SENATE BILL: Basic Income Guarantee (Law'd)

[TNF]

Its immoral of course. But either way, you'd have to be extremely naive to think that the so-called rich wouldn't just find a way around it (not that its an efficient way to raise revenue as it is).

It's immoral to prevent the continuation of an immoral movement of wealth from parasites to their parasitic offspring, who haven't worked a day in their lives for the money they're being given by their parents?

[Napoleon]

Its immoral to call people parasites and make ridiculous assumptions.

[TNF]

Its immoral to call people parasites and make ridiculous assumptions.

I regard any person who lives off of the labor of others, be it in the present, or in the case of the Hiltons, Waltons, etc., the past, as a parasite. They and those who manipulate the labor market to their own advantage, rendering them free from work and toil, while condemning millions to poverty or substandard wages, are nothing less than parasitic.

[Sbane]

Why is the estate tax immoral? If anything, someone getting millions in inheritance is what is immoral.

[TNF]

Why is the estate tax immoral? If anything, someone getting millions in inheritance is what is immoral.

[TJ in Oregon]

I am of the opinion that if this is indeed enacted, it should replace all other forms of government poverty assistance and needs an exponentially decaying benefit for individuals earning money so that the work incentive is not lost.

Thus I am proposing the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The described formula looks like this when plotted:

[TJ in Oregon]

Key question, though: Would you be willing to sign the bill if it is amended as you propose?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure but leaning against. I'm arguing with myself over whether or not a basic income itself is a more effective safety net than food stamps and subsidized housing.  I worry that giving a basic income would just inspire people to waste it rather than use it for basic needs. On the flip side, a basic income would give them more room to find ways of saving money on those needs and potentially use it for permanent improvements.

I also think a conversation with the CBO Adam Griffin to make sure this is actually fiscally feasible. I'm also not quite sold on the $10k. It seems too high, and with such a high bar even though I tried to fix the incentives some, still a person earning $10k would only take home $2,338.49 more than someone earning zero.

In short I'm not sure, but I can guarantee I wouldn't vote for this bill as is.

[MaxQue]

I have a question. Why the Basic Income and the Housing measures seems mutually exclusive?

[TJ in Oregon]

I have a question. Why the Basic Income and the Housing measures seems mutually exclusive?

They are mutually exclusive because the entire point of providing a basic income is so people can have basic necessities like housing. If we're going to provide all the basic necessities, what's the point of having a basic income?

[Sec. of State Superique]

Key question, though: Would you be willing to sign the bill if it is amended as you propose?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure but leaning against. I'm arguing with myself over whether or not a basic income itself is a more effective safety net than food stamps and subsidized housing.  I worry that giving a basic income would just inspire people to waste it rather than use it for basic needs. On the flip side, a basic income would give them more room to find ways of saving money on those needs and potentially use it for permanent improvements.

I also think a conversation with the CBO Adam Griffin to make sure this is actually fiscally feasible. I'm also not quite sold on the $10k. It seems too high, and with such a high bar even though I tried to fix the incentives some, still a person earning $10k would only take home $2,338.49 more than someone earning zero.

In short I'm not sure, but I can guarantee I wouldn't vote for this bill as is.

Well TJ, what I can tell to you is that one of the greatest economists of the last century, Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax because he considered that it would be much more efficient than any welfare program.

 If you take a look at your own amendment, the Basic Income Guarantee turns out on something pretty similar with Friedman's Guaranteed Minimum Income. It gives incentives to people to work and it provides citizens with some kind of support to pursue a way out of poverty.

However, I think that we can come up with a more understandable formula and a more simpler one...

[Sbane]

I would just like to point out that the EITC, something we already have implemented, works sort of like a negative income tax. I think expanding it might be the best way to go. I don't think I can support giving a basic income to someone who doesn't even work.

[MaxQue]

I would just like to point out that the EITC, something we already have implemented, works sort of like a negative income tax. I think expanding it might be the best way to go. I don't think I can support giving a basic income to someone who doesn't even work.

Don't blame unemployed people for not working. There is people which would like to work, but they don't because there is no jobs avaliable, because no one wants to hire them (they are "too old", wrong ethnicity, they have an handicap, their health is too weak to maintain a constant employment...) or just because they don't find. You are the regional Senator for Pacific, the unemployment in your region is 14.8%, so complaining than people don't work is a bit surprising.

[Sbane]

Unemployed people need to be given unemployment checks. Those unemployment checks should be tied to programs that encourage self development, resume building, education etc. If even that doesn't work, then maybe they need to get disability if they are "too old" or if they are too sick to work (basically why disability insurance was created). I don't think able bodied adults should be given a check for $10,000 for sitting on their ass. I would rather they go out there and bag groceries or something if they cannot find anything else. Perhaps we need to rethink whether it is wise to have such a high minimum wage. A lower minimum wage with a more robust EITC would appeal to me even more.

As for my region, we have high unemployment because of a certain incident. Also we have implemented policies in the past like banning cars which have wreaked havoc on our economy leading to higher structural unemployment.

[MaxQue]

Sure, let's send them bag groceries to a very low wage, which is in fact so low than they are still entitled to government benefits. Government job isn't subsidize the wages of corporations which aren't paying enough their employees. Also, if we could absorb unemployment by making people do small jobs, we would be aware, some country would have tried.

And how disability applys to "too old" people? They have no issue, except than corporations are recident to hire old people since they'll retire soon and are more likely to have health issues.

[MaxQue]

Perhaps I'm breaking a decades-old taboo, but we should should stop aiming full employment.

We did didn't had full employment since WWII. Neither the Western world had it. Sure, one can say me than East Germany had it, but the government just hired people to make useless jobs in order to have good unemployment numbers.

Full employment is an utopy.

[Sbane]

Then we should ensure that these people really are unemployable before handing them a check. Under this bill, a couple without kids would have $20,000 a year without doing anything. In many places you can get an apartment for around $600 a month and food doesn't cost that much. People could conceivably live on that income....so where is the incentive to work?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Perhaps I'm breaking a decades-old taboo, but we should should stop aiming full employment.

We did didn't had full employment since WWII. Neither the Western world had it. Sure, one can say me than East Germany had it, but the government just hired people to make useless jobs in order to have good unemployment numbers.

Full employment is an utopy.

Actually we did have full employment at various points depending how you define it.

I don't see the math on this working out unless it is some kind of minimum threshold that the Gov't supplements people's earned incomes to get people up to. That is basically what I recommended to Nix via PM. That we take the various things we have, consolidate and/or coordinate them towards acheiving a certain minimum target.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Then we should ensure that these people really are unemployable before handing them a check. Under this bill, a couple without kids would have $20,000 a year without doing anything. In many places you can get an apartment for around $600 a month and food doesn't cost that much. People could conceivably live on that income....so where is the incentive to work?

Well if we'd stop with the cyclical amnesties and the resulting wage depression, the minimum wage probably could be lower...but considering the situation at hand $9 to $10 is probably necessary...oh yes, Atlasia.

What range would you prefer as the ideal target and what annual income does that bring in. Of course you also have a variable based on how many hours they work, to consider.

[TNF]

Ending other social assistance programs is very unwise unless the basic income guarantee we're talking about is a very large sum; we still need things like food stamps, housing assistance, etc. in addition to a basic income. Gutting the former in favor of the latter will make the latter effectively worthless, a terrible substitute for an already awful welfare system.

[Sbane]

A progressive payroll tax or expanded EITC are what I think we should do. Providing a basic income for those in an unpaid internship is also appealing, but I think it would be ripe for abuse.

[Gass3268]

Ending other social assistance programs is very unwise unless the basic income guarantee we're talking about is a very large sum; we still need things like food stamps, housing assistance, etc. in addition to a basic income. Gutting the former in favor of the latter will make the latter effectively worthless, a terrible substitute for an already awful welfare system.

I too am nervous of the idea of getting rid of the social safety net. I understand getting rid some of the tax benefits like EITC, but this may go to far. 

[MaxQue]

Well, obviously some benefits will be replaced. It's a new kind of benefits, which will replace other ones and modify others. But, no, that's not a reason to destroy the rest of the social net.

And 10,000$ is quite low to make an whole year, let's suppose a rent of 500/month, we already spent 6000$, so there is 4000$ left. A normal person should spend 75$/2 weeks on food, so 75x26= 1950$, so there is 2050$ left, and power and other utilities aren't paid yet.

So, I don't see how 10,000$ would cause people to not work, except in disgraceful very low pay jobs.

[TJ in Oregon]

Ending other social assistance programs is very unwise unless the basic income guarantee we're talking about is a very large sum; we still need things like food stamps, housing assistance, etc. in addition to a basic income. Gutting the former in favor of the latter will make the latter effectively worthless, a terrible substitute for an already awful welfare system.

I too am nervous of the idea of getting rid of the social safety net. I understand getting rid some of the tax benefits like EITC, but this may go to far. 

The way I've written it, people can opt to keep their current benefits if they believe it more lucrative to do so. It simply gives them an alternative means if they believe they can use the money better than the government allocating it to them via certain programs.

[Sbane]

I think TJ may be on the right track. For some, cash assistance in the form of food stamps and section 8 housing may be more valuable while those living in low cost areas might lean towards the basic income guarantee.

[MaxQue]

I have to concur with TJ and sbane than 10,000 isn't worth the same in New York City area than in rural Oklahoma.