I agree it's probably not enough but I cannot think of anything else that can change our dash to extinction.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 9:50 amAre you suggesting, then, that education can help us overcome our intrinsic greed? Is there any evidence for this? The hippies who betrayed all their principles as they grew up and assumed positions of power within society were educated people. They were the first generation who realised consciously the damage their greed was doing to the environment. Did their education and understanding have an effect? Yes: they consumed even more, even faster. I don't think education, beneficial though it is in other ways, is effective in this.
What do you think about Basic Income?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: What do you think about Basic Income?
-
- Posts: 429
- Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am
Re: What do you think about Basic Income?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 9:53 am by Pattern-chaser » April 20th, 2020, 2:53 pm
Greta wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 6:29 am
There is nowhere near enough tax income to cover a UBI.
There are two possible responses to this, assuming it's accurate (?). The first is not to pay UBI. The second is to increase tax income so that UBI can be paid.
Pattern-chaser have you sullied your soul by considering matters monetary?
I suggest if you have an interest in politics such matters are not easily avoided, though you may have to hold your nose! If I am right, best to be clear about what money is and where it comes from or you can end up running down blind alleys.
If you can bear it I recommend you swallow an anti-nausea drug and look at the thread “Where does money come from?” I know, I know, but no-one on this board has presented a coherent argument against the explanation of money creation presented by modern monetary theory and I am quite persuaded by it.
You will see it is argued that tax is not needed to pay for anything, future generations need to have no fear of government debt and the idea that the level of American debt held by China is a deep cause for concern is often somewhat exaggerated.
This from Bill Mitchell:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=35102
….in relation to the rising foreign share is that you cannot conclude that the foreigners (China, Japan etc) are ‘funding’ the US government. The US government is the only government that issues US currency so it is impossible for the Chinese to ‘fund’ US government spending.
For example, China will automatically accumulate US-dollar denominated claims as a result of it running a current account surplus against the US. These claims are held within the US banking system somewhere and can manifest as US-dollar deposits or interest-bearing bonds. The difference is really immaterial to US government spending and in an accounting sense just involves adjustments in the banking system.
The accumulation of these US-dollar denominated assets is the ‘reward’ that the Chinese (or other foreigners) get for shipping real goods and services to the US (principally) in exchange for less real goods and services from the US. Given real living standards are based on access to real goods and services, you can work out who is on top (from a macroeconomic perspective).
As a proponent of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), I do not consider there to be a public debt problem in the US so the analysis presented here is out of interest rather than establishing anything substantive.
However, what it shows is that even within the voluntarily-constrained system that regulates the relationship between the US treasury and the central bank, the latter can still effectively buy as much US government debt as it likes.
Similarly, this from R. Wray:
https://neweconomicperspectives.org/201 ... d-mmt.html
Our deficit hysterians love to raise the specter of China. Supposedly Uncle Sam is at the mercy of the Chinese, who have a stranglehold on the supply of dollars necessary to keep the US government above water. If the Chinese suddenly decided to stop lending those scare dollars, Uncle Sam would be forced to default.
Can anyone, please, explain to me how the sovereign issuer of the US dollar—Uncle Sam—could ever run out of his supply of dollars? Please, give me one coherent explanation of how that could happen.
And please explain to me how China got those dollars in the first place. So far as I know, every single dollar the Chinese have comes from the USA. There are two sources: US lending and US spending. China loves the second: Chinese work hard to produce stuff to sell to America so they can get dollars.
Folks, all the dollars the Chinese have came from the US. There is no net supply of dollars from China.
They get dollars from net exports to the US. These end up at the Bank of China. The Bank of China rationally prefers to earn interest on dollar holdings, so these are converted to US treasuries. This is nothing more than a balance sheet operation on the books of the Fed: Bank of China reserves at the Fed are debited and Bank of China treasuries are credited. There’s no net flow of dollars to the US Treasury.
I recognize that my recommendation that you consider getting to grips with the old filthy lucre is likely unwelcome. I think it matters though. Particularly in an age when there is so much ignorance about such issues, and people (esp. politicians) shy away from investing at scale in green technologies on account of the cost, as if we can really afford to do anything else!
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What do you think about Basic Income?
Yes.
And now you've compounded my shame by pointing it out!
As for the rest of your post: I take your point.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: What do you think about Basic Income?
I haven't read the thread, so sorry if I'm repeating stuff.gad-fly wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 6:31 pm Basic income, also called universal basic income (UBI), citizen's income, citizen's basic income in the United Kingdom, basic income guarantee in the United States and Canada, or basic living stipend or guaranteed annual income or universal demogrant, is a governmental public program for a periodic payment delivered to all on an individual basis without means test or work requirement. What is called in Canada and USA being more descriptive, I would coin the general term as BIG, for basic income guarantee.
BIG has in recent years advanced to become the avant-garde of the welfare state, which may not necessarily be socialist, although it cannot be denied that BIG must be rooted in Socialism. That BIG can impose wider consequence than unemployment benefit and social welfare is apparent. I would suggest that it would tamper with our social fabric to an unknown extent. Hence we should exercise extreme care and concern before wading in further, lest like Pandora's Box the BIG beast may grow too big to kill. Let me declare at this stage that I am not against it in principle.
I would invite your comment on three areas. First, how much can BIG be justified, when one is forced to share what one reaps with another who has not sowed, even if one is allowed to retain a bigger share? What right has one to live on the sweat of another's brow? Second, what is B in BIG? Apparently Basic must exceed Subsistence, which would be above Poor, but does it equate with Comfortable, in which case how much is Comfortable? Should it include an annual weekly cruise to the Caribbean Sea, or family Christmas tree with turkey dinner? Third, can we afford BIG, bearing in mind that the margin for Basic, once set, can only expand but not deflate, as the demand for the degree of comfort can only grow, like minimum wage? One problem with BIG is the unpredictable demand for BIG once it is open to all. If I don't care about luxury, why should I bother to sweat for marginally more? If so, who would hunt to feed the pack, which would then starve until extinction.
As far as I know Finland is the only place which has given this a serious go so far, with mixed results. So that's the place to start looking at how the the pros and cons pan out in practice.
In the UK we have a ridulously complex welfare system, a mix of means-tested benefits, ones you gain entitlement to via payments into National Insurance, and ones geared toward specific circs like illness and disability, maternity, death benefits, etc. Entitlement to some, often having a bearing on entitlement or value of others, just to add to the mess. Some taxable, some not, some ignoring capital and assets, some not.
It's a mess. And every government vows to reform and simplify it, only realising what a minefield that can, what unintended consequences it can have, once people start shouting about how the changes have devastated them (the latest attempt at simplification, Universal Credit, is the most recent example).
So at first sight Basic Income Guarantee looks beautifully simple. And cheap and easy to administer. But having worked in Welfare Rights, and previously at an advice centre trying to sort the real life consequences on individuals' lives, I have mixed feelings. I've come to realise that the mess and complexity of the UK system is largely to do with trying to cater appropriately to those who most need support, being flexible to changes in people's lives, and rewarding those who have chipped in through taxation. Well, not so much when the Tories are in power, but that's the theoretical advantage of a messy system like ours.
The disadvantages are more obvious to those looking at it from the outside, it's incredibly bureaucratic, slow and expensive to administer and prone to cock-ups. And often people don't have a clue exactly what they're entitled to, resulting in significant underclaiming, and wary of claiming one thing might rebound in unexpected ways. Forms are complicated and off-putting, mistakes by claimants and administrators are commonplace.
So I don't know. I'm open to it, but I agree we need to be cautious. Is it affordable, does it overall motivate or de-motivate economic engagement, will people accept it as fair? Will it enhance people's quality of life? Help us manage the automation revolution? What are our objectives and red lines?
Lets look at Finland. And lets have as a baseline that it achieves what we decide we want from it, and that the worst off and most vulnerable are at least as well off as they are now.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: What do you think about Basic Income?
It helps a lot to have someone like you with Welfare Rights experience joining the debate. It must be demanding going through the thread at this stage, but I would nevertheless invite you to scan through somewhat.Gertie wrote: ↑April 24th, 2020, 9:09 pm
I haven't read the thread, so sorry if I'm repeating stuff.
As far as I know Finland is the only place which has given this a serious go so far, with mixed results. So that's the place to start looking at how the the pros and cons pan out in practice.
In the UK we have a ridulously complex welfare system, a mix of means-tested benefits, ones you gain entitlement to via payments into National Insurance, and ones geared toward specific circs like illness and disability, maternity, death benefits, etc. Entitlement to some, often having a bearing on entitlement or value of others, just to add to the mess. Some taxable, some not, some ignoring capital and assets, some not.
It's a mess. And every government vows to reform and simplify it, only realising what a minefield that can, what unintended consequences it can have, once people start shouting about how the changes have devastated them (the latest attempt at simplification, Universal Credit, is the most recent example).
So at first sight Basic Income Guarantee looks beautifully simple. And cheap and easy to administer. But having worked in Welfare Rights, and previously at an advice centre trying to sort the real life consequences on individuals' lives, I have mixed feelings. I've come to realise that the mess and complexity of the UK system is largely to do with trying to cater appropriately to those who most need support, being flexible to changes in people's lives, and rewarding those who have chipped in through taxation. Well, not so much when the Tories are in power, but that's the theoretical advantage of a messy system like ours.
The disadvantages are more obvious to those looking at it from the outside, it's incredibly bureaucratic, slow and expensive to administer and prone to cock-ups. And often people don't have a clue exactly what they're entitled to, resulting in significant underclaiming, and wary of claiming one thing might rebound in unexpected ways. Forms are complicated and off-putting, mistakes by claimants and administrators are commonplace.
So I don't know. I'm open to it, but I agree we need to be cautious. Is it affordable, does it overall motivate or de-motivate economic engagement, will people accept it as fair? Will it enhance people's quality of life? Help us manage the automation revolution? What are our objectives and red lines?
Lets look at Finland. And lets have as a baseline that it achieves what we decide we want from it, and that the worst off and most vulnerable are at least as well off as they are now.
In January 2017, Finland launched a first-of-its-kind basic income trial, the first by a European government. For two years, 2,000 randomly chosen unemployed citizens would receive a tax-free, no-strings-attached monthly payment of €560 ($690) from the government to test the viability of basic income. With eight months still left in its two-year-long trial of universal basic income, the nation’s government has told Kela, the Finnish social security agency, it will not expand the project. Finland might give a universal credit trial a go once the basic income project officially ends.
A universal credit is a single social security payment that replaces several once-distinct benefits, such as income support or child welfare. How much money a person gets in that payment depends on a person’s income — those who earn more money receive less in their credit. This tiered payment system eliminated an argument long wielded by opponents of UBI: It wouldn’t disincentive people from seeking employment. However, a universal credit would include one of the logistical benefits of UBI: a single, streamlined payment for all uses. The United Kingdom introduced a universal credit in 2013, so Finland has an example to consider while designing its own universal credit trial.
The argument for universal credit and against UBI is apparent. It would not disincentive employment, and it can be seen to be fair by benefiting according to need, such that the well-off presumably would not be benefited. I cannot understand why it is termed 'universal'. It may be another name for Basic Income Guarantee (GBI or BIG). More recently than in Finland, a pilot BIG Project was undertaken in Ontario, with half of the income deducted from benefit. I would recommend it more taken as the baseline. The Canadian government appears to have dismissed it on the federal scale by citing the cost of C$43 billion, but this amount being unaffordable has been dwarfed by $73 billion to pay 75% wage to affected employees during the pandemic.
I
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023