DUmp yearns for free money.

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026616700

Mon May 4, 2015, 06:19 AM

Star Member Recursion (37,866 posts)

Basic income: the world's simplest plan to end poverty, explained
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6003359/basic-income-negative-income-tax-questions-explain

"Basic income" is shorthand for a range of proposals that share the idea of giving everyone in a given polity a certain amount of money on a regular basis. A basic income comes with no categorical eligibility requirements; you don't have to be blind or disabled or unemployed to get it. Everyone gets the same amount by virtue of being a human with material needs that money can help address.

There are a number of different names this idea has gone by over the years. "Universal basic income" and "basic income guarantee" are used frequently. "Guaranteed minimum income" and "negative income tax" are generally used to refer to versions of the plan that also impose a tax that gradually eats up the cash transfer, as a means of reducing the cost of the policy. "Demogrant" was popular in the '70s, and "citizens' dividend" and "social wage" get used from time to time.

Who supports a basic income? Surprising people! Arguably the biggest popularizer of the idea in the 20th century was libertarian economist Milton Friedman, who specifically favored a negative income tax as a replacement for much of the welfare state. Many left-of-center economists, like James Tobin and John Kenneth Galbraith, were also on board. More recently, Emmanuel Saez and Jonathan Gruber, two of the most influential left-leaning economists currently working, argued that an ideal tax system would feature a "large demogrant."

Martin Luther King Jr. endorsed the idea in his book Where to Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, writing, "I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective—the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income." Activists and scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven authored an influential article in The Nation in 1966 which called for a national movement of the poor with the intended goal of achieving a basic income. More academically, left philosophers and intellectuals like Erik Olin Wright, Peter Frase, Carole Pateman, Antonio Negri, and Michael Hardt and in particular Philippe Van Parijs have written in favor of the idea.

This idea gets surprisingly high traction among my conservative friends. Replace SNAP, TANF, SS, SSI/SSDI, Section 8, etc. (what is and isn't "etc." will have to be hammered out -- ACA subsidies? Student loans? Farm benefits?) with a guaranteed universal income for everyone.

There are different ways to do it (make it literally universal; make it universal for people earning less than it otherwise; etc.) But it also takes the social safety net out of the hands of meddling conservatives who like to do things like prevent SNAP recipients from buying beans.

In the '72 campaign, the difference between Nixon and McGovern was on the size of their proposed basic income programs. This still has pull on both sides of the aisle if we can get over the NIH syndrome.

GIMME!!!

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon May 4, 2015, 07:05 AM

The2ndWheel (6,809 posts)
1. It'll happen eventually, but it's a last resort kind of thing

Keep making more and more people not really needed, and it's either this, or a lot more angry people. It won't solve every problem though, as is usually the case with money. We won't all turn into creative artists because of all our new found freedom.

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon May 4, 2015, 07:37 AM

Erich Bloodaxe BSN (7,887 posts)
2. I used to be among the folks who believed it should be set up such that

you only got what took you up to whatever the minimum is. Ie, if you made a minimum income of $25k a year, and a person made 10k that year, you gave them another 15k. But that does have several problems. First, it makes the system logistically more difficult, with some central agency (IRS, I guess) having to individually address each person's situation, and it also leaves the Republicans something to whine about in terms of 'poor people getting special treatment', as well as the Paul-type whines about how such benefits 'disincentivize work', because you lose benefits if you earn too much working.

So I guess I've evolved on the tactics of employing a basic income, to simply giving every person a direct deposit type account, and simply crediting it every 2 weeks.

DUmbasses and economics are like fire and water.

Response to merrily (Reply #4)

Mon May 4, 2015, 09:43 AM

whatthehey (681 posts)
10. Another difference being trillions of dollars

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)
Let's say we set our minimum income at 20k per adult, a bare sustainability. That's about 75% or 240 million people so we would need 4.8T annually just to pay minimum income, raising the entire Federal budget 30% before we spennd a dime on education, infrastructure, defense, payroll, bond interest, whatever. Essentially we would have to double revenue to make this ecven vaguely feasible.

If instead we cover a minimum income up to 20k per year, the math gets much trickier but spitballing a curve where 9% have an income below 5k, 26% below 10k and 51% below 20k (2010 numbers best I could find) you would need to give, approx the following

5% get all 20k

another 5% get average of 17.5 k

Another 16% get average of 12.5k

Another 25% get average of 5k


dollars respectively would be

320B

280B

667B

400B

for a total of 1.7T give or take. Still a massive lump, but if it replaces all welfare and entitlement programs the latest numbers I have seen are at 1.35T so not a massive difference. Of course there will need to be admin costs, but not a huge burden.

Personally I would suggest a very slightly more expensive approach to incentivize work as a preferrable option.

We will guarantee 20k income, but for every dollar you earn up to 30k we only reduce that benefit by 67c. So make 10k in income and your 20k benefits will reduce by $6700 so you still get $23,300 total. Make 20k in income and your benefits reduce by 13400 so you get $26,600. You're only on your own above 30k. I don't have the detailed data to do the math, but shouldn't shift anywhere near the first figure, or even to half of it.

EDIT. I accidentally ocverstated the cost of my up-to example by using single filer data rather than all filers. So the difference between giving everybody 20k and everybody enough to take them up to 20k is even more significant than I show above. The former is simply unrealistic in tte extreme.

Now just stop with trying to be somewhat logical.

Response to whatthehey (Reply #10)

Mon May 4, 2015, 10:25 AM

Star Member jeff47 (16,292 posts)
14. Keep in mind taxes can recover the funds.

Give everyone $20k (or whatever the floor is). Set up the tax structure to recover that $20k for people who make more than whatever your threshold you'd like. Recover it all by $30k income, or recover most by $30k and gradually get back the rest by $75k.

It effectively becomes an interest-free loan to people above your minimum threshold. Kinda like the interest-free loan most people give the IRS via withholding on their paycheck ("Woo hoo! I'm getting back $1000 from my tax refund" means you loaned the government $1000 at 0% interest)

This allows for the scaling scenario you describe, as well as keeping it universal so that it is not as demonized. In other words, you make it like Social Security instead of welfare.

Automation means we're going to need something like this sooner rather than later. We can't run an economy entirely by selling services to each other.

Response to merrily (Reply #3)

Mon May 4, 2015, 08:53 AM

Star Member lovemydog (5,895 posts)
7. You also have leftist friends, like me, who support it.

The way I understand it (and certainly would advocate) the rich would not get it. You simply set an amount of net worth and annual income that would say whether you qualify for it that year or not. If it's law it's law. Are you arguing that the more complex it is to get welfare, the better it is for anyone trying to obtain it because it's harder to do away with it?

If you have a left-wing friend who supports hiking outside because it's healthy and a right-wing friend who supports hiking outside because it's healthy, do you oppose hiking because someone you don't like or trust supports it?

Response to lovemydog (Reply #9)

Mon May 4, 2015, 09:48 AM

Star Member merrily (18,800 posts)
12. ? I don't state my net worth on my federal income tax form every year.

Response to merrily (Reply #12)

Mon May 4, 2015, 01:54 PM

Star Member lovemydog (5,895 posts)
45. My bad.

Maybe it should be included and taxed, for everyone whose net worth is over a certain amount like say $2 million. Personally I think in addition to raising the minimum wage and tying it to cost of living, we should have a maximum net worth or at least a huge tax on billionaires, in the 80-90% range. I know this may sound like wishful thinking. But that's kind of what we're doing here on this thread. It's fun to speculate. I'd eliminate taxes on all but those who are worth over a certain amount like say $1 million. Increasing taxes on the rest of them (depending on how much you tax them) would bring in more revenue than ever. Particularly if we eliminate tax exemptions for religious organizations.

Of course people would just stay and take that,well maybe if you put up a big wall like there was in Germany.

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon May 4, 2015, 08:45 AM

Star Member lovemydog (5,895 posts)
5. I'm in favor of basic income.

Make it simple. Not a 1,000 page document with a thousand exceptions. Make it X amount (let's say $1,000 per month). If your net worth is over X amount (let's say $200,000) or you make over X amount that year (let's say $24,000), you don't qualify that year.

There's tremendous social benefits to this, and it wouldn't discourage anyone from working. We have enough wealth in this country to cover it without increasing the deficit. It would help reduce the deficit if it's coupled with peacetime rates of military spending and taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income.

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon May 4, 2015, 10:23 AM

aspirant (1,283 posts)
13. Gradual process

Raise the cap on SS, guarantee $15,000-20,000/year for everyone with those making $20,000 and over exempt since they are already receiving the basic income.

Slowly lower the retirement age starting at 55 then gradually decrease to 30 opening up more jobs for those that choose work. The SS system is already set-up to handle this.

Who determined you must work half your life before you can retire and find your true labors of love?

The corporatists have power with an abundance of labor while the people have the power with an abundance of jobs

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon May 4, 2015, 11:15 AM

Lee-Lee (1,789 posts)
21. So simple a solution

If I had a minimum income of 20k that would be amazing.

I have a home I am fortunate enough to own and want to live in again some day, but have to rent out now because I have to be elsewhere for employment.

On that land I can garden and raise probably 70% of my food- I've done it before. I have a well there, and the home was built in the 50's around wood heat and does very well. My only bills would be electricity and taxes.

I could retire right now at 42. Grow my own food, maybe have solar to cut my power bill even more, a 20k income would leave me with great subsidies buying health care on the exchanges. That 20k would buy the food I can't grow and pay for more than I need to live comfortably. I could do my ebay and etsy stuff on my spare time when I wanted some spare cash.

Lazy,useless mother****ers.

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon May 4, 2015, 12:04 PM

MichMan (6 posts)
31. Minimum wage needs to be much higher for this to work

Very appealing idea in many ways. Going to be very difficult to get it passed besides the expected responses from the right. I think the fact that the current poverty programs would be eliminated would also cause a lot of pushback from unionized employees like HUD and SNAP who would not be needed, and also for those who profit from the programs for the impoverished at the federal, state and local levels.

Also, unless the minimum wage is increased substantially (which we all favor), I think it provides ammunition for those who will claim it is a disincentive for working. If the GUI is $20K, wouldn't someone making let's say $25K who must pay for transportation, child care and work all those hours at a job they don't enjoy decide to just accept the minimum GUI?

Response to MichMan (Reply #31)

Mon May 4, 2015, 12:17 PM

aspirant (1,283 posts)
33. If the $25,000 payer

is unhappy just take the 20k and retire.

Unhappy people don't lift society up, their complaints drag us down. Plus tension stress and anxiety lead to increased health care costs

When the American people can pursue labors of love, everyone benefits.

No DUmbass,those you are taking from might just decide your life isn`t worth the 20k.
Understand?

Response to aspirant (Reply #34)

Mon May 4, 2015, 01:22 PM

Star Member upaloopa (6,605 posts)
40. Nobody who is for this on DU has any idea

of the total mechanics of this idea!
Give me an economist not someone who dreams of getting a guaranteed income.
There are costs which nobody ever talks about

Response to upaloopa (Reply #40)

Mon May 4, 2015, 01:35 PM

aspirant (1,283 posts)
42. Is it just to complicated for us

ordinary dreaming people?

We have to hand over everything to the intelligent crowd?

Didn't Hank Paulson present a 1 or 2 page bill to bailout our whole economy when it crashed?

SHUT UP AND GIMME!!!!

I really grow to despise these idiotic parasites more and more every day.

[FiddyBeowulf]

Dragnet knew DUmmies.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-C9qv-ttM[/youtube]

[Gina]

   OK. IF everyone one in the US was given the exact same amount of money to live off of there will always be ambitious people that have good ole American Ingeniuty.  They would start having more money than the "poor" because of saving or creating and it would all be set forth again in 200 years where you would have rich and you would have poor.  Duh. 

[Gina]

I'm so glad my grandfather is not alive to see what they are saying.  He would think he woke up in France or Greece.

[J P Sousa]

The DUmmies love their commie dream.

 

[miskie]

  OK. IF everyone one in the US was given the exact same amount of money to live off of there will always be ambitious people that have good ole American Ingeniuty.  They would start having more money than the "poor" because of saving or creating and it would all be set forth again in 200 years where you would have rich and you would have poor.  Duh. 

Actually, It'll happen all by itself, ingenuity not required. The laws of "Supply and Demand" will fix it such that bottom earners cash only buys the basics, and the 'Global' marketplace that Democrats love so much will accelerate that decline.

For lurking DUmbasses, here it is -as simple as I can make it.

A bottom earner receives 'X' a year. An employee worth twice that earns '2X', five times that '5X' etc etc. So, lets say the average 'middle class' American earns 3X a year, okay ? If one produces a product that has features that a 3X earner is willing to pay for, one will set the price such that it fits in a 3X budget. - that same producer also needs to find talent to make that 3X earner product - so that producer is going to have to pay salaries worthy of that talent, squeezing their bottom line. So, either the producer will need to hire fewer people at a higher rate, or go the other way and outsource it like Apple does. -Dropping a bunch of people down to 'X' who would otherwise be earning a multiple of X. 

Eventually though, it will all balance out - what will happen is more dollars will enter circulation, increasing supply which drops demand, and with it value. - meaning that a 'living' wage will soon be worth the same proportionally as unemployment is today.

When it comes to international trade however - the leveling will happen much, much faster. More dollars in circulation means each dollar is worth less. So, when Japan exports a product to the US, they want enough dollars to convert into the amount of Yen the product is worth. So, that $600 Playstation will very quickly become an $800 Playstation, so that Sony gets the same amount of Yen in the end.

In very short order, items that can't be afforded today by the unemployed will be the same items that cant be afforded by 'living' wage earners.

[freedumb2003b]

:rotf:  OK. IF everyone one in the US was given the exact same amount of money to live off of there will always be ambitious people that have good ole American Ingeniuty.  They would start having more money than the "poor" because of saving or creating and it would all be set forth again in 200 years where you would have rich and you would have poor.  Duh.  :thatsright:

Weeks like last and this (I worked over 70 hours last week and have worked 30 hours this week already) and 20K handed to me for not doing jack sounds attractive.

But I already figured out to retire I will need about $1.7 Million -- which I will have in about 6 years.  Unless I have many more weeks like this.  Then I will just be dead and my Life Insurance will take care of my wife + current retirement and savings for the rest of her life.

[Gina]

Weeks like last and this (I worked over 70 hours last week and have worked 30 hours this week already) and 20K handed to me for not doing jack sounds attractive.

But I already figured out to retire I will need about $1.7 Million -- which I will have in about 6 years.  Unless I have many more weeks like this.  Then I will just be dead and my Life Insurance will take care of my wife + current retirement and savings for the rest of her life.

One of my proudest items in my life is my life insurance policy that will payout to my family. They will be richer.  Hopefully no taxes get taken from it somehow.

[freedumb2003b]

One of my proudest items in my life is my life insurance policy that will payout to my family. They will be richer.  Hopefully no taxes get taken from it somehow.

MUI Life Insurance is not taxed.

[obumazombie]

Response to MichMan (Reply #31)

Mon May 4, 2015, 12:17 PM

aspirant (1,283 posts)
33. If the $25,000 payer

is unhappy just take the 20k and retire.

Unhappy people don't lift society up, their complaints drag us down. Plus tension stress and anxiety lead to increased health care costs

When the American people can pursue labors of love, everyone benefits.

Without the unhappy people, there will be no need of community agitators.
Maybe community agitating will have to evolve along with it.

[Gina]

MUI Life Insurance is not taxed.

and they can't get it later on when your taxes are filed? like a windfall or estate tax?

[GOBUCKS]

and they can't get it later on when your taxes are filed? like a windfall or estate tax?

Nope. And for a married couple the estate tax doesn't kick in until you go past $11 million.

[98ZJUSMC]

This idea gets surprisingly high traction among my conservative friends.    Yeah, I'll bet

Like him? .... Her? ......  It?

[diesel driver]

Like him? .... Her? ......  It?

Looks like a cross between Jabba the Hutt and a leprachan.   

[freedumb2003b]

Looks like a cross between Jabba the Hutt and a leprachan.   

Jabba o'Reilly?

[thundley4]

Like him? .... Her? ......  It?

I did a Google image search that picture.

Best guess for this image: fat ugly ginger

[Big Dog]

Looks like a cross between Jabba the Hutt and a leprachan.   

It's Steve Dawes' Irish cousin, Paddy O'Neckpubes.

[Gina]

Nope. And for a married couple the estate tax doesn't kick in until you go past $11 million.

That's awesome!