Basic Universal Income (BUI)

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

No proposal, especially progressive ones, remain totally unchanged in Congress. So whatever the best people proposal one has in their mind at this moment it is fair to say what would be delivered would be worse. (...) The analogy I used before was an Immigrant working at McDonald's. A green card or work visa holder or undocumented immigrant  McDonald's employee has income parity to their peers. If some of their peers were receiving UBI that would no longer be true. They would be poorer than their peers besides having the same job and working just as hard. It would be an ugly situation in my opinion.

It sounds to me like you’re arguing that we sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect.

I fully accept your point that various special interests would wittle away at and attempt to weaken a UBI offering to better align it with their personal values and morals. My sense, though, is that the scale of the benefits would still far exceed the scale of the limitations and costs you cite (even after accounting for those obstacles). 

We’re clearly speculating and details matter, but if over a hundred million people would benefit, should we avoid moving forward if less than 10 million people won’t? I suspect we must all determine for ourselves where that threshold exists. 

I know a UBI won’t be perfect. I do wonder though how good it would have to be in order to get detractors on board. How good is good enough? So long as we don’t choose to abandon anything that is imperfect, then we still have a chance with that imperfect approach to meaningfully improve the lives of scores of millions of people. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Increasing minimum wage, reforming criminal justice, and immigration reform are the things I rather see.

Again, I’d argue we should do these things in combination. Why not both, you know?

In essence, I’m saying we shouldn’t negotiate with ourselves. Those who oppose us will have plenty of time to challenge what we’re trying to do and we shouldn’t be so willing to do their work for them before we’ve even begun. We should instead go in with the best possible recommendation as our starting point. Perhaps then after special interests get their hands on it we’ll be able to more successfully/closely arrive at the situation and circumstances you’re here now describing.  

Edited July 6, 2018 by iNow

[Ten oz]

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

We’re clearly speculating and details matter, but if over a hundred million people would benefit, should we avoid moving forward if less than 10 million people won’t?

In my opinion, yes. Because those 10 million who would be disenfranchised are the ones who would need it most. Separately Soc Sec and medicare already covers a sizable portion of that 100 million who would benefit. So for me I see it as making life even better, currently it isn't bad, for 60 million in exchange for total oppression of 10 million. It isn't the sort of devils bargain I am interested in.

I suppose it comes down to where one sees the current state of economy. I think there is wealth inequality but I also think the majority in this country has it pretty good.  It is only the bottom 20% or so I think needs change/reform. Obviously there are many in middle class who wish they were doing better but better is all relative at the end of the day they are doing fine. In envisioning UBI It is hard for me to imagine that bottom 20% not being the ones most frozen out the benefits. In which case I see not point to it. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Again, I’d argue we should do these things in combination. Why not both, you know?

3 reasons:

- The value of money is not constant. Giving everyone a Universal Income and raising wages would result is the Federal Reserve compensating with huge interest rate hikes which would make borrowing (home, auto, business, etc) extremely more expensive. Because so many people already make more than minimum wage and increase to minimum wage wouldn't impact the whole economy universally. It would only impact the bottom 20% or so of wage earnings. That wouldn't have as dramatic of an impact on inflation. 

- Obama was about as good as it get in terms Democratic Presidents. He was an excellent orator, patient, pragmatic, and had 2 scandal free tenures in office. What progressive policies did he accomplish? He couldn't get criminal justice reform, a Immigration deal, didn't raise taxes, and etc. He couldn't even get Gitmo closed. Then in 2016 many progressives apathetically held it against Democrats. Everything is fought tooth and nail. No progressive is ever going to get anything easy or in full. Obama was the Michael Jordan of Presidents and he barely was able to improve Healthcare and now that is already being stripped apart. The way forward is one step at a time and all hands must be on deck. I do not believe a "lets try everything at the same time" approach will work. We need focus policies that builds upon each other a step at a time. 

- The system we have can work. I see no reason to trade it in. The problem is who we have empowered to lead and not the system itself. We can switch to any other system out there but it too will be crap if we continue to empower people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to oversee it.  Such people will screw UBI just as bad. 

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We need focus policies that builds upon each other a step at a time. 

I suspect this incrementalism will occur regardless of our approach and that we should continue to target the ideal. Once more, I’d encourage us to negotiate with others who oppose us, not with ourselves and what we’re striving for. Thanks for the exchange. 

[Sensei]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Like any policies UBI would need to be negotiated and passed by Congress.

What congress? In your's initial question you didn't say it's limited to U.S.A. .... World != USA... (actually USA is very little of the world, either in population, and area)

If you ask question, which is international, you should keep it this way, entire discussion..

 

 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I suspect this incrementalism will occur regardless of our approach and that we should continue to target the ideal. Once more, I’d encourage us to negotiate with others who oppose us, not with ourselves and what we’re striving for. Thanks for the exchange. 

Reagan passed 2 tax cuts, Bush passed 2 Tax cuts, Trump has already passed one tax cut. Between all those cuts there weren't any meaningful tax increases. During this same time the number of police officers per capita has increased. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf

Democrats also continue to be laughably under represented as a share of the votes they receive.  As it applies to economic issues, criminal justice, and immigration I do not feel Democrats have made any progress at all in my entire lifetime. Much less incremental progress. It is Republicans who consistently eke out elections without popular support and turn them in to more tax cuts. Where Democrats have had success is with social issues but social issues aren't what UBI seeks to make reforms to.  

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

What congress? In your's initial question you didn't say it's limited to U.S.A. .... World != USA... (actually USA is very little of the world, either in population, and area)

If you ask question, which is international, you should keep it this way, entire discussion..

 

 

I am more than happy to read about things other countries have tried or are considering trying. The poster I was responding to is also in the U.S. as I am so for the sake of specificity in application I posted about challenges here in the U.S. .

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

- The system we have can work. I see no reason to trade it in. The problem is who we have empowered to lead and not the system itself. We can switch to any other system out there but it too will be crap if we continue to empower people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to oversee it.  Such people will screw UBI just as bad. 

As I see it, present national systems allow great wealth to manipulate the fate of those without it to an extreme degree. Aggressive, money-addicted private agendas dominate the lives of the vast majority and use part of that wealth to maintain this unfairness. The systems need to acknowledge that the vast majority need a greater investment in basic aid for housing, nutrition, education, health, and training. The systems need to remove the wealthy foot from our throats, and allow the other 99% of humanity to breathe and thrive.

So I understand and agree with the need for basic universal aid, but I'm not convinced giving people more money is the way to get it done. I've been leaning more towards a self-sufficient public system with as few ties to private investment as possible. There have always been those who manipulate public funds for their personal enrichment, and lobby political "leaders" to skew outcomes in their favor, so as long as these folks keep paying for looser regulations, any BUI system starts with parasites attached. 

[Sensei]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Reagan passed 2 tax cuts, Bush passed 2 Tax cuts, Trump has already passed one tax cut.

That's good direction. Everybody should have the same chance. Rich people invest money in completely new enterprises. They might fail and they will lose the all money invested in them. When taxes are ridiculous, they don't want to do anything and simply wait. Complete stagnation for years when such regulations are effective (high taxes)..

 

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

As I see it, present national systems allow great wealth to manipulate the fate of those without it to an extreme degree. Aggressive, money-addicted private agendas dominate the lives of the vast majority and use part of that wealth to maintain this unfairness. The systems need to acknowledge that the vast majority need a greater investment in basic aid for housing, nutrition, education, health, and training. The systems need to remove the wealthy foot from our throats, and allow the other 99% of humanity to breathe and thrive.

So I understand and agree with the need for basic universal aid, but I'm not convinced giving people more money is the way to get it done. I've been leaning more towards a self-sufficient public system with as few ties to private investment as possible. There have always been those who manipulate public funds for their personal enrichment, and lobby political "leaders" to skew outcomes in their favor, so as long as these folks keep paying for looser regulations, any BUI system starts with parasites attached. 

I agree with this. I have no objection to Universal Income on principled grounds provided it were truly Universal. I just free that it wouldn't be Universal and that it takes attention away from the real problem which is we let the wrong people to lead. I rather see a focus on the items you listed (basic aid for housing, nutrition, education, health, and training) than complete shift to something else. 

12 minutes ago, Sensei said:

That's good direction. Everybody should have the same chance. Rich people invest money in completely new enterprises. They might fail and they will lose the all money invested in them. When taxes are ridiculous, they don't want to do anything and simply wait. Complete stagnation for years when such regulations are effective..

 

 

Risk vs reward is all relative. Provided the global market has parity international companies have adequate motivation to invest. Likewise within individual localities so long of the taxes are fair among all in the market place the do not add any additional burden to potential success. The problem is what some must pay more than others which creates advantages. 

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I agree with this. I have no objection to Universal Income on principled grounds provided it were truly Universal. I just free that it wouldn't be Universal and that it takes attention away from the real problem which is we let the wrong people to lead. I rather see a focus on the items you listed (basic aid for housing, nutrition, education, health, and training) than complete shift to something else. 

I'm reminded of the difference between giving a person a fish and teaching them to fish, and this seems more like giving them the money to buy a fish, and hoping that's what they do with it. I remember reading where a good percentage of people would opt to keep the money taken out for Social Security if they could, defeating the whole purpose of the program. I've had experience with people who get a $5,000 check from insurance for a new roof, and spend it elsewhere (which means the next hail storm leaves them without a means to fix it). If this is a safety net of sorts, I'd like to make sure it's very effective.

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm reminded of the difference between giving a person a fish and teaching them to fish, and this seems more like giving them the money to buy a fish, and hoping that's what they do with it. I remember reading where a good percentage of people would opt to keep the money taken out for Social Security if they could, defeating the whole purpose of the program. I've had experience with people who get a $5,000 check from insurance for a new roof, and spend it elsewhere (which means the next hail storm leaves them without a means to fix it). If this is a safety net of sorts, I'd like to make sure it's very effective.

It's effective for those with no means to catch a fish.

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's effective for those with no means to catch a fish.

This assumes it's more effective to increase their ability to eat a fish than it is to make sure they have a fish to eat. Is it more effective for a program to empower everyone with the ability to purchase, or to ensure they have access to basic needs?

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This assumes it's more effective to increase their ability to eat a fish than it is to make sure they have a fish to eat. Is it more effective for a program to empower everyone with the ability to purchase, or to ensure they have access to basic needs?

The fulcrum in this thread seems to be the word 'work'.

[Phi for All]

Just now, dimreepr said:

The fulcrum in this thread seems to be the word 'work'.

As in "Will this work?" or as in "What kind of work will you do to earn this BUI?" 

I thought the concept was a direct investment into the citizenry that would eventually be paid for by less need for systems of justice and punishment. Universal income shouldn't be tied to what you can work at, but rather the freedoms one gives up by agreeing to societal strictures. "Follow the rules and you'll have the basics you need to live", that sort of thing. Am I wrong?

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

As in "Will this work?" or as in "What kind of work will you do to earn this BUI?" 

I thought the concept was a direct investment into the citizenry that would eventually be paid for by less need for systems of justice and punishment. Universal income shouldn't be tied to what you can work at, but rather the freedoms one gives up by agreeing to societal strictures. "Follow the rules and you'll have the basics you need to live", that sort of thing. Am I wrong?

 

No...

[Ten oz]

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The fulcrum in this thread seems to be the word 'work'.

This is not what I got from Phi for All's post at all. As it relates to programs like housing they are asking if it is better to give the person the money or give the person a house. I don't read any sort of statement that it is better for a person to work for a house. 

For example, would it be better to give homeless people UBI in the from of cash or would it better to give that money to cities earmarked specifically to provide the homeless with housing and food? 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

For example, would it be better to give homeless people UBI in the from of cash or would it better to give that money to cities earmarked specifically to provide the homeless with housing and food? 

Who are you to say?

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

For example, would it be better to give homeless people UBI in the from of cash or would it better to give that money to cities earmarked specifically to provide the homeless with housing and food? 

I think many see giving cash as a dignified way to help. It would seem to give the individual the most freedom in choosing what they want to spend it on.

But many of the people receiving this BUI aren't good at decisions with cash. It's no slight to them, we can't all be good at everything, and many folks think with their heart before using their brain. If you know someone needs food, giving them the money to buy food doesn't mean they get fed. 

Ultimately, this should be about freedom. As much freedom as a person can get after agreeing to live in a society. But it's also about removing the influence of extreme wealth, and giving cash seems counterproductive to that. The public solution is to make as much available as possible, like access to swimming pools, great art, park lands, recreation centers, education, healthcare, vocational training, counseling, housing, nutrition, and more, using the power of public funding devoid of profit motives to give the citizenry the most bang for our buck.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who are you to say?

He's a citizen asking a question, not making a pronouncement.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

He's a citizen asking a question, not making a pronouncement.

 

indeed, my bad "Who are you to say" should read "who are we to say".

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"who are we to say".

We're the vast majority. We're the folks concerned that, as the wealthiest 1% of humans continue to consolidate their wealth, our own spending power is diminished by a lack of competitive markets. We're the folks concerned that, as lobbying continues to provide an unrestricted access to lawmakers, extreme money is being used to suppress our wills, opportunities, and freedoms. And we just want to make sure everyone has the chance to shine without having privy pots intentionally dumped on them from above.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

That's good direction. Everybody should have the same chance. Rich people invest money in completely new enterprises. They might fail and they will lose the all money invested in them. When taxes are ridiculous, they don't want to do anything and simply wait. Complete stagnation for years when such regulations are effective (high taxes)..

And yet the economy stubbornly doesn't respond this way in a consistent fashion. The US has had many instances of growth when taxes were high, or were raised, for the wealthy, and of poor performance after cuts.

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think many see giving cash as a dignified way to help. It would seem to give the individual the most freedom in choosing what they want to spend it on.

But many of the people receiving this BUI aren't good at decisions with cash. It's no slight to them, we can't all be good at everything, and many folks think with their heart before using their brain. If you know someone needs food, giving them the money to buy food doesn't mean they get fed. 

Ultimately, this should be about freedom. As much freedom as a person can get after agreeing to live in a society. But it's also about removing the influence of extreme wealth, and giving cash seems counterproductive to that. The public solution is to make as much available as possible, like access to swimming pools, great art, park lands, recreation centers, education, healthcare, vocational training, counseling, housing, nutrition, and more, using the power of public funding devoid of profit motives to give the citizenry the most bang for our buck.

It should be about freedom but on a philosophical level I feel money as a mechanism to manage resources restricts freedom. Giving people money doesn't make them free. Banks, or high overlords,  can always manipulate policy to devalue or inflate money. That is a conversation for another thread though. 

For me, I would like solutions which best deliver. Depending on the mental and physical help of an individual homeless person I suspect being provided a home and food would be best initially with the option to trade it in for cash once they felt ready might work better than just cash up front. I don't think any such programs are possible until taxes are increased and significant immigration and criminal justice reform are passed. 

[Bender]

22 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I addressed this in the Automation taking jobs threads.

No you didn't. Your data predates the decoupling and doesn't address more recent and upcoming evolutions at all.

I understand that your main objection to unconditional basic income is that it wouldn't be unconditional. What about European countries that have no republican party. Any reasons why we shouldn't implement it? Perhaps if it works in other countries, those republican conservatives would be less of a hindrance?

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

It should be about freedom but on a philosophical level I feel money as a mechanism to manage resources restricts freedom. Giving people money doesn't make them free. Banks, or high overlords,  can always manipulate policy to devalue or inflate money. That is a conversation for another thread though. 

For me, I would like solutions which best deliver. Depending on the mental and physical help of an individual homeless person I suspect being provided a home and food would be best initially with the option to trade it in for cash once they felt ready might work better than just cash up front. I don't think any such programs are possible until taxes are increased and significant immigration and criminal justice reform are passed. 

Perhaps some people do need guidance, but the main problem of poor people is not that they have no guidance -there is already plenty of that- but that they have no money.

I am more inclined to empower the individual than to rely on some officials to decide what is best for them.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Bender

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Bender said:

I am more inclined to empower the individual than to rely on some officials to decide what is best for them.

I think a more comprehensive change in the system is needed, more along the lines of free education through college and Medicare for all. If this happened first, I think a better system than BUI could be developed. I keep picturing dynamic modular housing around central meeting/eating areas with shuttles to schools, clinics, and transportation hubs. Set some minimum standards for better-than-subsistence living, so future officials can't mess with it.

BUI would be assimilated better into our present system, which would make it more popular but also more vulnerable to current high levels of corruption. My reservations are all about potential problems though, and that shouldn't stop us from experimenting (fix an amount, give it to EVERYONE past a certain age, and don't let the politicians put self-serving language into the bill). BUI would mean a real hope finally arrived for so many people. Whether it becomes free or not, I get the feeling going back to school to learn the latest things is going to keep increasing in importance to many folks. Much easier to do with a basic income taken care of.

[Ten oz]

On 7/1/2018 at 6:59 AM, Ten oz said:

 

 

 Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Eremites,  Kuwait, and Bahrain all have versions in place. All citizens receive a form of profit sharing from the oil and other govt (Monarchy) controlled industries. It isn't workable though in the terms I think most westerners think in. In those OPEC wealthy nations it simply creates a sort of caste system. To @fiveworlds point citizens in those countries have no incentive to work. As a result they all have massive amounts of foreign migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and etc. For example only 15% of Qatar's population are citizens. The rest are foreign workers. Labor, tradesmen, janitorial, and most all service industries are 100% foreign workers. 

In European nations with strong social programs providing free healthcare, education, and varies housing programs to citizens a similar trend emerges. In Switzerland nearly a quarter of the workforce are migrants. The Swiss govt has strict immigration policies where by immigrants are either temporary, annual, or permanent. To become permanent one must have first been on an annual basis for 10yrs. 

In the U.S. I feel we are already teetering on our own sort of caste system. We use our immigration policies and legal system to create a classes of people society deems unfit for quality employment. It is those classes which must clean our toilets, dig our ditches, and do all the back breaker work. Those classes includes people with: Felonies, multiple misdemeanors, on various forms of probation, in the country illegally, and a variety of temporary Green Card holders. More and more credit history is becoming part of standard employment background checks so in the near future we'll be adding people with bad credit history to the unfit for quality employment to the list. I think BUI would be like pouring gasoline on that fire. 

This is a very interesting point. Many people vitriolically carry on about the number of unwed mothers and children being raised in non-traditional (mom & dad) homes. Yet in some cases it may actually be providing women more freedom, mobility, safety, and etc to not be tied to or dependent upon a Man? Certainly women using BUI to get from certain men would become one of the loudest criticisms against BUI, especially in the Evangelical community. 

 

43 minutes ago, Bender said:

No you didn't. Your data predates the decoupling and doesn't address more recent and upcoming evolutions at all.

I understand that your main objection to unconditional basic income is that it wouldn't be unconditional. What about European countries that have no republican party. Any reasons why we shouldn't implement it? Perhaps if it works in other countries, those republican conservatives would be less of a hindrance?

Perhaps some people do need guidance, but the main problem of poor people is not that they have no guidance -there is already plenty of that- but that they have no money.

I am more inclined to empower the individual than to rely on some officials to decide what is best for them.

The tend I see is one where the citizens eligible for benefits enjoy highly mobility and flexible lifestyles which is made possible on the backs of thus forced to be their servant. 

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think a more comprehensive change in the system is needed, more along the lines of free education through college and Medicare for all. If this happened first, I think a better system than BUI could be developed. I keep picturing dynamic modular housing around central meeting/eating areas with shuttles to schools, clinics, and transportation hubs. Set some minimum standards for better-than-subsistence living, so future officials can't mess with it.

BUI would be assimilated better into our present system, which would make it more popular but also more vulnerable to current high levels of corruption. My reservations are all about potential problems though, and that shouldn't stop us from experimenting (fix an amount, give it to EVERYONE past a certain age, and don't let the politicians put self-serving language into the bill). BUI would mean a real hope finally arrived for so many people. Whether it becomes free or not, I get the feeling going back to school to learn the latest things is going to keep increasing in importance to many folks. Much easier to do with a basic income taken care of.

I agree with this. I feel like a lot of people are frustrated by all the corruption and greed and are just throwing their hands up and looking to start over. Problem is that simply giving everyone $10,000 or whatever doesn't actually fix any of the underlining problems. Giving everyone money would hardly put a dent is our looming student loan crisis, does nothing about predatory lending, doesn't make housing anymore affordable, doesn't provide Universal Healthcare (arguably more valuable), and etc, etc, etc. Unfortunately the way forward will be a long hard slog and require numerous individual course corrects. Not just here in the U.S. but around the world. The E.U. has their own issues to deal with are they struggle to find agreement regarding refugees for example.  

Education and Healthcare costs have some people underwater hundreds of thousand of dollars. Getting education and healthcare for all squared away would be worth more to people in the long run than a cash in hand income in my opinion. 

[Bender]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The tend I see is one where the citizens eligible for benefits enjoy highly mobility and flexible lifestyles which is made possible on the backs of thus forced to be their servant. 

Nobody is forcing them to come. The fact that they do indicates that the new situation of "servitude" is more desirable than their old situation.

The length can be debated, but if after that period they get the same rights, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. At least with UBI, they are protected from discrimination afterwards.