Bacis Income Action

[beberly37]

Just saw an article about this on Slashdot.  Has anyone heard of it?  They are proposing ~$1000/american/month payment for living in the US.  A two person household would be pulling in ~$24,000/yr.  More than enough to live a MMM-lifestyle. 

Presumably the money would come from taxes on other earnings and spendings, so frugal households could FIRE and let the consumers foot the bill.....

Kind of goes against working for what to get, unless you count being frugal as work. 

[AZDude]

This is probably a good idea. Let me explain before I am tarred and feathered.

Automation is going to eliminate most lower level jobs sometime this century. At that time, you will see something like 50% unemployment. We have already seen the manufacturing jobs leave for all but the most high tech of stuff. Servers, phone reps, bus drivers/taxi drivers, cooks, etc, etc, etc... those are all jobs that automation could effectively replace if it were cost-effective.

If you do not have a degree in something useful, and you have no technical skills, then the unemployment rate is already above 10%.

http://www.examiner.com/article/unemployment-rate-among-uneducated-workers-is-triple-that-of-educated-workers

That is 2012, but it shows, high school dropouts have a 12.6% unemployment rate, and even those working are probably part time at minimum wage. A college degree lowers the rate to 4.2%. This gap is only going to widen. So it would make sense, both for the economy and the health of the population, to have a mandatory minimum income sent to all people that is somewhere close to the poverty rate.

The economy benefits because poor people spend a higher percentage of their money. So its circulated into the economy rather than sitting in some rich dude's bank account, collecting interest(assuming these expenditures come from raising taxes on the wealthy). It also will alleviate the problems of civil unrest when you have lots of people not working. No one is going to riot if that means they have to leave their air conditioned homes and their XBox. By the same token, crime rates go down. Everyone is happier, other than the 0.01% who have to pay more in taxes.

The other thing that will have to happen is that SPHC will become a reality at some point, giving the poor access to free or cheap healthcare.

[slugline]

More people would have their basic needs met, but I don't see this necessarily increasing happiness or changing the way people feel about income inequality. The "Hedonic Treadmill effect" will just move the goalposts of material comfort.

Consumers wouldn't be directly footing the bill unless America has a sales/consumption tax. But how could you dress up a Basic Income program without exposing it as a straightforward tax on the wealthy to be redistributed to the poor?

[Mr Dorothy Dollar]

It is the most humane way to deal with an economy that produces more goods with fewer people. Perhaps with all the free time these people could create the next "Harry Potter", app, software, music, or other creative endeavor.
 

[PloddingInsight]

My family of seven could certainly live on $84k a year.  We would even add to our savings.

But this wouldn't actually work out as a social solution.  GDP would go down, and rents would skyrocket.  We'd probably end up worse off than before.

[shelivesthedream]

My family of seven could certainly live on $84k a year.  We would even add to our savings.

But this wouldn't actually work out as a social solution.  GDP would go down, and rents would skyrocket.  We'd probably end up worse off than before.

Presumably you are two adults and five children, so you'd actually be seven people living on £24,000 a year.

[PencilThinStash]

I've heard enough arguments in favor of it, and I completely understand there are some valid points. Heck, I've brought up the idea at holiday dinners with the extended family, just to play devil's advocate and break up the monotonous circle-jerk of "Hey, here's a Republican idea!" "Wow, how excellent, I also have a Republican idea!" "Damn, we sure are smart, how are those liberals so stupid?"

In theory, I think it's fascinating and worth the discussion.

At the same time, my Right-Wing-Nutjob upbringing is still deeply ingrained enough, that to picture it as an eventual reality...

'Murica! Bootstrap pulling! Welfare queens! Trickle down economics! All hail our lord and savior Ronald Reagan!

^Sorry, kneejerk reaction, couldn't help myself.

Edited because I double type words like an idiot sometimes

[AZDude]

My family of seven could certainly live on $84k a year.  We would even add to our savings.

But this wouldn't actually work out as a social solution.  GDP would go down, and rents would skyrocket.  We'd probably end up worse off than before.

Presumably you are two adults and five children, so you'd actually be seven people living on £24,000 a year.

Yes. It would a certain amount per adult, probably with a smaller amount per child. So theoretically it would $24,000 plus like $2,00 per child, or $34,000. Enough to live off of, but not enough to discourage people from trying to make more money. Working is not required, but its encouraged. Hopefully this would fuel the freelancer economy, where people would perform odd jobs for extra cash from the people who have the good jobs. Motivated people could still make plenty, even without an education, but the masses could just relax and enjoy daytime television or whatever without massive civil unrest.

[Chuck]

This will never come to pass, because the only way to make it fiscally feasable is to replace the ENTIRE social safety net currently in place. No more social security, medicare, medicaid or TANF/Foodstamps.

And then you have a situation where most middle class persons benefit, but the poor and elderly are worse off (their benefits, particularly as it relates to Medicare/Medicaid are way higher than 12k/yr). So what's the point?

[Proud Foot]

It definitely is something that would be worth looking at.  I know I wouldn't mind if that were to happen! The biggest obstacle, besides all the kneejerk reactions as described by PencilThinStash, would be the funding of it.  Although I see this as something which could be similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund and the dividends each eligible Alaskan resident receives each year. Interestingly, this fund was established by a Republican...

[AZDude]

This will never come to pass, because the only way to make it fiscally feasable is to replace the ENTIRE social safety net currently in place. No more social security, medicare, medicaid or TANF/Foodstamps.

And then you have a situation where most middle class persons benefit, but the poor and elderly are worse off (their benefits, particularly as it relates to Medicare/Medicaid are way higher than 12k/yr). So what's the point?

I imagine $12k is too low. And you have to remember that something like 40%+ of people already have some form of government assistance. Combining all those failed agencies into one streamlined(for the government) payment, and it is feasible.

No more SS, disability, EIC, welfare, EBT, food stamps, etc, etc, etc... Just something like $18K for a single person, plus $6K per adult, plus $2K per child for anyone who makes less than $35,000 per year. Like 60M households. Averaging $28K per household, that comes out to $1,680,000,000,000, or about 1/3rd the total government expenditure. Total welfare right now is about $400B, and SS is about $900B. Together, that is $1.3T. You need "only" find another $380B or so dollars to fund it.

It is something that would have a huge one time expense upfront, but over time it would cost little more than what we pay now. Hell, might actually cost less when you factor in the savings from closing down all those random agencies.

[beltim]

This will never come to pass, because the only way to make it fiscally feasable is to replace the ENTIRE social safety net currently in place. No more social security, medicare, medicaid or TANF/Foodstamps.

And then you have a situation where most middle class persons benefit, but the poor and elderly are worse off (their benefits, particularly as it relates to Medicare/Medicaid are way higher than 12k/yr). So what's the point?

I don't think anyone would use this to replace health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid) - it makes no sense to compare the two.

[FrugalNerd]

This will never come to pass, because the only way to make it fiscally feasable is to replace the ENTIRE social safety net currently in place. No more social security, medicare, medicaid or TANF/Foodstamps.

And then you have a situation where most middle class persons benefit, but the poor and elderly are worse off (their benefits, particularly as it relates to Medicare/Medicaid are way higher than 12k/yr). So what's the point?

A basic income type program also sees savings from reduced government overhead in the administration of all of these benefit programs. Fewer bureaucrats needed to determine who is or isn't eligible for any number of different targeted programs. Instead, you pay a low, but livable amount to everyone equally.

Here is a pretty detailed review of some of the ideas: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/why-should-we-support-the_b_7630162.html

By the way, this idea has been championed by many leading economists of both the right and left, so it has pretty wide ranging appeal. People to the right will like the smaller government aspects and people from the left will appreciate that overall it provides a much better safety net for the poor.

[ooeei]

I can see having something to help people below an income threshold, but writing a check to everyone for the same amount seems kind of pointless.  Inflation would just take over and destroy the "raise".

[FrugalNerd]

I can see having something to help people below an income threshold, but writing a check to everyone for the same amount seems kind of pointless.  Inflation would just take over and destroy the "raise".

That money is being pumped into the economy today regardless, except now it's in the form of welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, etc. When something like this was tried in India, prices actually went down: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/dec/18/incomes-scheme-transforms-lives-poor

[ooeei]

I can see having something to help people below an income threshold, but writing a check to everyone for the same amount seems kind of pointless.  Inflation would just take over and destroy the "raise".

That money is being pumped into the economy today regardless, except now it's in the form of welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, etc. When something like this was tried in India, prices actually went down: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/dec/18/incomes-scheme-transforms-lives-poor

I think that is a fine idea.  The website in the OP lists it as a basic income EVERYONE gets, not just poor people who need it.  So basically we'd write a $12,000 check to everyone from Warren Buffet to the homeless guy down the street.  It's just a less efficient form of wealth redistribution, because you're giving some back to the people you're charging most.  If Warren Buffet is paying say $500k/year in extra taxes for this, why give him a check for $12k at the end of it? 

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I can see having something to help people below an income threshold, but writing a check to everyone for the same amount seems kind of pointless.  Inflation would just take over and destroy the "raise".

That money is being pumped into the economy today regardless, except now it's in the form of welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, etc. When something like this was tried in India, prices actually went down: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/dec/18/incomes-scheme-transforms-lives-poor

I think that is a fine idea.  The website in the OP lists it as a basic income EVERYONE gets, not just poor people who need it.  So basically we'd write a $12,000 check to everyone from Warren Buffet to the homeless guy down the street.  It's just a less efficient form of wealth redistribution, because you're giving some back to the people you're charging most.  If Warren Buffet is paying say $500k/year in extra taxes for this, why give him a check for $12k at the end of it?

How is it less efficient if it reduces bureaucratic overhead that is necessary when one must meet more specific conditions to receive their benefits?

[ooeei]

I can see having something to help people below an income threshold, but writing a check to everyone for the same amount seems kind of pointless.  Inflation would just take over and destroy the "raise".

That money is being pumped into the economy today regardless, except now it's in the form of welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, etc. When something like this was tried in India, prices actually went down: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/dec/18/incomes-scheme-transforms-lives-poor

I think that is a fine idea.  The website in the OP lists it as a basic income EVERYONE gets, not just poor people who need it.  So basically we'd write a $12,000 check to everyone from Warren Buffet to the homeless guy down the street.  It's just a less efficient form of wealth redistribution, because you're giving some back to the people you're charging most.  If Warren Buffet is paying say $500k/year in extra taxes for this, why give him a check for $12k at the end of it?

How is it less efficient if it reduces bureaucratic overhead that is necessary when one must meet more specific conditions to receive their benefits?

Because now the person who is making 80k/year is making 92k, the person making 40k is making 52k, etc etc.  That means businesses can raise prices across the board (and will probably need to if taxes are raised to maintain profits) and inflation will take care of the 12k.  If only poor people are getting "raises", the working stiffs still have their normal limits of spending, and businesses aren't dealing with as much of a tax increase.  That should help curb inflation.

Granted I'm not an economics guy, but that just seems like how it might work out to me.  Very open to discussion.

Edit:  And to put this tax increase into perspective:  To give every person $12k, we need to get an average of $12k from every person.  That's $3 trillion in taxes per year.  I'm pretty sure rich people and businesses aren't just going to shrug and go "man that sucks" and not raise prices when there's all this extra money out there waiting for them.

[Bucksandreds]

I can see having something to help people below an income threshold, but writing a check to everyone for the same amount seems kind of pointless.  Inflation would just take over and destroy the "raise".

That money is being pumped into the economy today regardless, except now it's in the form of welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, etc. When something like this was tried in India, prices actually went down: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/dec/18/incomes-scheme-transforms-lives-poor

I think that is a fine idea.  The website in the OP lists it as a basic income EVERYONE gets, not just poor people who need it.  So basically we'd write a $12,000 check to everyone from Warren Buffet to the homeless guy down the street.  It's just a less efficient form of wealth redistribution, because you're giving some back to the people you're charging most.  If Warren Buffet is paying say $500k/year in extra taxes for this, why give him a check for $12k at the end of it?

How is it less efficient if it reduces bureaucratic overhead that is necessary when one must meet more specific conditions to receive their benefits?

Because now the person who is making 80k/year is making 92k, the person making 40k is making 52k, etc etc.  That means businesses can raise prices across the board (and will probably need to if taxes are raised to maintain profits) and inflation will take care of the 12k.  If only poor people are getting "raises", the working stiffs still have their normal limits of spending, and businesses aren't dealing with as much of a tax increase.  That should help curb inflation.

Granted I'm not an economics guy, but that just seems like how it might work out to me.  Very open to discussion.

Edit:  And to put this tax increase into perspective:  To give every person $12k, we need to get an average of $12k from every person.  That's $3 trillion in taxes per year.  I'm pretty sure rich people and businesses aren't just going to shrug and go "man that sucks" and not raise prices when there's all this extra money out there waiting for them.

I'm pretty liberal and I agree with you. The time for this is when a critical mass is hit and unemployment is too high to sustain society. It will happen with automation but we're not there yet.  As of now society must continue to value working and benefits should be pushed to those who are willing to work menial jobs and not everyone and also not those who refuse to work.

[tonysemail]

Here is a pretty detailed review of some of the ideas: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/why-should-we-support-the_b_7630162.html

I first came across this idea after reading his article here-
https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-going-to-hit-us-like-a-human-driven-truck-b8507d9c5961

The map in the article is quite interesting. 
FWIW, I think the minimum wage increases in some areas seem to be a more organic way of creeping towards this.
I'm skeptical that the federal government can get anything done much less radical changes to wealth redistribution.

[seattlecyclone]

I'm pretty liberal and I agree with you. The time for this is when a critical mass is hit and unemployment is too high to sustain society. It will happen with automation but we're not there yet.  As of now society must continue to value working and benefits should be pushed to those who are willing to work menial jobs and not everyone and also not those who refuse to work.

We may not be there yet, but we're heading pretty quickly down that path. A "big bang" start to something like this would be too much of a shock to the economy anyway. Let's start it out small, say $100 per month instead of $1,000. Freeze cost-of-living increases in social security, food stamps, and other programs of that nature to help pay for it. Let's have a long-term plan for how we're going to phase this in.

[gimp]

We already, almost automatically, produce everything the entire country needs (well, surplus of some stuff to buy other stuff we don't have enough of.)

I would prefer "right to work" (not under its current meaning, but rather, everyone who wants a job and can work a job gets a job) instead of just doling the money out for simply existing. With that said, I've also seen how shitty things are when people are unfireable and draw government paychecks, so it's a nice idea, but probably not that workable.

What kind of jobs? Shit that either is not or can not yet be outsourced and automated. Tons of infrastructure needs to be repaired, tons improved, and a lot more that people would like built. A bigger park system - national and state parks, forests, wildlife preserves, and so on. Conservation efforts, both land and sea. Just straight up cleaning - dirty cities, that sort of thing. Yes, military too. Teaching, including teaching all manner of things that aren't taught in school. Whatever. There are a lot of things that could be accomplished with a large workforce.

[Yankuba]

Commenting to follow. I'm a big believer that technological unemployment will be the defining issue of the 2020s and beyond. I'm in favor of scrapping the safety net in return for National Basic Income.

[powskier]

Potentially one of the few ideas that could have support on left and right and be beneficial to the middle class.

That means it will never fly, lol.

[Bucksandreds]

Potentially one of the few ideas that could have support on left and right and be beneficial to the middle class.

That means it will never fly, lol.

Right wingers would never support this. It would be paid for mostly by taxing high income at stratospheric rates. 

[Bucksandreds]

I'm pretty liberal and I agree with you. The time for this is when a critical mass is hit and unemployment is too high to sustain society. It will happen with automation but we're not there yet.  As of now society must continue to value working and benefits should be pushed to those who are willing to work menial jobs and not everyone and also not those who refuse to work.

We may not be there yet, but we're heading pretty quickly down that path. A "big bang" start to something like this would be too much of a shock to the economy anyway. Let's start it out small, say $100 per month instead of $1,000. Freeze cost-of-living increases in social security, food stamps, and other programs of that nature to help pay for it. Let's have a long-term plan for how we're going to phase this in.

I wouldn't mind seeing it implemented very slowly with future increases tied to long term unemployment rates.  There will, without any doubt, not be enough jobs for half the population sometime this century.  It cannot be fully funded until fully funding it would not cause a strain on the labor supply. I would FIRE tomorrow if I could add $24,000 per year to my stash.  Too many people would do that and many would just have that $24,000 but would rather scrape by with that than work.

[KungfuRabbit]

i see the same problem with this as i see with a $15 minimum wage (lets piss off a lot of liberals at once, eh?)

if you will be fully taken care of for sitting on your ass and getting fat (which costs more to take care of with diabetes, etc), why bother working at all?  What is the motivation? 

The way this relates to $15 min wage (which is way way more realistic, and already happening in a few places) is what is the point of getting a harder job?  There are lots of jobs that pay in the range of $30,000 / year (entry level teacher, office assistant, manufacturing assembly, some trades jobs, etc) that require training, more stress, harder work.  All of a sudden working fast food (which is easy and zero stress and no brains, and the day goes fast-ish you don't hate yourself really like some office work, i did it for 3 years) will make the same amount, so why would people bother with the harder / more stressful jobs? 

but, people like stuff that benefits them, and more people would benefit it than fund it, so it has a decent shot of getting through the Communist States of America (GO Bernie!).  Hopefully it waits 10 years and only targets wages not savings or investments (imagine a tax that took 10% of your checking account and investment account per year....) , that would make retiring a BREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE. 

[mozar]

There is always the concern that people will stop trying to work and just sit at home. Studies have shown that during minimum income experiments people do work less. But it's mostly teenagers who decide to stay in school and complete their education because they are not under pressure to provide for their families, and mothers who want to stay home with their infants.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-mincome-experiment-dauphin

I think the best route would be a combination of basic minimum income and halving full time work to 20 hours a week. Very recently I think people have started to realize that jobs are really going away for a variety of reasons. And we can wait until there is 95% unemployment and people start rioting or we could do something about it sooner than later.

We were just discussing this in another thread (see bottom p9):
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future/400/

Fundamentally I think it comes down to what you think the point of civilization is. Should it make peoples lives easier, or harder?

[infogoon]

Potentially one of the few ideas that could have support on left and right and be beneficial to the middle class.

That means it will never fly, lol.

Right wingers would never support this. It would be paid for mostly by taxing high income at stratospheric rates.

Curiously enough, Nixon was a proponent of a GBI. Then again, he'd probably be run out of the Republican primaries on a rail for being a RINO quisling these days.

[sunday]

I think a basic income in lieu of a welfare system is an interesting idea to investigate.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Curiously enough, Nixon was a proponent of a GBI. Then again, he'd probably be run out of the Republican primaries on a rail for being a RINO quisling these days.

I just learned two new words. Thanks, infogoon.

[MrMoogle]

I'm conservative, so here's my perspective.  If you replace all the current social programs with this one, I could be for it, because it's a step in the right direction, although it's not the solution IMO.  The problem I have, is whatever you subsidize,  you get more of.  This means more people not working, and more children to get a bigger government paycheck. 

Also, people have been saying automation is going to take over for 60 years now.  Humans have still had jobs to do.  I expect humans will have work to do for another 100 years.

[tallen]

I don't like the fact that I have to work for a living while many are getting a check just because they're lazy and don't want to work. I don't mind those in NEED getting assistance, but don't like giving it to those who are able bodied and could get work if they'd only put in applications.

However, if it was an across the board thing that everyone will get (and you don't lose out on because you choose to have an additional source of income or have savings available) then I'm all for it. I think it would be better than the system already in place and low wage workers would benefit the most! As it is minimum wage workers barely make more than they would for sitting at home and therefore have little incentive to actually go find work!

[FrugalWad]

Anyone ever read the Honor Harrington series by David Weber? The prologue pretty much sums up why a basic living allowance isn't the best idea maybe.

[Telecaster]

As the risk of being tarred and feathered as well, I'll just point out this proposal is well worth thinking about.   For example, we have a number of programs in this country designed to keep people from living in abject poverty, or at least shield them from the worst effects of poverty.  Just to name a few:

- The earned income tax credit (which is actually one of the largest social programs we have, right up there with Medicare)

- Section 8 housing (also surprisingly costly)

- Food stamps

- Various medical subsidies for poor people (Medicaid, certain Obamacare subsidies)

- Unemployment insurance

- Minimum wage laws

- Disability insurance

Etc.  I don't know exactly how they envision such a thing would work, but if you are getting $1000 cash a month, then you don't need food stamps.   Similarly, it seems like a guaranteed income would count against the EITC.   Fewer people would qualify for Medicaid.   The need for unemployment insurance would be reduced.  Since that's mostly paid for by the employer, that would be a nice benefit for businesses.   etc.   

A guaranteed national income wouldn't necessarily eliminate any one of those programs, and certainly not all of them.  But you can see that a GI reduces the the need for many of these programs, and to some degree would be self-funding.

I would also argue that rather than give someone a coupon that can only be used for food, and a different coupon that can only be used for housing, it is better to simply give them cash and let them do what they want.   Certainly there are many details that would have to be worked out, but much of this makes sense on the face.