The 2 most popular critiques of basic income are both wrong

[Sunstone]

The 2 most popular critiques of basic income are both wrong

Please discuss.


NOTE: According to some calculations, a combination of robots and artificial intelligence will lead to unemployment levels of 30% or more within the next twenty or so years. That many people out of work would pose a serious challenge to political stability were they to be both out of work and unable to feed themselves. Think rebellion and revolution.A guaranteed basic income might be one way of preventing such political instability.

 

[Augustus]

One argument in favour is that, in an economy that will increasingly rely on innovation and entrepreneurship, a basic income will encourage people to take risks as they have a better safety net and will be able to afford to not work for a while or only work part time.

It should encourage risk taking and give people time to work on their ideas.

In the past, clergy have been disproportionately represented among inventors and scholars as they were among the few people who had an education, a decent income and enough free time to pursue their interests.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think it is still unproven. I have heard about its 'Success' in some other small countries -- but for less than 50 years. I think its a great idea but not a great federal idea. The feds have their fingers in too many pies. If Massachusetts or Virginia want to give it a go, then fine. I'm sure it will work, but if the feds do it, no. Then it will screw us all up.

 

[Quetzal]

The 2 most popular critiques of basic income are both wrong

Please discuss.


NOTE: According to some calculations, a combination of robots and artificial intelligence will lead to unemployment levels of 30% or more within the next twenty or so years. That many people out of work would pose a serious challenge to political stability were they to be both out of work and unable to feed themselves. Think rebellion and revolution.A guaranteed basic income might be one way of preventing such political instability.

I am currently reading a book I think you would love. I am about half way through it and he talks a lot about basic income and the common misconceptions about it. Here is a link:

https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World-ebook/dp/B01MXDBTWM/

 

[Lyndon]

One of the problems with basic income is that the money can be "wasted on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes,you name it" My own personal plan is to make healthy generic food, basic dormitory lodging and basic medical care available for free, to anyone that wants it, rich or poor. but if you want any cash, you have to work for it. It basically has the exact same goal as basic income, but is much cheaper for the government because a lot of middle class and wealthy people won't use it BY CHOICE. Basic income gives tonnes of government money to middle class and wealthy people that don't need it. I give the wealthy people the right to use any of the free services if they want to be frugal, and invest all their income in their business etc. But because the majority of people will use none or a minimum of the free services, it save massive amount of money for the government compared to giving everyone, rich or poor a basic income check. Check out my blog about Trickle UP economic theory; it also proposes to eliminate income taxes and put the taxes on goods (VAT) instead. With no taxes on essentials and very high VAT taxes on things that are bad for people, bad for the country, or bad for the environment.

an introduction to the philosophy of Lyndon Taylor

 

[Jumi]

Some people will always find a way to use their welfare money toward unhealthy things, entertainment or to support their favorite religion or political party instead of taking care of themselves.

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah but you got to admit its much harder to purchase drugs with your free food that's also available to the drug dealer for free, than if you had cash money like with basic income. Its also very hard to imagine trading medical services for bad things. And free dormitory housing, you couldn't really trade that for anything because its free to everyone else.

 

[Augustus]

With no taxes on essentials and very high VAT taxes on things that are bad for people, bad for the country, or bad for the environment.

That will just create a massive black market for such goods. If people can make a buck on it, they will. The more you tax it, the more bucks they make, the more people will do it, the less tax you will recoup.

 

[Lyndon]

No bigger black market than we have already with accountants not paying income taxes for wealthy people and corporations.

We already have this scheme applied in very high taxes on cigarettes that the government has decided is bad for people, and while there is a small black market for tax free cigarettes, it only a very small percent of sales. The taxes are not added at the retail store, where all kind of fraud could take place but are rather added by the manufacturer to the wholesale price, and its the manufacturer that has to pay the taxes to the government, not the retail store.

 

[Augustus]

No bigger black market than we have already with accountants not paying income taxes for wealthy people and corporations.

And your solution for corporate tax avoidance is?

 

[Lyndon]

Add the taxes to the products the corporations manufacture instead of taxing the corporations, and if they don't pay the taxes put them out of business

 

[Augustus]

Add the taxes to the products the corporations manufacture instead of taxing the corporations, and if they don't pay the taxes put them out of business

That's going to make it hard to do business, as you can't write off losses (especially borrowings for investment) against income. You will basically transfer some of the tax burden onto the people, away from the corporation.

What about overseas earnings? Will products be taxed multiple times between manufacturer and retailer?

The tax will also be extremely regressive hitting those on lower incomes the hardest as their consumption is a much higher % of income (even accounting for your tax free 'essentials').

You'd also have to tax many things at astronomical rates to balance the books, and this drives the black market. Given that VAT is your only major source of income, this might well massively outstrip the current levels of tax avoidance (don't know the figures though).

Do you know what the current level of tax avoidance as a % of GDP?

 

[Lyndon]

The point is all the things you need to live a simple, decent life are either free or tax free, If you want to buy something that doctors agree is bad for your body then you pay a tax on it, the poor will want to try and make their money last so they will buy less things that are bad for you, and will live a healthier life as a result, which will benefit their ability to work and hold a job, and addictions to drugs and alcohol may just be something they can't afford. Now Are you going to argue that's not fair, the poor can't have drugs, only the rich can??, The rich can afford the taxes on things that are bad for them, and they can ruin their lives on drugs if they want to just like they are already doing today. Some things in this economy shouldn't be cheap, medical care should be cheap or free for everyone, but not everyone deserves to be lazy, not working and addicted to drugs and alcohol, if doing drugs and alcohol is your goal, then you can work harder to get a good job, If you are rich and want to buy a massive gas guzzler super truck, and you don't even need it for work, then you should pay taxes commensurate to the damage your gas guzzling is doing to the environment, that everyone else has to suffer from..etc etc

 

[Lyndon]

Drugs are just one of the things I would propose putting high taxes on, in reality drugs are incredibly cheap, homeless people can panhandle enough money to buy drugs and get high easily. I'm not trying to say people shouldn't do drugs if they want to, I'm just saying they shouldn't be so cheap that they encourage people to do more and more till it hurts their ability to succeed in society, yes its true these taxes on drugs would affect the poor the most, but the poor are the one's often most disabled by excessive drinking and drug use, the rich shouldn't do as much drugs as well, but how would you propose to get the rich to do less drugs, the more you tax them the more attractive they will become to some wealthy people, but at least when those rich people spend so much money on highly taxed drugs, that tax money goes to a good cause, liking funding free food, funding education, funding police and emergency services, the money has to be raised somehow, I'm willing to bet its easier to get rich people to pay excessive taxes on drugs than to get them to honestly pay their fair share of income tax.

it is in a sense a war on drugs, but its a war on drugs that makes them legal and reduces majorly the black market for drugs with all the crime associated.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

NOTE: According to some calculations, a combination of robots and artificial intelligence will lead to unemployment levels of 30% or more within the next twenty or so years. That many people out of work would pose a serious challenge to political stability were they to be both out of work and unable to feed themselves. Think rebellion and revolution.A guaranteed basic income might be one way of preventing such political instability.

We should also consider;

1. Automation can sometimes create more jobs. Banks, for example, started hiring more tellers after the invention of the ATM and digital banking because people are needed to keep track of the digital transactions, operate the machines and make sure there are no problems in the bank accounts.

2. Most of the jobs that will be automated are physical labor and service jobs. This will mean the majority of the work force will have to be made up of researchers to feed the system and engineers to create and update improved automation systems. Which means most of the working classes will be nearly eliminated. It will turn into a sink or swim situation between rich and poor.

3. Many capitalist economies depend heavily on buying power from consumers to keep the economy going. Having a basic income could be a way to stabilize and even improve the economy.

I also think that free college should be an option for people so there's less of a worry for debt and they can be educated in the years during this change so there won't be a negative imbalance of open jobs and people who fit the criteria. Otherwise there will be massive economic disruption.

 

[bobhikes]

Instead of a basic income why not just make the essentials free. It works the same whereas everyone get the basic survival and still has to work if they want more. Instead of paying people to spend it as they see fit, you pay corporations to produce it.

You go to the store Eggs, Milk, Bread free for example. A studio apartment free. If you want a house you need to get a job. If you want Pumpkin pie you need to get a job...etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

The first argument is IMO very weak. There is little point in pressuring people to work, and lots of downsides.

Actual productive people will seek work if it is worth it, while non-productive people won't get significantly better due to lacking a choice. If anything, they will develop unhealthy adaptations to the pressure.

What does worry me - and it has little to do with UBI really - is that the economic realities are so disconnected from people's expectations. There is very little responsible demographic planning and next to no social responsibility.

 

[Augustus]

the poor will want to try and make their money last so they will buy less things that are bad for you, and will live a healthier life as a result, which will benefit their ability to work and hold a job, and addictions to drugs and alcohol may just be something they can't afford.

Drugs are illegal and very expensive now, people still buy them. Legalise and tax them to make them even more expensive, and
people will buy off street dealers just like they do now.

Make alcohol very expensive and people will but it on the black market and also make it themselves. When people make it themselves you will see lots of people going blind or dying due to poor quality and brewing techniques (happens a lot where I live due to exorbitant duties on spirits).

ome things in this economy shouldn't be cheap, medical care should be cheap or free for everyone, but not everyone deserves to be lazy, not working and addicted to drugs and alcohol, if doing drugs and alcohol is your goal, then you can work harder to get a good job, If you are rich and want to buy a massive gas guzzler super truck, and you don't even need it for work, then you should pay taxes commensurate to the damage your gas guzzling is doing to the environment, that everyone else has to suffer from..etc etc

The idea why the basic income is being proposed is that, due to automation, it is very possible that there will be mass unemployment. Hard working people who want jobs won't be able to get them.

This is a recipe for social chaos, unless steps are taken to address it. Dorm bunks, workhouses and shifting the tax burden onto the poor is, imo, not a great solution to the problem. Is 'trickle up' referring to all the money trickling up to the wealthiest in society?

I think I'll pass on the regressive nanny state.

 

[Augustus]

2. Most of the jobs that will be automated are physical labor and service jobs.

This is not true.

Any job that uses a narrow range of skills is under threat in the next couple of decades. Many middle class jobs, such as tax accountant, surgeons, legal researchers, administration, etc. will disappear too.

Moving forward, all kinds of other jobs will become threatened too. Very few jobs are not under threat over the next 50-100 years.

 

[Jumi]

Yeah but you got to admit its much harder to purchase drugs with your free food that's also available to the drug dealer for free, than if you had cash money like with basic income. Its also very hard to imagine trading medical services for bad things. And free dormitory housing, you couldn't really trade that for anything because its free to everyone else.

I mostly agree with you here. In my country there isn't that big of a drug problem as in yours and there is the famous Scandinavian welfare system although it's not sure how well it will last given various factors. As for free housing, we have such a government program for various addicts so most of them don't need to take of that. Even in the case of welfare housing some cases where they have been used by other people that are not the ones they are given to.