Basic income: the world's simplest plan to end poverty, explained

[Recursion]

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6003359/basic-income-negative-income-tax-questions-explain

"Basic income" is shorthand for a range of proposals that share the idea of giving everyone in a given polity a certain amount of money on a regular basis. A basic income comes with no categorical eligibility requirements; you don't have to be blind or disabled or unemployed to get it. Everyone gets the same amount by virtue of being a human with material needs that money can help address.

There are a number of different names this idea has gone by over the years. "Universal basic income" and "basic income guarantee" are used frequently. "Guaranteed minimum income" and "negative income tax" are generally used to refer to versions of the plan that also impose a tax that gradually eats up the cash transfer, as a means of reducing the cost of the policy. "Demogrant" was popular in the '70s, and "citizens' dividend" and "social wage" get used from time to time.

Who supports a basic income? Surprising people! Arguably the biggest popularizer of the idea in the 20th century was libertarian economist Milton Friedman, who specifically favored a negative income tax as a replacement for much of the welfare state. Many left-of-center economists, like James Tobin and John Kenneth Galbraith, were also on board. More recently, Emmanuel Saez and Jonathan Gruber, two of the most influential left-leaning economists currently working, argued that an ideal tax system would feature a "large demogrant."

Martin Luther King Jr. endorsed the idea in his book Where to Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, writing, "I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective—the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income." Activists and scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven authored an influential article in The Nation in 1966 which called for a national movement of the poor with the intended goal of achieving a basic income. More academically, left philosophers and intellectuals like Erik Olin Wright, Peter Frase, Carole Pateman, Antonio Negri, and Michael Hardt and in particular Philippe Van Parijs have written in favor of the idea.

This idea gets surprisingly high traction among my conservative friends. Replace SNAP, TANF, SS, SSI/SSDI, Section 8, etc. (what is and isn't "etc." will have to be hammered out -- ACA subsidies? Student loans? Farm benefits?) with a guaranteed universal income for everyone.

There are different ways to do it (make it literally universal; make it universal for people earning less than it otherwise; etc.) But it also takes the social safety net out of the hands of meddling conservatives who like to do things like prevent SNAP recipients from buying beans.

In the '72 campaign, the difference between Nixon and McGovern was on the size of their proposed basic income programs. This still has pull on both sides of the aisle if we can get over the NIH syndrome.

[The2ndWheel]

1. It'll happen eventually, but it's a last resort kind of thing

Keep making more and more people not really needed, and it's either this, or a lot more angry people. It won't solve every problem though, as is usually the case with money. We won't all turn into creative artists because of all our new found freedom.

[butterfly77]

62. Not as long as the oldies..

who still believe they are living in the forties and fifties continue to believe we are living in the same country where (pull yourself up by your bootstraps) and you can get a job if you try hard enough,some of them believe if everyone goes out and cut peoples grass and work a the corner store you can make it.

They talk shit because of jobs where they live manufacturing jobs aren't here like that among other jobs that were in the past plus the fact that their is age discrimination. Listen at the news do you hear them talking about jobs for older people?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I used to be among the folks who believed it should be set up such that

you only got what took you up to whatever the minimum is. Ie, if you made a minimum income of $25k a year, and a person made 10k that year, you gave them another 15k. But that does have several problems. First, it makes the system logistically more difficult, with some central agency (IRS, I guess) having to individually address each person's situation, and it also leaves the Republicans something to whine about in terms of 'poor people getting special treatment', as well as the Paul-type whines about how such benefits 'disincentivize work', because you lose benefits if you earn too much working.

So I guess I've evolved on the tactics of employing a basic income, to simply giving every person a direct deposit type account, and simply crediting it every 2 weeks.

[merrily]

4. Difference being, I believe you are a person of goodwill, seeking a just solution. I don't believe

that about recursion's conservative friends. I could, of course, be wrong on both counts, but, so far I've seen no evidence of that.

[whatthehey]

10. Another difference being trillions of dollars

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Let's say we set our minimum income at 20k per adult, a bare sustainability. That's about 75% or 240 million people so we would need 4.8T annually just to pay minimum income, raising the entire Federal budget 30% before we spennd a dime on education, infrastructure, defense, payroll, bond interest, whatever. Essentially we would have to double revenue to make this ecven vaguely feasible.

If instead we cover a minimum income up to 20k per year, the math gets much trickier but spitballing a curve where 9% have an income below 5k, 26% below 10k and 51% below 20k (2010 numbers best I could find) you would need to give, approx the following

5% get all 20k

another 5% get average of 17.5 k

Another 16% get average of 12.5k

Another 25% get average of 5k


dollars respectively would be

320B

280B

667B

400B

for a total of 1.7T give or take. Still a massive lump, but if it replaces all welfare and entitlement programs the latest numbers I have seen are at 1.35T so not a massive difference. Of course there will need to be admin costs, but not a huge burden.

Personally I would suggest a very slightly more expensive approach to incentivize work as a preferrable option.

We will guarantee 20k income, but for every dollar you earn up to 30k we only reduce that benefit by 67c. So make 10k in income and your 20k benefits will reduce by $6700 so you still get $23,300 total. Make 20k in income and your benefits reduce by 13400 so you get $26,600. You're only on your own above 30k. I don't have the detailed data to do the math, but shouldn't shift anywhere near the first figure, or even to half of it.

EDIT. I accidentally ocverstated the cost of my up-to example by using single filer data rather than all filers. So the difference between giving everybody 20k and everybody enough to take them up to 20k is even more significant than I show above. The former is simply unrealistic in tte extreme.

[jeff47]

14. Keep in mind taxes can recover the funds.

Give everyone $20k (or whatever the floor is). Set up the tax structure to recover that $20k for people who make more than whatever your threshold you'd like. Recover it all by $30k income, or recover most by $30k and gradually get back the rest by $75k.

It effectively becomes an interest-free loan to people above your minimum threshold. Kinda like the interest-free loan most people give the IRS via withholding on their paycheck ("Woo hoo! I'm getting back $1000 from my tax refund" means you loaned the government $1000 at 0% interest)

This allows for the scaling scenario you describe, as well as keeping it universal so that it is not as demonized. In other words, you make it like Social Security instead of welfare.

Automation means we're going to need something like this sooner rather than later. We can't run an economy entirely by selling services to each other.

[whatthehey]

23. To make it universal, taxes would literally have to double

The math is inescapable. The entire Fed budget right now is 3.4T. To pay each adult 20k would cost 4.8T. We only spend 1.4T give or take on income/security payments now, so you need an additional 3.4T to cover it assuming this replaces all other income benefits.

Actually that's more than double, as we currently run at a deficit so while the Fed spends 3.4T they get less in tax revenue. That's many orders of magnitude more than you would get from tax arbitrage.

Sure given high MPC at lower incomes, some would come back in sales and excise taxes as well as increased taxes because businesses would make more profit, but only a small fraction. It would be a great idea for GDP, but a terrible one for budgets and fiscal policy, to pay everyone this minimum income. It's also unnecessary. Pay it to those who need it, and reap the benefits in lower crime, better economic results in low income neighborhoods, and lower bureaucracy as it would be easierr to administer than SNAP, TANF, Section 8 etc.

[jeff47]

27. No, not really.

The math is inescapable. The entire Fed budget right now is 3.4T. To pay each adult 20k would cost 4.8T. We only spend 1.4T give or take on income/security payments now, so you need an additional 3.4T to cover it assuming this replaces all other income benefits.

Too bad it's impossible to cut spending on anything. Or not.

Also, you are busy panicking about headline numbers instead of the net result.

Let's say only 20% of the population "deserve" the $20k. And to keep the numbers nice and round, I'm gonna say there's 100M people in the country.

Under your scenario where we only give it to people who "need" it, the cost is:
100M * 20% * $20k = $400B

Under my scenario where we claw back the money from 80% via taxes, the cost is:
100M * $20k - 100M * 80% * $20k = $400B

The downside of my approach is those large "headline" numbers. It still costs the same in the end.
The downside of your approach is the program will be demonized and eliminated to punish those "lazy" people. (With a healthy dose of racism thrown in)

We are going to need a program like this. Automation means there will not be enough work to keep everyone employed in the relatively near future. We will not all be able to have jobs serving each other, especially as we switch to machines to serve us (why bother with a maid when a Roomba can handle the cleaning).

If we keep using money to buy basic needs, we will need a basic income. The alternative is a massively unstable political system that will collapse violently. When you give someone the choice between guaranteed starvation or possible death in a violent revolution, many will pick the revolution.

Actually that's more than double, as we currently run at a deficit so while the Fed spends 3.4T they get less in tax revenue.

Debt is not universally bad. Outside the recent bubble, it has been very beneficial for people to go into debt in order to buy a home. They get more back than the cost of the debt.

Likewise, it's good for the government to run a deficit, as long as it's for something that boosts economic output and thus tax receipts, including money made on trading government debt. (Obviously this can go too far, but very few places are Greece)

[whatthehey]

43. that's just silliness

You want to give everybody 20k then raise the taxes of 80% of the population by 20k each? Why just not give that 80% the 20k in the first place? They are not dumb enough to not notice that's exactly the same net result.

Deficit spending is fine within reasonable ratio to GDP. Adding 3.4T to the deficit every year to give a bunch of people who don't need it 20k each is a bit different.

The minimum income idea has merit, assuming it's a top up to a minimum for those below it. Giving it to everyone regardless of need is begging for Weimar inflation at the very best. Shenanigans about giving it to everyone then taking it back from most of them via tax boosts is just absurd political kabuki.

[jeff47]

48. Silliness is not bothering to read what you are replying to.

Here, I'll quote one of the multiple times I've explained it to you. In fact, it's in the post you replied to.

The downside of your approach is the program will be demonized and eliminated to punish those "lazy" people. (With a healthy dose of racism thrown in)

Welfare is gone. Social Security isn't. Why? Welfare was demonized as benefiting lazy black people. Social Security paid everyone. Even though Social Security income is taxable, so top earners get it taxed away.

Giving it to everyone regardless of need is begging for Weimar inflation at the very best.

Well, now I know I don't need to bother thinking about your arguments ever again.

[merrily]

3. I don't trust your conservative friends.

BTW, how is this a guaranteed basic income different from welfare, which Bubba bragged about ending, except that the rich will get it as well?

The rich can take all they want from government, without sharing, but heaven forbid a poor person gets a dime without sharing it with Buffet, Koch and Peterson? And, of course, no eligibility requirements mean no jobs for people who determined eligibility--and still do, for things like Medicaid and food stamps.

Thing is, once you eliminate the infrastructure for programs based on eligibility, doing away with the program entirely down the road becomes that much easier and reinstatement such a heavy lift that it's probably not going to happen.

Same reason conservatives wanted to make Social Security needs based. Once that happens, it's in the hated welfare category and that much easier to do away with altogether, as Bubba did with welfare.

Again, I don't trust your conservative friends. Or, for that matter, my third way friends

[eggplant]

6. So let the rich also have the money.

Relatively speaking, it isn't very much for them, and it eliminates any of the stigma and means testing.

[merrily]

11. The larger issue is that I don't think this is their endgame. The endgame always seems to be

getting rid of programs, not making them less humiliating for poor people.

[daredtowork]

38. This goes hand-in-hand

the stigma is used in the long game in the campaigning to get rid of the of the programs.

Re:
- "welfare queens"
- family on welfare but kid has an x-box
- woman bought a grape to get cash off her ebt card - "caught" on youtube video
- people buy "steak" and "seafood" with food stamps
- any ritual where people have to display their use of public benefits in order to use them. (This is why I don't try to get cash off my ebt cards in stores, btw - too obvious).
- outrage at the idea a person on welfare, no matter how long they have been holding out might want some temporary entertainment escape like seeing a movie or going out to eat with friends.
- making "rational" decisions for people on welfare about "what they can't afford anymore". This is how elderly people often get moved out of homes where they've lived most of their lives. Once their community ties are ripped away, they die soon after.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. When people are means-tested, they are constantly judged on what they spend the money on. Meanwhile, rich people - who take a much bigger chunk of the taxpayer's money for themselves - spend hedonistically on whatever the hell they want. The rich get autonomy, self-determination, and dignity. The means-tested get psychologically tortured into an early grave.

If there is a mincome - which I pray for whole-heartedly (I've posted on that here myself) - I agree it must be universal. We recover the money back from the rich in taxes if the taxes are progressive. So it doesn't matter if the rich get it, too. As long as we can pay for the program, the mincome is maintained at a level people can live on, and there is always opportunity/incentive to strive for something more if you want it - then all's good.

[aspirant]

41. The stigma

comes from propaganda and brainwashing

The key is to abolish the stigma and re-establish dignity and compassion for all.

That's the basis of this populist equality movement which will tear apart these crippling stigmas.

[merrily]

50. You and I have posted to each other enough that I hope you know my heart is with

those in need.

As far as recapturing money from the rich, I don't think that is realistic. If the last few decades are any guide, by the time the sausage is made, the rich will benefit. But that is not my objection.

When was the last times conservatives proposed something whose endgame was really to save the dignity of the poor? That's my point in this. I don't trust it for a minute.

[daredtowork]

52. I agree there are reasons to be suspicious

there would also be the same old problems and struggles in raising the mincome to beat inflation. Especially when the government has a vested interest in faking the inflation basket.

However, there are ways the mincome could be genuinely attractive to certain conservatives.

1) Cuts a lot of bureaucracy and big government.

2) Staves off possible class warfare and offers relief for jobs replaced by automation in a fair way.

3) Could simplify taxes. Make everything more transparent.

4) Party that delivers this will get celebrated by recipients if it works.

5) Ends embarrassment over abuse of elderly, disabled, and women/children trying to escape cruel partners that is inherent in the current system.

Who knows...perhaps they are just trying to avert another French Revolution? The escape jets are running out of places to go.

[merrily]

54. Averting a revolution-not so much French as Russian--was IMO

a motive for the New Deal and perhaps the Great Society.

Around the New Deal, there was talking of "saving capitalism" and giving up part of what one owned in order to be able to enjoy the rest in peace. In this millennium, some tend to forget that Tsar Nicholas was assassinated only 11 years before Black Friday, 1929.

Around the Great Society, several movements had begun coalescing: The anti-war movement, the civil rights movement (both peaceful and more militant, like the Black Muslims, who were furnishing security personnel to Martin Luther, King, Jr.) and economic justice movements (Martin Luther King, Jr. being listed in wiki as a Democratic Socialist).

Of course, a lot of the New Deal was dismantled while FDR was still in office. "Welfare as we know it" under Bubba, and, since then, they've been after Social Security.

Fear of a revolution must be considerably lessened now by extensive spying, including in my neighborhood, many street cameras, which probably have voice capability too. There's also things like Homeland Security and militarization of state and local police, which I got to see in action when the Tsarnaev brothers were still at large.


Anyway....there are, of course, lots of good reasons for the guaranteed income proposal, but, again, that is not my issue with it. In any event, posting is not going to get it done (or stop it from getting done).

[daredtowork]

56. What are some of your fears of ulterior motives? nt

[merrily]

57. They are as I've already stated several times.

I've never once known conservatives to propose or back a social program based on their desire to help the poor via tax dollars and I do not for five minutes believe that is their motivation this time.

[daredtowork]

59. But what are those motivations? nt

[merrily]

60. Are you asking me why conservatives are pushing this (at least, according to Recursion's OP)?

I can look backward and say with a degree of confidence what I have never seen them do and conclude that, therefore, they are most likely not doing it this time, either. I can't read their minds and say exactly what they are up to and why.

[lovemydog]

7. You also have leftist friends, like me, who support it.

The way I understand it (and certainly would advocate) the rich would not get it. You simply set an amount of net worth and annual income that would say whether you qualify for it that year or not. If it's law it's law. Are you arguing that the more complex it is to get welfare, the better it is for anyone trying to obtain it because it's harder to do away with it?

If you have a left-wing friend who supports hiking outside because it's healthy and a right-wing friend who supports hiking outside because it's healthy, do you oppose hiking because someone you don't like or trust supports it?

[merrily]

8. If they are no eligibility requirements, how does one exclude the rich?

Maybe I am reading "no categorical" eligibility requirements too broadly. ("Poor" is a category, too!)

But, yes, if conservatives like it, I'm suspicious. That's the reality.

[lovemydog]

9. I think you just state on your tax form for each year

the same things you always state: net worth and annual income.

Then you have eligibility requirements each year, based on that.

[merrily]

12. ? I don't state my net worth on my federal income tax form every year.

[lovemydog]

45. My bad.

Maybe it should be included and taxed, for everyone whose net worth is over a certain amount like say $2 million. Personally I think in addition to raising the minimum wage and tying it to cost of living, we should have a maximum net worth or at least a huge tax on billionaires, in the 80-90% range. I know this may sound like wishful thinking. But that's kind of what we're doing here on this thread. It's fun to speculate. I'd eliminate taxes on all but those who are worth over a certain amount like say $1 million. Increasing taxes on the rest of them (depending on how much you tax them) would bring in more revenue than ever. Particularly if we eliminate tax exemptions for religious organizations.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Why exclude the rich?

Why not just increase higher brackets of income tax to compensate? It comes to the same thing, and requires less administration.

[eggplant]

46. Exactly.

Everyone gets it, nobody is stigmatized. The wealthy pay it back via taxes, the poor don't have to deal with that hassle.

[jeff47]

16. You give the money to everyone, and recover it from the wealthy via taxes.

Just like Social Security. And that structure has made it very hard to cut or eliminate Social Security over the decades.

If you make explicit eligibility requirements, you make it a program "for the poor". That makes it much easier to attack and cut.

Also, you have to deal with edge cases like people having "a good year". They go over the threshold to get it one year, but are under it the year before and year after. If you recover via taxes, that is handled. If you recover via eligibility, you now need eligibility rules that not only handle that case, but also handle fraud that looks like that case.

[merrily]

17. Either way, it seems easy to attack and eliminate. See welfare and Social Security.

Social Security was hard for Republicans to eliminate with opposition from Democrats. I am not so sure what would have have happened if Obama had tried it in the flush of his first victory.

Again, I don't trust the motives of conservatives who supposedly find this a fine idea.

[aspirant]

18. SS is enduring

because people know it as retirement not welfare

Just like corporations get SUBSIDIES not welfare

Attack "Retirement" and you will get blowback, just remember Chained CPI

[merrily]

19. I've already posted why I think it was enduring when only Republicans were attacking it.

Attack "Retirement" and you will get blowback, just remember Chained CPI

Democrats were defending chained CPI because Obama proposed it That goes for both Democratic politicians like Pelosi and "rank and file" Democrats. Moreover, blowback alone doesn't necessarily stop government action, especially action being pushed by both parties during a President's second term.

Also, Social Security is something to which every worker contributes. The same is not so of guaranteed minimum income.

[aspirant]

22. Obama and the Dems caved on Chained CPI

because of blowback and it did stop govt action

KeystoneXL; blowback did stop govt action

Fast Track delay; blowback has for now stopped govt action

Other than revolution, what people's action stops all govt actions. If blowback works, use it.

[merrily]

25. I disagree with your version of the facts.

There was a tortured effort that began with the Cat Food commission, segued to the Grand Bargain Committee and ended with the Sperling-proposed sequester, which did get implements. By that time, it was time for Obama to run for re-election.

Meanwhile, despite much blowback, Obama did put Social Security AND Medicare on the table, but Cantor and Boehner were in such extreme Dug In heels mode that they turned up their noses at it.

Hence the reference in my prior post to second term President and something both parties want to do.

On the other items, it remains to be seen what, if anything blowback will ultimately accomplish. Obama seems quite unfazed by blowback on TPP.

Point is, I don't think blowback alone works.

[aspirant]

28. Disagree back

Blowback worked on Chained CPI, plain and simple. Repubs receive SS too.

Blowback on TPA is working now accomplishing exposure to more citizens on the issues.

Obama has criticized EW with a tone we haven't seen him use before, IMO that's being fazed.

If we want to change this country we use every tool in the bag.

[jeff47]

24. The same thing would have happened as when W tried to eliminate it flush from victory

It blows up in his face.

Welfare cuts work by demonization of the poor as "lazy". Add in some racism, and welfare is pretty easy to cut. This works because only "those people" get welfare. And you can create "secret" welfare that only they can get.

Social Security's simple eligibility rules of "everyone who's had a job" means the money does not just go to "those people".

If we're going to do basic income, we'll need to do the latter in order to help defend it. And we're going to need to do it sometime soon. Automation means we will have way too many people for the available jobs in the next couple decades.

[merrily]

26. Again, Democrats opposed Bush. They had begun to support Obama.

[jeff47]

30. Bush had a Republican House and Senate.

Democratic opposition had very limited ability to stop him. Social Security is spending, so it could be eliminated via a bill that can not be filibustered.

What happened is W's Republican support evaporated when he started pushing Social Security cuts.

Support for Chained CPI and other Social Security cuts was not universal among Republicans. That's a big part of why there was no "grand bargain" under Obama.

Again, the point is a universal program is much harder to attack. Not that it is completely invulnerable. After all, we have actually eliminated welfare, but still have Social Security.

[lovemydog]

5. I'm in favor of basic income.

Make it simple. Not a 1,000 page document with a thousand exceptions. Make it X amount (let's say $1,000 per month). If your net worth is over X amount (let's say $200,000) or you make over X amount that year (let's say $24,000), you don't qualify that year.

There's tremendous social benefits to this, and it wouldn't discourage anyone from working. We have enough wealth in this country to cover it without increasing the deficit. It would help reduce the deficit if it's coupled with peacetime rates of military spending and taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income.

[aspirant]

13. Gradual process

Raise the cap on SS, guarantee $15,000-20,000/year for everyone with those making $20,000 and over exempt since they are already receiving the basic income.

Slowly lower the retirement age starting at 55 then gradually decrease to 30 opening up more jobs for those that choose work. The SS system is already set-up to handle this.

Who determined you must work half your life before you can retire and find your true labors of love?

The corporatists have power with an abundance of labor while the people have the power with an abundance of jobs

[Recursion]

15. That's a great plan

I would quibble with some specifics but that's exactly something we could do right now.

[leftstreet]

20. DURec

[Lee-Lee]

21. So simple a solution

If I had a minimum income of 20k that would be amazing.

I have a home I am fortunate enough to own and want to live in again some day, but have to rent out now because I have to be elsewhere for employment.

On that land I can garden and raise probably 70% of my food- I've done it before. I have a well there, and the home was built in the 50's around wood heat and does very well. My only bills would be electricity and taxes.

I could retire right now at 42. Grow my own food, maybe have solar to cut my power bill even more, a 20k income would leave me with great subsidies buying health care on the exchanges. That 20k would buy the food I can't grow and pay for more than I need to live comfortably. I could do my ebay and etsy stuff on my spare time when I wanted some spare cash.

[WDIM]

29. The money should come from taxing natural resources.

Natural resources belong to all of us. The Earth belongs to all of us and non-renewable resources that come from the Earth also belongs to all of us. The people of the Earth should be reimbursed for all that has been taken.

[Cleita]

53. +1000

Natural resources do not belong to the company.

[MichMan]

31. Minimum wage needs to be much higher for this to work

Very appealing idea in many ways. Going to be very difficult to get it passed besides the expected responses from the right. I think the fact that the current poverty programs would be eliminated would also cause a lot of pushback from unionized employees like HUD and SNAP who would not be needed, and also for those who profit from the programs for the impoverished at the federal, state and local levels.

Also, unless the minimum wage is increased substantially (which we all favor), I think it provides ammunition for those who will claim it is a disincentive for working. If the GUI is $20K, wouldn't someone making let's say $25K who must pay for transportation, child care and work all those hours at a job they don't enjoy decide to just accept the minimum GUI?

[aspirant]

33. If the $25,000 payer

is unhappy just take the 20k and retire.

Unhappy people don't lift society up, their complaints drag us down. Plus tension stress and anxiety lead to increased health care costs

When the American people can pursue labors of love, everyone benefits.

[upaloopa]

32. They always talk about giving but where does

the money come from. Just printing money seems like just printing Monopoly money to me.
There is the other side to this I never hear about. If someone receives someone else has to give.
So far this is too simplistic.
I don't see taxing the rich and giving to the poor. If it is given by a government then the government will have to earn it some way just as a person or company earns income.
Perhaps government can do manufacturing or sell services.

[aspirant]

34. "money come from"

Do you realize the FED is practically giving away trillions to corporations at at almost no interest rate.

So printing trillions for corps will trickle down to us, but printing money for "the people" is like monopoly?

[upaloopa]

40. Nobody who is for this on DU has any idea

of the total mechanics of this idea!
Give me an economist not someone who dreams of getting a guaranteed income.
There are costs which nobody ever talks about.

[aspirant]

42. Is it just to complicated for us

ordinary dreaming people?

We have to hand over everything to the intelligent crowd?

Didn't Hank Paulson present a 1 or 2 page bill to bailout our whole economy when it crashed?

[lovemydog]

47. Here's an article from The Economist.

It's not from one specific economist, it's more of an overview of how economists' views vary wildly. I'd want it coupled with heavily progressive taxation.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/government-guaranteed-basic-income

[upaloopa]

61. I think the idea would create such massive

inflation that all you would do is increase the amount of income that serves as the poverty level. In other words you would increase the raise the floor.

[Chathamization]

51. Taxes, the same place money for other stuff comes from

Sure, some people will see their taxes go up, but they'll also get an extra $15k (or however much) a year. It wouldn't be hard to structure it so that the increase in taxes entirely pay for the guaranteed income.

[RadiationTherapy]

35. Bring on the robots and the minimum income.

For decades humans have had to work menial, degrading jobs that robots could do just because many capitalists can't get their minds around a society that provides minimum income to all. They rather slow progress than "give away" money even though the money emerges from social and technological innovation.

[aspirant]

37. Agree

The money wouldn't be given, IMO it is deserved as an American citizen participating in the advancement of human happiness. All we need is the people to wrap their minds around that idea.

[hunter]

39. I like to think of it as a national dividend...

... each person's share of U.S.A. incorporated's profits.

We make everyone a "trust fund" kid.

[aspirant]

49. I like the monthly dividend concept since

anything that mirrors a corporate labeling term has a double edged sword if criticized

[aspirant]

44. How about calling it

The People's Retirement Subsidy included in our American entitlements

[Trillo]

55. It wasn't "beans", it was "dried beans"

There's actually a significant cost difference between the two, particularly when dried beans are purchased in bulk quantities.

It was just a greed centered proposal to help the canned bean companies.

[lancer78]

58. I would be wondering

about a Guaranteed Income's effect on inflation. Wouldn't you have to keep taxing more and more to cover the higher rate of inflation?