Kinja reply list

Read More
pre-emptive sighHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 3:32pm
Why would you have basic income and food stamps? Basic income is meant to cover the basics, presumably food and housing are pretty basic. It makes no sense to have redundant welfare programs if you have a basic income.
Reply
- Read More
  DisinterestedPasserbypre-emptive sigh
  5/31/16 3:36pm
  Seems like that would decrease the overall cost as well, if they didn’t have to administer a food stamp program.
  Reply
- Read More
  The Newmanpre-emptive sigh
  5/31/16 3:39pm
  You could probably get rid of food stamps if you got a UBI, because food isn’t ridiculously expensive.
  
  Medicare, on the other hand...
  Reply
Read More
M42Hamilton Nolan
5/31/16 3:31pm
A guaranteed basic income that’s enough to support someone will only create a massive number of young retirees.
Reply
- Read More
  DisinterestedPasserbyM42
  5/31/16 3:35pm
  Is that a problem? Serious question. If people didn’t have to hold on to their jobs because of a basic income and health care, maybe they’d go do something they really wanted to do (go back to school, start a business, whatever) and someone else could take that job, decreasing unemployment.
  Reply
- Read More
  LongSnakeM42
  5/31/16 3:36pm
  Unsubstantiated hogwash
  Reply
Read More
sizor_sisterHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 3:40pm
If you, like me, are someone who with socialist tendencies who believes in policies that redistribute wealth down the economic ladder, and are good-looking and likeable, the primary appeal of a basic income is that—yes—it will redistribute wealth down the economic ladder (somewhat imperfectly).

The problem with universal basic income is that it isn’t actually socialist. It doesn’t change the fact that the capitalist class is able to generate wealth through their ownership of the means of production. Their power is still very much in place. It’s simply a handout from those keeping their power. In fact the universal basic income might even exacerbate class divisions and capitalist exploitation because you could potentially end up with a firmly entrenched capitalist class making butt loads of money off automation, along with those receiving the universal basic income. And those who don’t work, (but still receive the meager basic income) lose all of their labor power, one of the few forms of power they might have.

If we’re serious about “socialism,” we need to stop talking about universal basic income because it really doesn’t alter the fundamental power dynamics of capitalism. It doesn’t strike at the heart of the capitalist class, nor does it usurp their power. We need to talk instead about workers (and all citizens) gaining control of economic systems so that it benefits everyone and not just the already rich.
Reply
- Read More
  Bulfrightsizor_sister
  5/31/16 3:46pm
  “All we are saying... is give Lenin a chance”
  Reply
- Read More
  CakewalkinDaddysizor_sister
  5/31/16 3:47pm
  We need to talk instead about workers (and all citizens) gaining control of economic systems so that it benefits everyone and not just the already rich.
  
  It’s been tried. Doesn’t work. It sucks. We have empirical proof. We can still talk about it and marvel at how unworkable it is. We should not actually try it anymore, because it doesn’t work.
  Reply
Read More
butcherbakertoiletrymakerHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 3:30pm
That’s okay, because Hillary is Fighting for Us. At least, that’s what she said, so it must be true. I mean, it’s not like she has a long and storied history of flip flopping on policies, right?
Reply
- Read More
  Sodding Junk Mailbutcherbakertoiletrymaker
  5/31/16 3:32pm
  I’m setting the over/under on how many times you’ve used that joke either online or live at 13.5
  Reply
- Read More
  AFSbutcherbakertoiletrymaker
  5/31/16 3:32pm
  Anyone not Bernie Sanders = a liar, apparently. How did we survive without him for this long, I wonder. O shining light!
  Reply
Read More
Cam/ronHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 3:35pm
The money may be for nothing but are the chicks for free?

Reply
- Read More
  dothedewCam/ron
  5/31/16 3:37pm
  Maybe get a blister on your little finger, maybe get a blister on your thumb
  Reply
- Read More
  EvenBaggierTrousers4Cam/ron
  5/31/16 3:48pm
  I just got hired as a microwave oven installation technician.
  Reply
Read More
J. LloydHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 4:45pm
Some of my friends and I have talked about the idea of universal basic income. I’m hopeful that it could happen in the future, but I don’t think it should replace any existing safety nets.

I’ve heard arguments that the idea could happen in response to technological advances (i.e. automation) replacing the need for many types of jobs. In a future where there are less jobs available, it would make sense to give people a guaranteed basic income so our consumer economy doesn’t collapse; remembering that giving regular people money to spend on food and other basic needs can only help the greater economy (via trickle-up economics).

I don’t enjoy seeing the argument that universal basic income would only create a massive number of young retirees. That assumes the worst in people, of course, but more than that it ignores that notion that people would want to work for a sense of self-worth. Wouldn’t people thrive in a society where they could pursue their interests and/or take chances on jobs without fear of becoming destitute?

Basic income might change the way people consider which type of job/career to pursue. Imagine the disgruntled worker that your path might cross on any given day. If they don’t like their job, why did they choose it? Obviously, we know they could be myriad reasons; maybe they thought they’d like the job at first, but after learning their dislike they stayed for the job security. Perhaps worse; they were two weeks away from an eviction and fear made the choice for them. Now imagine instead that this worker has their basic needs met, so they’re not pursuing work to feed their family, they’re pursuing work for a sense of self-worth and/or a future that they truly desire. Would they still be disgruntled? Or would they be happier? And if we could increase happiness across the board for all workers, what kind of unexpected benefits would we see in our society? It would be interesting to find out.
Reply
- Read More
  Carlos Danger is my spirit animalJ. Lloyd
  5/31/16 5:19pm
  I think an important question is, what happens if your hypothetical person decides they don’t like any of the jobs they are qualified for, and just decides not to work at all? Being an adult sucks, and sometimes, you hate your job. But if you’re responsible, you do it because you don’t have another option.
  
  Think about all the shitty jobs out there that people work to get by. If those people could get a check from the government every month that made sure they had enough to eat and a place to live, how many of them do you think would still do those jobs? Now, think about those jobs, and think about how your life would change if nobody did them. Sure, some of them we’d replace with robots and other technology, but it wouldn’t happen overnight.
  Reply
- Read More
  J. LloydCarlos Danger is my spirit animal
  5/31/16 6:16pm
  There are so-called dirty jobs that most people might not choose. If the need for those jobs can’t be solved by automation, then it would be important to raise wages for those jobs in order to attract applicants.
  
  Basic income isn’t going to make everyone content, or give everyone their dream house. It’s just a safety net so people can pursue the life they want without fear of becoming destitute.
  
  People will still want to live comfortably and afford their favorite amenities. Universal basic income is not going to be the cure-all. Assuming our culture doesn’t change, people will still want more and more of the things they want — and to afford those nice things, people will need more than universal basic income.
  
  I don’t think people will choose not to work at all, but they should have the choice without fear of starvation. Some would argue that people have an inherent need to feel a sense of self-worth, which would presumably be a major motivator (in lieu of fear).
  Reply
Read More
medrawtHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 3:57pm
Setting aside other concerns about feasibility and implementation:

I’m a left wing Democrat who literally works in administering a portion of the welfare state ... and to me, one of the points of UBI would be replacing, in large part, the sector of my employment.* The people we assist average incomes that are substantially below the poverty line; with a healthy UBI, continuing some of these programs starts to look like heavy-handed paternalism that doesn’t address the root causes of why they might be needed in the first place.

* But this opens the trapdoor into another difficult conversation about what kind of jobs there should be; the more of our jobs that are “bullshit jobs,” the more people who should ultimately be on UBI. Feasibility/implementation are pretty fucking hard!
Reply
Read More
PucksrHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 5:44pm
Hamilton, point #1 is sorta bullshit. The argument for a universal basic income(negative income tax or NIT) has always been that you offset the cost with increased taxes. For all earners above a certain threshold the taxes>NIT. For those beneath a certain threshold(poverty), taxes<NIT. The idea is always to make it a taxable portion of income. Any argument about it being better to give it only to the poor(like the EITC) or similar is just semantics. It might be easier to sell it in a different package, but it is the same net result.

Example: Poor Person:
Income: $20,000
NIT: $10,000
Taxes(15% before NIT): $3,000
Taxes ( 18% after NIT ) : $4,500
Net: $8.5k

Example: Doing Well Person
Income: $100,000
NIT: $10,000
Taxes(25% before NIT): $25,000
Taxes (30% after NIT ): $33000
Net: $2K

Example: Wealthy Person
Income: $250,000
NIT: $10,000
Taxes(33% before NIT): $82,500
Taxes(38% after NIT) : $98,800
Net: -$6.3K

It all depends on what is easier to sell. IF we could ever get rid of Grover Norquist, my idea actually makes perfect sense. The vast majority of people get a bit of a tax break, while we increase the taxes on the upper brackets. We could also use this as an opportunity to remove a lot of the deductions because we would be promising everyone the NIT.

As far as the discussion about it replacing social welfare, he has a point. It would be a bad idea to wholesale replace all social welfare programs with an NIT. It might not be the worst idea to REDUCE certain targeted social welfare programs if you implemented an NIT. Programs that target children are excellent social investments. We shouldn’t be getting rid of social investment programs. Programs that target the needy(like food stamps) might be able to be reduced, since an NIT specifically reduces the number of needy people.

Reply
Read More
Lawd_Henry_WottonHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 3:38pm
Genuine question - if a Universal Income is no longer universal, what makes it different than the other social welfare programs (assuming we had the option of expanding/enriching those programs)? The basic income idea gets tossed around here quite often, but if it’s never going to be universal, what are we really talking about?
Reply
Read More
XrdsAlumHamilton Nolan
5/31/16 3:50pm
“Might” be used to replace all other social welfare programs? “Doubtless” is more like it, because that would be one of the requirements movement conservatives would place on accepting a UBI (and they will be forced to accept it due to the outcome of their own policies).

Other conditions on UBI income: restrictions on how the monthly UBI is spent that will ensure most of the money is funneled back to large incumbent crony corporations and landlords, and a use-it-or-lose-it provision that will mean no ability to save or invest.
Reply