Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics Guaranteed minimum income

'

I bow before your superior knowledge of your neighbors, Greger. · · ·

!

Finally!

As a magnetic refridgerator sticker I have says, "Beware of those who bow at your feet, they may be reaching for the rug". I

I read a book by Heinlein that posed a society in which the government supplied a guaranteed income. If I remember correctly, he imagined that such a society would have people who worked for more and others who didn't feel the need for more. It seemed like a logical assumption to me when I read the book and I still think that it is the logical outcome. I'm not sure how easy it would be to start such a system...it certainly wouldn't go anywhere in our country. Too many people here are willing to see everyone they look down on(anyone who isn't exactly like themselves) go homeless/foodless/healthcareless, til they hopefully die - as long as they don't die in some visible way.

But even to an old socialist such as myself this plan reeks of socialism. The money to provide these minimal incomes needs to come from somewhere. Either the government has to tax those who choose to earn more or it needs a steady source of income from something other than taxation. A very LARGE steady income.
300 Million (people) x $12,000.00 = BIG BUCKS ($3.6 Trillion Smackeroos)

There is no question collectively we have the money to provide a guaranteed minimum income to everyone, and those who are proponents claim at lest overall cost than our present system.

I do not know if that is true or not, but if true it presents a set of questions that seem to me to get at the heart of the human experience as it exists today.

Questions such as that I posed earlier -- would some people just choose not to work, how many, what impact would that have on the labor market overall in terms of what demands workers might start asserting, etc.

I think that rather than a third, fourth or whatever party, it is questions like these that are more important to address. As far as I can tell, we are screwed in this system. We don't have a damn chance of having much of an impact unless we start buying into the system that we are beholden to.

We can obey it, we can put up with it. We can fight it, we can try to change it, but in all my years on the planet, things haven't gotten better. They are materially far beyond anything I could have dreamed of. I am more comfortable than anyone in my ancestry. Simply put, I have more.

I am thankful that I do and appreciate it every day. But I know the compromises and restrictions that I put up with every day are not meant to enrich me or allow my fuller expression. They are meant to make me useful.

I do not vouch for this concept. But I am tired of fighting about capitalism, socialism, left, right and all the rest of it. If a time does not arise in which we can get past all the bull crap and just let down all pretenses and demands and just work together when we can and when we cannot, stand aside for others to dare.

So what your asking is this, if we could all be given the absolute minimum necessary to survive, with nothing left over, why the hell should we work?

Basically, all that minimum income would fund would be three hots and a cot. That would not cover paying for electricity to run a television or even an air conditioner nor would it buy those items. Want to go on a date so you can get laid? Sorry, that is not part of your minimum income. It would not pay for my IPAD. It would not buy a can of cheap beer or Internet access. I'd have to work to post here.

People will work for the things they want. Guaranteeing a minimum income would lead a few who have a high tolerance for discomfort to say, screw this I like my cardboard box and K-rats. Most of those already live a minimalist lifestyle who will live in a shack by Walden Pond. Most people would work because most of us want to do more than just survive. We want to thrive. We want to have people who think we are better than they are. We want to get laid more than others, or at least make everyone think we get more. We want to be free of fear that we will lose our job and wake up in a gutter. A minimum income frees of of the fear of dying broke and hungry. But it doesn't fulfill us.

I have read this thread with bemusement, and I believe the following boils it down to its basics:

From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.

There are a few people whose needs cannot be met by work. I've a friend who has an adult sister with Downs syndrome. She works about 12 hours a week at some menial task that pays the concomitant menial wage, but she is physically and emotionally incapable of working longer. We the people provide her with an assisted living environment, medical care, food, etc. I have no problem with that.

But I do have a problem with just paying someone who is too lazy to work.

After watching some of "The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia" last night, I would vote to adopt a policy of euthanasia (unless I forgot to bring my photo id to the polls). Link

Seriously, this notion of who takes care of whom seems to be near the root of the Liberal/Conservative schism. The schism is schizier the more it is oversimplified, since we all come down on all sides of giving and receiving "welfare" in various ways. It is entirely likely that one may take care of oneself as an indirect result of taking care of others. This dynamic warrants more thorough inspection, though we rarely do it.

While I am not a proponent of making all judgments based on economics (mostly because it is another area of perception that is chronically abused by oversimplification and willful perversion) I do think that a good deal of the "welfare" mess can be sane-itized by taking a pragmatic look at the whole cloth benefit/cost picture.

There are tremendous avoided costs to society that can be attributed to living simply. Minimal consumption produces minimal waste and demands minimal infrastructure. What is that worth to a civilization that is rapidly approaching the limits of resource supply and that is now polluting the waters supporting all life just for the purpose securing more "cheap" fuel for continued mindless expansion, to consciously reduce consumption? Does it make sense, economically or otherwise, to pollute the atmosphere primarily so that we can go everywhere fast? It seem there might be some opportunity for enlightened number crunching.

Encouraging folks to be "lazy" seems a lot like investing in reducing the waste of energy instead of investing in creating ever more energy to waste.

I am reminded of Nichols' The Milagro Beanfield War, where a subsistence culture was replaced by a capitalist culture. Eventually, everyone was converted to having to work to make money to buy things. Soon no one could live in the subsistence culture anymore because even just owning a patch of land to grow beans on demanded a tithing of cash to the capitalist system. To get the cash, they had to either sell something or go to work for wages.

Increased consumption = increased work = increased waste. What is the full value of the waste?

Like the Queen of Hearts, we run faster and faster, but never go anywhere.

I think we all do. But that isn't exactly the point of this exercise. I believe the premise and the questions pertaining to it are of an entirely different nature. What if everyone received a minimum income which began at the government's established "poverty level" with no regard for willingness to work or not work for more. Some would choose a simple life, some would work hard to become wealthy. Some would already be wealthy, just as now, born into wealth and power. Some might even eschew the paltry sum offered to all members of society, choosing instead a tax deferrment of some sort in its place.
Most would find gainful employment to supplement their minimal income.
It would give everyone a chance to slow their pace, explore their options, make better choices and to live fuller lives.
Let's say that as each child is born the money goes into escrow. At age 18 there would be about $216,000.00 available. Enough for a modest home, a car, various insurances and an education. Minimal expenses would of course continue to be met. It would certainly pave the way for a better society than we currently find ourselves.