree MemberAll these systems (UBI, Communism, Capitalism, whateverism) break down as soon as you introduce homo-sapiens into the melting pot. Gross negative generalisation I know but it is why you can never please all of the people all of the time. (Most) people always want more in ‘Western Civilisation’. Still, such schemes should never be discounted out of hand without consideration.
bokononFree MemberCan you explain what you mean by this?
Capitalism requires consumers to succeed – this provides a consistent and willing supply of consumers. It also smooths out the problems of boom and bust – whilst consumers will suffer under a bust, there is a consistent cushion – to ensure that capitalist business can continue to exploit their workers and extract the maximum amount of surplus value of labour without having to worry about a diminishing amount of money in the system to purchase the products they create – it provides capitalists with a cushion to protect their profits.
It’s popular with liberals (both classical and otherwise), who seek to diminish the effects of capitalism, not to replace it, it’s nominally nice to normal people – it gets rid of the worst excesses of poverty. However, it keeps in place the exploitation and power structures of the capitalist system, and does nothing to alleviate the long term issues, which in the current period I’d suggest must include the environmental destruction inherent within the capitalist system along side the constant downward pressure on the material conditions of people (which this proposal would help to deal with) – although clearly material conditions and the environment are related.
surferFree MemberThanks Bokonon for explaining.
I see the point you are making and you are arguing that it averts what Marx claimed (to paraphrase) that capitalism will bring about its own destruction however this would only be a temporary re adjustment as more money chases fewer goods and increases prices.
jambourgieFree MemberI think this is a great idea in principle. As it stands, one is not ‘born free’. One must work to pay rent or buy property because all the land is in private ownership. You’re born a slave to money and one way of life, and I think you should be able to ‘opt out’ as it were. It’s not like you can just build yourself a little hut in a field and grow some veg is it? So provision should be made to meet the rent costs of those who can’t or don’t want to ‘work’. When I say ‘work’, I mean a wage slave/drudge. One may want to ‘work’ at learning another language, a musical instrument, carpentry, perfecting bike skillz etc etc.
I guess what I’m saying is: Roof over your head/Healthy food – Yes, provided no questions asked. 6K bike/car -No, work and save.
“What occurs in the world is that everyone who is born, is born, in some manner of speaking, a poet, the creator of something that did not exist in the world before, till they were born. It is entirely individual.
Man is not born to work, Man is born to create, to be that poet at random. And give to the world his own particular message, to realize the work that can be done and because he is unique, his work will be the only one of the kind in the world.” – Agostinho da SilvaRetrodirectFree MemberThis thread has got me watching a really interesting video on this:
English subtitled from german.konabunnyFree Memberor just plain communism.
That’s not Communism in theory or in practice.
The topic ‘Unconditional Basic Income’ is closed to new replies.