The Case for a Guaranteed Minimum Income

[LC EFA]

Naturyl  (1000+ posts)    Mon Aug-18-08 05:47 PM
Original message
The Case for a Guaranteed Minimum Income   Updated at 6:43 PM
   
Simply put, a Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) is any program which guarantees that no American citizen will fall below a certain pre-selected amount of income. There are a number of proposals through which this could be accomplished, such as the Negative Income Tax proposal which received very serious consideration under Nixon (of all people), and the Basic Income Grant model, which is fully or partially implemented in certain nations and is being considered in others. Briefly stated, a Negative Income Tax model is means-tested and supplements an individual's income up to the specified lower boundary, while a Basic Income Grant is not means tested and goes to all citizens, with the cost being made up through progressive taxation.

My intent here is not to propose a specific GMI model, but simply to make the case for considering a GMI at all. Naturally, in our work-centric American culture, the most immediate and invariably the loudest objection to any GMI proposal is that it would allow people to receive "something for nothing" - that is to say, it would de-couple economic work from basic survival. While I and certain other GMI proponent do not necessarily see this is a problem (and potentially as a huge step forward), I recognize that in the American mainstream, it is an objection which must be taken seriously. So, I would offer these practical points in favor of a GMI, which hopefully will convince some to at least consider the idea:

1. A GMI will instantly and permanently end poverty in America. Unless a citizen, for whatever reason, were to refuse the GMI, he or she could not be poor. With the elimination of poverty would come the eradication or amelioration of the countless (costly) social problems it engenders - problems not limited to crime, poor health practices, a certain number of mental or physical illnesses aggravated by degrading living conditions, etc. The potential for tangible social equity is enormous, and may in time more than offset the entire cost of the GMI.

How Can anyone be so stupid ?

2. Contrary to uninformed claims and our own intuitions, studies show that a GMI would NOT be a significant disincentive to work, and would not result in unmanageable numbers of people refusing traditional employment. An important Canadian study showed only a 2-3% reduction in total hours worked when a GMI was offered, exploding the myth that nobody would stay gainfully employed. Even if we were to triple these numbers for the sake of argument, a 6-9% voluntary reduction in total hours worked could ease unemployment woes for job-seekers and have a positive impact in multiple other areas.

Same as the existing welfare doesn't create a huge disincentive for employment

3. Although a GMI will involve significant cost, it will also also offer the opportunity for considerable savings to taxpayers by making obsolete all of the current social service programs such as welfare, SSI, disability, retirement benefits, food stamps, etc. The billions now spent on these programs could be redirected to the GMI, offsetting a large portion of its cost.

Transferring costs from one government program to another, and then doubling them, a saving does not make

4. By providing income security and de-coupling basic survival from employment, a GMI will allow for much greater flexibility in employment arrangements, allowing employers and workers to explore departures from the traditional "full time/part time" model.By giving both employers and workers more genuine choice in their employment options, new jobs will be created which may not have been economically feasible before.

Great , they can go from a part/full time situation to a NO time situation and still live the same as the presently do

5. A GMI has the potential to vastly improve workplace productivity by ridding the workplace of unmotivated workers and "free riders" who are "only there for the paycheck." As all employers and business owners realize, such workers drag down workplace efficiency and atmosphere through chronic under-performance. By ensuring that all employees truly want to be at work, employers can become and remain more competitive.

We're all there for the paycheck you stupid shit. By the way; Thanks for giving all those unmotivated people a chance to practice their favorite cheeto eatin' activities on the taxpayers dime

6. A GMI has the potential to reduce excessive consumption by creating a small but significant class of people who voluntarily live with less in order to pursue interests other than traditional employment. Such voluntary simplicity could positively impact problems such as the energy crisis, global warming, pollution, etc. If we are serious about "saving the Earth," perhaps we should consider strongly motivating people to live with less.

These people exist now; they're called bums

7. A GMI will strongly encourage the development of a culture conducive to effective democracy by allowing citizens much greater freedom and flexibility in pursuing cultural pillars such as education, art, civics, etc. When basic survival is de-coupled from labor, more hours can be devoted to personal development of the kind our founding fathers deemed necessary to effective democracy.

What in heck ?

8. A GMI has the potential to strongly encourage the formation and continued development of profoundly liberal and progressive values. Human nature being what it is, we know that only when a society puts "its money where its mouth is" can its inspiring rhetoric and its professed values be taken seriously. By ensuring once and for all that no American will ever do without the basic necessities of life for ANY reason, we demonstrate a firm and uncompromising commitment to the compassionate values we hold dear.

These "values" are a good thing how exactly ?

9. A GMI allows the uniquely American emphasis on "freedom" to be expressed in a way that is profoundly meaningful in our daily lives. Personal liberty is sharply abridged and even made a mockery of when citizens are forced by economic circumstance to spend the majority of their waking lives doing work that is not meaningful to them as individuals. Reporting daily to a degrading job one despises just to keep food on the table and the lights burning is not "freedom" in any meaningful sense, and if we are serious about being a beacon of human liberty, we must make people free in the tangible and immediate ways that really matter each day of their lives.

Expressing your freedom by becoming a welfare sucking slacker, dependent on handouts forciably taken from others, wonderful idea of freedom you have there

10. Last but far from least, a GMI will cost a lot less than we might imagine. Prevailing estimates put the annual cost at $60-90 billion - which may sound like a great deal of money, but it does not take into account any of the potential institutional and social savings mentioned above. Factoring in such savings as well as the considerable social capital a GMI could create, the "net" cost might be little or nothing. Even so, the un-adjusted full cost of $60-90 would represent just 1/7 to 1/10 of the Pentagon's annual military budget.

You are Stupid beyond all belief

So, there you have it - 10 arguments for a GMI. For some, all ten of these arguments put together will not be enough to overcome the "freeloading" objection. But for others, perhaps, they will be sufficient to at least open the subject for consideration.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3817932

So much stupid , so many openings... I didn't even get to the comments.

[Zeus]

Some folks are lucky breathing is an auto reflex.

[Chris_]

Some folks are lucky breathing is an auto reflex.

You must mean this mental midget:

unblock  (1000+ posts) Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Aug-18-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
15. funny thing is, actual businesspeople should love this
   
the surest way to make sure that money gets spent, and usually spent here in the u.s., is to put it in the hands of the poorest people.

and spent money is money that can work its way into the hands of business owners. in theory, they should love the idea of taking money from the middle class who might save it or spend it on a vacation in a foreign land or on imports from another country, and putting it in the hands of people who are more likely to spend it on a product sold by an american business.

but instead of actual businesspeople, we have short-sighted, lazy, greedy fools who would rather cling to a nickle than actually earn a dollar.

[Lord Undies]

Oh, where to start?  This sounds like something three 13 year old boys would come up with during a backyard sleepover.

OK, I thought of one:  DUmbasses, how much do you think a loaf of bread will cost tomorrow if everyone can afford to buy ten loaves today?

(Basic economics.  No charge.)

[rich_t]

Don't we already have a GMI?

It's called the minimum wage. 

Oh wait...  That requires one to actually work for the money.  Never mind.

 

[Chris_]

Oh, where to start?  This sounds like something three 13 year old boys would come up with during a backyard sleepover.

OK, I thought of one:  DUmbasses, how much do you think a loaf of bread will cost tomorrow if everyone can afford to buy ten loaves today?

(Basic economics.  No charge.)

It is amazing how people pontificate on things upon which they have no knowledge.  This well-stated response summarizes all the arguments against this stupidity:

Great , they can go from a part/full time situation to a NO time situation and still live the same as the presently do

BTW, I will be posting thread soon, but I have decided to leave California for Texas because of the tax and budget situation.  Stay tuned, I hope to make it entertaining.

[rich_t]

Oh, where to start?  This sounds like something three 13 year old boys would come up with during a backyard sleepover.

OK, I thought of one:  DUmbasses, how much do you think a loaf of bread will cost tomorrow if everyone can afford to buy ten loaves today?

(Basic economics.  No charge.)

It is amazing how people pontificate on things upon which they have no knowledge.  This well-stated response summarizes all the arguments against this stupidity:

Great , they can go from a part/full time situation to a NO time situation and still live the same as the presently do

BTW, I will be posting thread soon, but I have decided to leave California for Texas because of the tax and budget situation.  Stay tuned, I hope to make it entertaining.

Congrats.  I love hear about folks self-paroling themselves out of kookyfornia.

 

[Chris_]

Oh, where to start?  This sounds like something three 13 year old boys would come up with during a backyard sleepover.

OK, I thought of one:  DUmbasses, how much do you think a loaf of bread will cost tomorrow if everyone can afford to buy ten loaves today?

(Basic economics.  No charge.)

It is amazing how people pontificate on things upon which they have no knowledge.  This well-stated response summarizes all the arguments against this stupidity:

Great , they can go from a part/full time situation to a NO time situation and still live the same as the presently do

BTW, I will be posting thread soon, but I have decided to leave California for Texas because of the tax and budget situation.  Stay tuned, I hope to make it entertaining.

Congrats.  I love hear about folks self-paroling themselves out of kookyfornia.

 :cheersmate:

Thanks -- I will miss the weather, but enough is enough. 

[Texacon]

Is this talking about what I think it is talking about?!  Is it posting about paying folks for doing nothing?  Really??

 

Ohkay.

KC

[rich_t]

They have weather in Texas too.  

HOT!

 

Seriously though.  I think you will like Texas once you get used to it.  Texans are a whole different breed of animal and they are for the most part great folks.

[Carl]

You just shake your head when you read these things.

How they do not understand just the basics of human nature given that they themselves spend every waking moment yearning for more money at a loss to someone else (the wealthy).

Give everyone a million dollars and within no time everything will cost a million dollars as people compete for the use of a product increasing its market value.

You don`t need a degree to understand how things work,just to look around and live life.

[miskie]

....Once again showing the world how badly they failed Economics 101....

[Zeus]

[ScubaGuy]

4. By providing income security and de-coupling basic survival from employment, a GMI will allow for much greater flexibility in employment arrangements, allowing employers and workers to explore departures from the traditional "full time/part time" model. By giving both employers and workers more genuine choice in their employment options, new jobs will be created which may not have been economically feasible before.

So I can finally get paid for sleeping by the lake, fishing and drinking beer?  WooHooooo....I'm in!

bean fidhleir  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Aug-18-08 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
30. Rather than redistribute money, it might be better to "de-profitize" the necessities of life
   
The model would be Medicare: take the profit out of water, food, clothing, shelter, health, edu, communication, and transport. Those are all utilities needed by everyone in urbanized cultures, so there is no defensible reason for anyone to make a private profit from them, and if providers aren't going to be part of the profit system, then we should take the risk out of them too (i.e., socialize the risk of crop failure, the cost of medical training and malpractice insurance, etc).

Make it easy for people to become nanoproviders by making community-owned tools available to all on a booking basis. So someone who has such a bumper crop that he even overwhelms the local grocer shops can bring his excess excess produce to a community kitchen where there's an industrial-quality pressure canner available. Or someone who has a new idea for a vehicle can bring her drawings to the community machine shop and work up a prototype. Someone who has a good eye for clothing and the ability to make a pattern can book the use of expensive speciality sewing equipment. Et almost endless cetera.

I think someone tried that idea, but I can't remember who....

patriotvoice  Donating Member  (752 posts) Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Tue Aug-19-08 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #30
63. Or socialize the profits.
   
An industry funded by the people should have the profits returned to the people. Take the military and defense contractors, for example. If Boeing receives 70% of its gross income from the military, 70% of the net profit should be immediately returned to the US Treasury.

(Of course then they'd just artificially raise the costs of everything -- payroll for the top heads, most likely. Suddenly they're making 2% profit and officers are making 100 times what they were.)

The stupid is really strong over there today.

[JohnnyReb]

Just one question, who's going to foot the bill? ...and don't say the rich because there won't be any "rich".

[LC EFA]

Just one question, who's going to foot the bill? ...and don't say the rich because there won't be any "rich".

DUmmies think that the government can just pluck money off a magical money tree. They don't concern themselves with where anything comes from unless it is the coffee they're drinking down at the Elite'n'meet Coffeehaus, or the big fat bag of crack rocks they just spent their welfare money on.

[ScubaGuy]

Just one question, who's going to foot the bill? ...and don't say the rich because there won't be any "rich".

That's easy.

JFN1  (879 posts) Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Tue Aug-19-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
75. What we really need is a maximum standard
   
Edited on Tue Aug-19-08 12:22 PM by JFN1
Why does ANYONE "need" a billion dollars? More than a minimum standard, we meed a maximum standard, whereby what an individual produces above the maximum is returned to society.

Crazy? Why?

Think about what changes this could produce - for one, it would temper this fascination with extreme wealth we all seem to carry with us. For another it would FORCE the wealthy to be socially responsible. And most of all, it would remove the specter of financial obesity from our culture, to be replaced with...well, I don't know what, but it has to be better than the simple pursuit of personal wealth - which is the entire focus of our culture now...

wuushew  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Aug-18-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #31
45. I actually don't agree with you on this point
   
Edited on Mon Aug-18-08 10:40 PM by wuushew
In my mind's eye I picture a wealth distribution curve for a given population. The left of the curve has a clear delimiter at zero under the current system. What is the the counter part to the right?

Is the overall wealth of the system increasing or static? Nothing limits the further accumulation of wealth under our current bracket system nor would it under a constantly increasing rate of taxation which asymptotically approaches 100%.

Steal it from the rich!