CDZ Why not have a 'Universal Basic Income' to replace welfare?

[Picaro]

She might just be saying he took a course on economics included with his philosophy and political science classes, which is possible.

Still doesn't make him an actual economist.

I dont think that Marx regarded himself as an economist - not sure the concept of such a profession even existed at that time. If I recall Correctly he considered himself a historian and philosopher, you know a useless humanities major, lol.

But as he wrote one of the biggest economic impacting set of book in the history of the world, maybe we could give him a pass and say that he was effectively an economist?

He is classified as a 'political economist', as would be almost all of them would be in the 19th century.

noun
1.
a social science dealing with political policies and economic processes, their interrelations, and their influence on social institutions.
2.
(in the 17th–18th centuries) the art of management of communities, especially as affecting the wealth of a government.
3.
(in the 19th century) a social science similar to modern economics but dealing chiefly with governmental policies.

the definition of political economy

... as opposed to 'economist':

noun
1.
(used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
2. (used with a plural verb) financial considerations; economically significant aspects:

the definition of economics

Most of the latter is abstract ivory tower fantasy gibberish, and few in the 'discipline' are worth reading or noting, so don't worry about it. The only ones who matter are the very few who are right more than they're wrong, like Keynes and Paul Krugman, and a couple of others in the modern era.

There's a very good reason Warren Buffet stated in a speech here in Dallas recently that 'any company that has a economist on its payroll has one employee too many'.

 

[320 Years of History]

Basic Income: A simple and powerful idea for the twenty-first century

Reading notes

The paper begins with an extremely comprehensive definition of the term "basic income."

Note to self: Keep focused on the fact that everything that follows here is merely a definition, not an argument for why the definition is as it is, the merits or demerits of so defining the term, etc.

Definition of "basic income" (BI) applicable in the paper:

A basic income is an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.​

• "Paid in cash...without any restriction as to the nature or timing of the consumption or investment it helps fund...[the payment] supplements, rather than substitutes, existing in-kind transfers such as free education or basic health insurance."
• Paid regularly rather than in on-off payment events.
• Funding the basic income is often assumed to occur at the nation-state level; however, the only entity that actually has ever implemented one in the U.S. is Alaska, and that was funded at the state level, not the nation-state level. Could also be funded at the supra-nation-state level.
  • Redistributive funding approach options using earmarked monies or non-earmarked monies:
    • Option: fund using land tax on natural resources
    • Option: fund via a broadly defined base of taxable income
    • Option: fund via a VAT
    • Option: fund via "Tobin" tax on speculative investments
    • Option: fund via "bit" tax on information
  • Distributive funding options...this is the nature of Alaska's BI
    • Option: fund via return on a diversified investment fund comprised of publicly owned productive assets
      
    • Option: fund via money creation
• Recipients: every individual; not household
• Payment size: uniform
• Qualification to receive the payment: not means tested...Why?
  • It's fair to do so.
    • My thought: I bet some folks who don't read this paper or others like it won't think so, but I can see how it is fair.
    • Wager I'll make: Folks, most likely absolutists, who "don't get" the point of the document, or the BI, will focus in on the equitableness discussion, making out as though the nature and extent of fairness is somehow central to whether the merit of implementing a BI initiative has overall merit regardless of whether it is or is not 100% monetarily fair in some dimension.
      • Resolved: Ignore these folks unless they put forth a strong and well developed argument in support of their view(s), for those who don't won't have bothered to get fully engaged in the content (high level and detailed) of the idea of BI. I haven't the time or patience, having now studied this topic this much and having more to do, to bother with people's pat, puerile and poorly presented platitudes.
  • Removes social stigma associated with receiving the payment.
    • My thought: If that will stop the non-poor from copping a 'tude toward the poor merely because they are poor, I'm all for it. It's a terrible comment on our society that we need a tangible way to inspire respect for people regardless of their financial status, but I can't deny that we need some way to motivate that sort of respect.
  • Ensures a positive differential for working and receiving the BI payment; thus produces no negative impact on the incentive to work.
    • My thought: okay...I have to agree with that.
  • Makes it possible for low wage earners to still have a means of revising their skill sets as economic conditions change and they "get caught" in the transition...eliminates the two major elements of the "unemployment trap" (see document)
    • My thought: This seems like a very good reason for implementing a BI.
      • I wonder if the author(s) will develop this in a later section that discusses the virtues of BI? I'll wait and see....
      • I wonder if it's possible to do this without also having to concurrently implement, or previously have implemented, something akin to "free college for all" (if not literally that)? Would this lead to something resembling "trade schools" for what have long been thought of as professions? That is, a means by which folks with relevant and demonstrable life/work experience could, with a year or two of intense training extrapolate those skills to new applications. For example, training a failed (or "abdicated") small business owner to become an accountant, software developer, engineer, etc?
        • This question makes me ask whether there exists an inextricable link between the two types of benefits a jurisdiction/polity/society may offer if indeed it offers either?
        • Could a BI initiative be ruined by not also having a structured (well coordinated) retraining initiative to compliment it?
  • Not dependent on work performance -- presence at work or quality of work performed.
    • My thought: The idea that "crappy" work/school performance or simply not showing up for work/school just doesn't sit well with me. I get that the idea of BI requires this, but I don't like that it does. I won't reject BI just because of this, however, because BI isn't about whether one works or not; it's about making sure folks don't "get lost in the weeds" or caught by economic curve shifting and thereby made, beyond their control, into non-productive members of society. That folks aren't allowed to get "left behind" is important, more important than whether some minority of folks skip work or underperform at work. Sometimes one must take the good with the bad.
  • Not dependent on willingness to work, but one must accept the offer to work if it's given and the job in question is "suitable," i.e., within a reasonable proximity to one's home, one has the skills needed to perform it, one does not have obligations to do something other than work (e.g., care for a pre-school age child, although one would have to accept a job if the job somehow managed to allow one to work and fulfill one's obligations) etc.
    • My thoughts: Though I'm not nuts about the idea of giving BI to "would-be lifelong medicant tramps," I can live with it because:
      1. I just cannot conceive that many folks will choose that lifestyle; there'll surely be some "shrinkage" but every business anticipates that anyway; perfect efficiency in BI allocation isn't the goal and reasonable efficiency in doling out BI distributions is fine, especially at the outset; they inefficiencies can be dealt with over time and as the idea is "flushed out" based on observed realities, and
      2. To receive the money, one must have "roots" of some sort, even if it's just to collect one's money from a bank into which the money was deposited on one's behalf. So, it's not as though such "tramps" could not be found and put to work, lest they lose/forfeit their BI payment by rejecting the work. My morals -- grossly disdainful of the idea of letting folks die, starve, whatever, on the streets -- don't bring me to prohibit a person from saying "I don't want the BI, and I won't be forced into accepting it."

The definition above is what this author means throughout his paper by "basic income."

• I wonder if this definition is generally accepted by BI (UBI) advocates?
• I wonder if most BI (UBI) advocates understand the term to the full extent this author has given/explained it? No way to know for now...maybe the answer will become apparent, maybe it won't....

The next section of the paper addresses "why BI is needed."

 

[Picaro]

The best policy on this came out decades ago, the NIT and FAP, via Milton Friedman and Patrick Moynihan. Re-inventing the wheel will end like the old wheels: Round.

 

[320 Years of History]

Picaro, I see you find this post funny. I truly don't know what about it made you laugh. Can you please tell me.?

 

[Picaro]

Picaro, I see you find this post funny. I truly don't know what about it made you laugh. Can you please tell me.?

I didn't know GreatGoose was one of my socks. Sorry, I don't remember why I rated it 'funny'.

 

[320 Years of History]

Picaro, I see you find this post funny. I truly don't know what about it made you laugh. Can you please tell me.?

I didn't know GreatGoose was one of my socks. Sorry, I don't remember why I rated it 'funny'.

Oops...my mistake. Sorry.

 

[320 Years of History]

The Great Goose, I see you find this post funny. I truly don't know what about it made you laugh. Can you please tell me?

 

[Picaro]

Though I'm not nuts about the idea of giving BI to "would-be lifelong medicant tramps," I can live with it because:

1. 
   
   
   • I just cannot conceive that many folks will choose that lifestyle; there'll surely be some "shrinkage" but every business anticipates that anyway; perfect efficiency in BI allocation isn't the goal and reasonable efficiency in doling out BI distributions is fine, especially at the outset; they inefficiencies can be dealt with over time and as the idea is "flushed out" based on observed realities, and
   • To receive the money, one must have "roots" of some sort, even if it's just to collect one's money from a bank into which the money was deposited on one's behalf. So, it's not as though such "tramps" could not be found and put to work, lest they lose/forfeit their BI payment by rejecting the work. My morals -- grossly disdainful of the idea of letting folks die, starve, whatever, on the streets -- don't bring me to prohibit a person from saying "I don't want the BI, and I won't be forced into accepting it."

One of the factors that create large ghettos and slums is precisely because restricting disbursements to state and local entities forces immobility on poor people needing aid and subsidies. It needs to be a Federal program that a legal citizen can use anywhere in the country. This allows poor people the means to move out of job stagnant regions to regions that have job growth instead of being stuck where there aren't any jobs. They shouldn't have to re-apply just because they move around. In fact the system should be encouraging moving around as often as they need to.

It also allows families to move to smaller towns and areas with better schools, away from the gang cultures that dominate slums as well, even if they move just to get away from that atavistic degenerate culture without moving to a job; their children will be better off if nothing else. But we know why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations; they would lose their hostages and special interest political clout.

What would be interesting is for someone to study the aftermath of Katrina and compare those in poverty who were lucky enough to be dispersed to small towns in the West with those who were merely dumped in shitholes like Houston and see who fared better.

 

[320 Years of History]

allows poor people the means to move out of job stagnant regions to regions that have job growth instead of being stuck where there aren't any jobs. They shouldn't have to re-apply just because they move around. In fact the system should be encouraging moving around as often as they need to.

Red:
Agree. I think one should move if there are no suitable jobs where one is. If the BI enables that, great.

Blue:
Maybe my remark about "roots" and a bank account led you to think that somehow reapplying for something might be called for? I don't know.

I was merely thinking about the mobility implications of that part of the definition and observing that folks will need to have some place to which their BI payment would be delivered. A bank account (via electronic deposit) seems a sensible enough place. One can physically move about all one wants as far as I'm concerned; if they switch banks, they'll need to provide the new account info, not re-apply to receive BI. BI as presented/defined by the paper's author does not appear to have application requirements; one is born and therefore receives it. It's just a matter of telling the provider where to send the money.

Pink:
Does one really need "the system" to encourage one to do what should be patently obvious as the thing to do? I should hope not. The idea that anyone or any system should or actively does save folks from their own stupidity that which, in a UBI enabled environment, is one thing to which I just don't and won't cotton.

At some point, our society needs objective and undeniable ways to identify those folks who truly are a blight on society and a literal waste of skin. Observing that an individual receiving UBI payments that provide for their most basic needs doesn't have the sense to move from a place of non-existent work opportunity to a place where there is opportunity for them strikes me as all the proof one needs to say,

Fine, you get your UBI payments. We won't let you just die of starvation or exposure. But we recognize you are beyond help. Have a good life, and please, please, just stay the hell out of everyone else's way. You can refuse to be part of the solution, and we'll let you do that to the extent you can subsist on your UBI, but you will not be permitted to become more of everyone else's problem than you already are.​

At some point, a society has to be able to say of and to selected individuals, "Y'all just ain't worth it, and we will do no more than tolerate your mere existence."

why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations

Well now, I don't think forced dispersals are acceptable.

 

[Picaro]

why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations

Well now, I don't think forced dispersals are acceptable.

Who said they were?

I work in blighted neighborhoods; there are many decent people there who would jump at the chance to get their children out of those gang-infested shitholes and the door wouldn't come close to hitting them in the ass on their way out. They're trapped there, and can't move without having to go through the whole dystopian bureaucratic Catch-22 process again, just because they changed some line on a form and have to wait months to start over, if at all.

 

[320 Years of History]

why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations

Well now, I don't think forced dispersals are acceptable.

Who said they were?

I work in blighted neighborhoods; there are many decent people there who would jump at the chance to get their children out of those gang-infested shitholes and the door wouldn't come close to hitting them in the ass on their way out. They're trapped there, and can't move without having to go through the whole dystopian bureaucratic Catch-22 process again, just because they changed some line on a form and have to wait months to start over, if at all.

Red:
Let me try to be clearer...

You wrote:

But we know why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations; they would lose their hostages and special interest political clout.

Your sentence uses the transitive construction (your providing a direct object for the verb is how/why we infer that) of the verb "disperse;" therefore the dispersal you noted, by definition, must be forced, that is, caused by something other than the thing/people being dispersed. A perfectly valid (acceptable) reason for "the black middle class" to "oppose dispersing the Hood populations" is because those populations of people are being dispersed rather than dispersing of their own volition.

I know quite well you wrote nothing about the acceptability of forced dispersals, but I also can see that the dispersal of which you wrote is one caused by others, and that the dispersal of which you wrote has that nature is why I made the comment I did: I object to forced dispersals of people from wherever it is that they call their current home area.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm now beginning to have a conclusion about UBI: there's no way the U.S. can afford to do it.

Now that I have some idea of the nature of what UBI-ers want -- universality of the UBI payments and something greater in sum by a large amount than Alaska's payout -- I don't have to think too hard to know we haven't anything close to the kind of money it'd take to do that.

Come on now....The U.S. population is ~318M people . That means whatever sum is envisioned must be multiplied by 318M.

• 2014 Federal Tax revenue (all forms): ~$3T
• 2104 State Tax revenue: ~$0.85T
• 2014 SSI collections: ~$0.88T
• Total income based collected tax revenue (not including excise taxes): ~$4.65T (~$14.6K per person)

So, do the math and tell me:

• What share of our total tax collections are you willing to allocate to UBI?
• What strikes you as a reasonable tax rate increase in order to fund the UBI?
• How much strikes you as a reasonable initial UBI to provide to each person?

I'm not even opposed to a hike in my tax rates to fund a UBI. That said, I'm not about to accept going from ~40% to ~80% either. In fact, I won't find acceptable any total tax burden greater than or equal to 49% of my income. I'm sorry, but if I work, I damn sure had better get to keep (not pay to the government) more than half of what I earn.

 

[Picaro]

why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations

Well now, I don't think forced dispersals are acceptable.

Who said they were?

I work in blighted neighborhoods; there are many decent people there who would jump at the chance to get their children out of those gang-infested shitholes and the door wouldn't come close to hitting them in the ass on their way out. They're trapped there, and can't move without having to go through the whole dystopian bureaucratic Catch-22 process again, just because they changed some line on a form and have to wait months to start over, if at all.

Red:
Let me try to be clearer...

You wrote:

But we know why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations; they would lose their hostages and special interest political clout.

Your sentence uses the transitive construction (your providing a direct object for the verb is how/why we infer that) of the verb "disperse;" therefore the dispersal you noted, by definition, must be forced, that is, caused by something other than the thing/people being dispersed. A perfectly valid (acceptable) reason for "the black middle class" to "oppose dispersing the Hood populations" is because those populations of people are being dispersed rather than dispersing of their own volition.

I know quite well you wrote nothing about the acceptability of forced dispersals, but I also can see that the dispersal of which you wrote is one caused by others, and that the dispersal of which you wrote has that nature is why I made the comment I did: I object to forced dispersals of people from wherever it is that they call their current home area.

I'm only interested in the topic, not your pseudo-intellectual posturing and dissembling semantic gibberish.

 

[320 Years of History]

why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations

Well now, I don't think forced dispersals are acceptable.

Who said they were?

I work in blighted neighborhoods; there are many decent people there who would jump at the chance to get their children out of those gang-infested shitholes and the door wouldn't come close to hitting them in the ass on their way out. They're trapped there, and can't move without having to go through the whole dystopian bureaucratic Catch-22 process again, just because they changed some line on a form and have to wait months to start over, if at all.

Red:
Let me try to be clearer...

You wrote:

But we know why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations; they would lose their hostages and special interest political clout.

Your sentence uses the transitive construction (your providing a direct object for the verb is how/why we infer that) of the verb "disperse;" therefore the dispersal you noted, by definition, must be forced, that is, caused by something other than the thing/people being dispersed. A perfectly valid (acceptable) reason for "the black middle class" to "oppose dispersing the Hood populations" is because those populations of people are being dispersed rather than dispersing of their own volition.

I know quite well you wrote nothing about the acceptability of forced dispersals, but I also can see that the dispersal of which you wrote is one caused by others, and that the dispersal of which you wrote has that nature is why I made the comment I did: I object to forced dispersals of people from wherever it is that they call their current home area.

I'm only interested in the topic, not your pseudo-intellectual posturing and dissembling semantic gibberish.

Fine, but then don't quote me.

 

[The Great Goose]

The Great Goose, I see you find this post funny. I truly don't know what about it made you laugh. Can you please tell me?

I think I was drunk.

 

[Picaro]

why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations

Well now, I don't think forced dispersals are acceptable.

Who said they were?

I work in blighted neighborhoods; there are many decent people there who would jump at the chance to get their children out of those gang-infested shitholes and the door wouldn't come close to hitting them in the ass on their way out. They're trapped there, and can't move without having to go through the whole dystopian bureaucratic Catch-22 process again, just because they changed some line on a form and have to wait months to start over, if at all.

Red:
Let me try to be clearer...

You wrote:

But we know why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations; they would lose their hostages and special interest political clout.

Your sentence uses the transitive construction (your providing a direct object for the verb is how/why we infer that) of the verb "disperse;" therefore the dispersal you noted, by definition, must be forced, that is, caused by something other than the thing/people being dispersed. A perfectly valid (acceptable) reason for "the black middle class" to "oppose dispersing the Hood populations" is because those populations of people are being dispersed rather than dispersing of their own volition.

I know quite well you wrote nothing about the acceptability of forced dispersals, but I also can see that the dispersal of which you wrote is one caused by others, and that the dispersal of which you wrote has that nature is why I made the comment I did: I object to forced dispersals of people from wherever it is that they call their current home area.

I'm only interested in the topic, not your pseudo-intellectual posturing and dissembling semantic gibberish.

Fine, but then don't quote me.

My mistake; I momentarily forgot you're just obsessed with yourself, hardly ever answer anything anybody actually said, and then make it all about your inability to respond without making it all about how you can't really read and need to cover for that with even more verbose excuses.

 

[Picaro]

A working paper for the Peanut Gallery giving a brief history of the guaranteed income policies and their political fates over the years that might be interesting for those who aren't familiar with the concept. The author request that it not be cited, since it's just a working paper, so you'll have to read it yourselves in its entirety.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrT...FAP2.doc/RK=0/RS=hH6FIqmYB9Ju7RpqYDmEv4lTAL8-

 

[jasonnfree]

why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations

Well now, I don't think forced dispersals are acceptable.

Who said they were?

I work in blighted neighborhoods; there are many decent people there who would jump at the chance to get their children out of those gang-infested shitholes and the door wouldn't come close to hitting them in the ass on their way out. They're trapped there, and can't move without having to go through the whole dystopian bureaucratic Catch-22 process again, just because they changed some line on a form and have to wait months to start over, if at all.

Red:
Let me try to be clearer...

You wrote:

But we know why hacks and the black middle class would oppose dispersing the Hood populations; they would lose their hostages and special interest political clout.

Your sentence uses the transitive construction (your providing a direct object for the verb is how/why we infer that) of the verb "disperse;" therefore the dispersal you noted, by definition, must be forced, that is, caused by something other than the thing/people being dispersed. A perfectly valid (acceptable) reason for "the black middle class" to "oppose dispersing the Hood populations" is because those populations of people are being dispersed rather than dispersing of their own volition.

I know quite well you wrote nothing about the acceptability of forced dispersals, but I also can see that the dispersal of which you wrote is one caused by others, and that the dispersal of which you wrote has that nature is why I made the comment I did: I object to forced dispersals of people from wherever it is that they call their current home area.

Thirty days to a more powerful vocabulary strikes again!

 

[JimBowie1958]

The new tech today is virtually independent of human effort to make it, maintain it and install it.

I'm just going to highlight this because it highlights your misunderstanding of tech. Let me be clear. This statement I've isolated is 100% false. It takes A TON of effort to create working programs

I can set up a relational database with a GUI front end that can handle basic records in one day by myself. It wont have a lot of bells and whistles, but it will let you do data entry into a database and do basic verification. Cant speak for every other application type out there, but I've heard from other programmers using JAVA code sharing,etc, that similar results can come about for them as well. I do know Oracle relational databases and GUI's. I've done it for 20+ years. I am now unemployed for the past two years.

Your assertion is false.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The best policy on this came out decades ago, the NIT and FAP, via Milton Friedman and Patrick Moynihan. Re-inventing the wheel will end like the old wheels: Round.

Bah, two dimensional analysis strikes again; you need to look at the CROSS SECTION to see the difference!