2800 Monthly Income for All Adults

[IdahoCopper]

I remember reading about a study where they asked the participants if they were on an island with 500 people which would you prefer? Everyone makes $50,000 per year, or everyone makes $25,000, but you make $50,000.

About half chose to be the Top Dog in a poorer society. Beware of do-gooders with a plan, many are sociopaths.

[barrytrot]

Which reminds me of this:

"You are granted one wish, you may wish for anything. The only catch is whatever you wish for your neighbor will receive double." The man thinks for a long time and then says, "I wish for one of my eyes to be gouged out."

[fansubs_ca]

"You are granted one wish, you may wish for anything. The only catch is whatever you wish for your neighbor will receive double."

I'd have to follow up with "which neighbor?".

[Diggin4copper]

"I want my neighbor to win 1 million dollars"

[barrytrot]

"I want my neighbor to win 1 million dollars"

Good try, but if the guy has 2 neighbors this could backfire with your neighbor and his neighbor on the other side both getting 1 and 2 million respectively and you getting nothing You are probably better off with the eye gouge

[Engineer]

I want my mother-in-law to halfway make up her mind to move in with us.

[scyther]

As for the guaranteed income provided by the state...WHERE is the problem?

It comes from other people's money taken from them by force.

Im assuming it would be generated by taxes ALREADY collected. Our government takes taxes, no? We gripe about the USE/WASTE of that collected 'revenue'...If we all got an equal cut and were taxed fairly (read: to create an equal situation among all wherein none needed to worry about livelihood or scraping by), that would be good...No?

No. I'm not interested in getting a "cut" of anyone else's money if they don't want to give it to me, and I don't think it's fair for them to have a cut of mine either. People gripe about the way tax money is used, because when you have to pay it either way, and then the government goes and spends it on something stupid and unnecessary, it makes it that much worse. But the real issue is reducing taxes all around, or eliminating them completely if possible, not spending them better. I also don't see any reason to think this would come from taxes already collected... what are they going to cut to pay for it?

The program proposed is limited in its ability to be exploited by the fact that there are CLOSED BORDERS and restrictions to immigration. Have fun trying to move there ...It is fair to all citizens, and represents the care and concern of the people for the most VULNERABLE...

Actually, it represents giving welfare to everyone whether they need it or not, which is quite bizarre. Everyone pays into it, everyone takes out of it. Almost like it's all one big collective money supply that just gets temporarily distributed to individuals according to their need. That sounds kind of like... you guessed it... communism.

Detach yourself from the western/American conception of "scary socialist/communist" policies and view the way the world should be. The way a community should be. Or live in your gated mansions fearing your neighbor and government every second...whatever...

Liberals/communists/socialists always say this... if we don't like socialism, it must be because we're American. There's no way anyone else could value freedom. It's just our ignorant cultural mindset that hasn't opened us up to the joys of collectivism. I don't share your vision of the way the world, or community, should be. I don't think the community has the right to oppress individuals just because it can. In fact, I would even say that if the only way your community can exist is by forcing unwilling people to contribute to and/or participate in it, maybe it shouldn't.

And call me a wimp, but yes, I do find the thought of communism "scary". Tens of millions of dead Russians and Chinese would probably agree with me. I also think our own government has given us ample reason to be wary of it.

[Treetop]

I have a much different view about the way community should be then collectivism to be sure. As a gardener I view it like this..... Collectivism is like a mono culture. When everything is going well with most crops you can often have superior yields with this method. You however force yourself to manage things at a pretty deep level to ensure everything goes as you need it to. a healthy community to me is a polyculture. You have many "crops" all doing their own thing. Filling various niches. Sometimes this out yields a mono culture, others it does not. In "bad" or off years this really shines though, where one crop type or variety of crop within a type fails another might thrive. People want to talk about "the way it should be"... What about the "way it is". The more centralized our decision making the more danger we run, the less intuitive and adaptive our culture is as a result. I know this wasnt exactly the topic but this is how I view collectivism.

I see many issues with a move like this. Im doubtful it could work well.

[barrytrot]

Treetop: Insightful, but where the analogy breaks down is the "crops" that literally do nothing or even-worse less-than-nothing. i.e. people that refuse to work even though they are able-bodied and criminals.

[Treetop]

Treetop: Insightful, but where the analogy breaks down is the "crops" that literally do nothing or even-worse less-than-nothing. i.e. people that refuse to work even though they are able-bodied and criminals.

nope those are the weeds. In some cases weeds dont hurt the overall system much actually, in others they need to be pulled. LOL. Wasnt meant to be an all inclusive analogy, there are always holes in analogies but I think it made the point better then I could have personally otherwise.

In my own gardens I actually purposely plant useful weeds and they have over taken less useful ones. So the ones I dont get around to getting rid of have various uses, ranging from a trap crop for pests, to edible greens for us or our animals to various herbs.

[johnbrickner]

<snip> a healthy community to me is a polyculture. <snip> purposely plant useful weeds and they . . . over take . . . less useful ones <snip>

Sage advice in these few words.

[scyther]

I've been reading a bit more about this, and the more I hear, the better it sounds. Supposedly, it could be paid for by reducing other benefits, and giving citizens a share of natural resources, and perhaps land value. I support private property completely, and I like the idea of private land ownership, but if you think about, no one created the land in the way that they created other things, so I can't see how it can be a person's absolute property in the way that a house, car, painting, or coin can. So a reasonable level of taxation on land and natural resources sounds like the closest thing to a "fair tax" I can think of. This article says that a "citizen's income" could replace other benefit systems like social security, unemployment, etc. Since it goes to everyone whether they need it or not, it would do less to reduce the incentive to work than normal welfare does.

Of course, there are some problems. If it's enough to live on, a lot of people might still choose not to work. I think $2,800 a month is way too high, personally. A lot of working people make less than that already. Also, I have trouble believing it would pay for itself, although proponents claim it would. It seems counter intuitive to me, but I haven't studied economics, so what would I know. And of course, I wouldn't trust our government to really cut other things and replace them with this- they would probably just add this and pay for it with more taxing and borrowing. But IF they did it the right way, it might turn out pretty well.

I'm not advocating it, just saying that upon reconsideration, this doesn't sound nearly as bad from a small-government, free-market perspective as it did before.

http://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/18 ... ns-income/

[Engineer]

Man! Talking about wanting to move!!

http://news.msn.com/world/swiss-to-vote ... all-adults

This idea has been around since the thirties. It's called social credit. The theory is based on the observation that there can never be enough purchasing power to buy all products in an economy such as ours. This leads to chronic overproduction of goods, which must be dumped on other countries to maintain our purchasing power plus the interest paid to banks.

Here's how it works:
Rather than letting private banks (the fed) create fiat, the government does so directly.
The fiat is backed by a basket of commodities.
The government forecasts the necessary inflation number to prevent booms and busts, and prints it.
Part of the stimulus goes to consumers to provide purchasing power.
Another part of the stimulus goes to manufacturers/retailers as an incentive to keep prices steady.

This provides an income to people who can't or don't want to work, removing them from the competition for jobs.
The people who do want to work get higher wages with the reduced labor pool.
Demand for products remains consistent without the fed induced booms/busts.
Starting cottage industries becomes easier since you have a guaranteed income whether you succeed or fail.

Heinlein did a great write-up on this scenario in "For us, the living".

[IdahoCopper]

I think part of the problem is there is no planned reset button. Economies go along as they do, with politicians and economists tinkering with it, until they fail.

In biblical times they had the Jubilee, where every 70 years all debts were forgiven and erased. That is a reset that can be planned for. Th market will automatically self-adjust interest rates, depending on how long until the next Jubilee.

[Copper Catcher]

The article below really gives you a view of how this system is different and apparently now shifting with this new proposal.

Welfare and dependency in Switzerland by Ralph Segalman

SWITZERLAND is not often thought of when we discuss the welfare state. In many respects it is not a welfare state. There is, for example, no national health service and most of the population is covered by voluntary health insurance. There is also no central program to provide a minimum guaranteed income for all of the population (other than for the aged and infirm) as found in England, Norway, and Sweden. Unlike the major European welfare states, the Swiss federal government defers in much greater measure to local autonomy. But in one critical respect it has achieved what the United States and European nations traditionally defined as welfare states have not: It has all but eliminated “welfare dependency,” or intergenerational poverty, and it has done this in a strikingly different manner than other developed societies. Whether Switzerland has lessons to offer the troubled welfare states of Europe or the United States is another question. But first, let us describe how Switzerland deals with the poor, and how it shapes policies to encourage self-sufficiency and to prevent the development of dependent people in its population......

The full document that goes into great detail of all the differences from the western approach:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/2 ... galman.pdf

[Copper Catcher]

During his Twitter Townhall in 2011:
http://www.snappytv.com/snaps/gsxr7501- ... house-live

President Obama admitted that government welfare has created dependency. He noted:

"I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.… As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I’ve seen it where people weren’t encouraged to work, weren’t encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you’re progressive you’ve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."

He’s absolutely right. The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. That is one of the biggest problems we face today!

[Treetop]

Taxing someone for land ownership is basically serfdom. It has also forced many, the poorer people of course off their land in good times let alone tougher ones.

If it was a tax for owning over X amount of land, then its a bit different conversation. Taxing someone just to own a home (or homestead) to me is a horrible idea. Look at the 30s for instance or the economic issues earlier in the 1900s... Taxation drove million off their land. In the case of the 30s conditions reversed eventually and the area was useful again. Except many of the previous landowners were gone, others moved in of course, but I fail to see wisdom in a system that drove families off their land simply because the couldnt pay the king the tax to keep it.

[Engineer]

Great point, treetop.

[scyther]

Taxing someone for land ownership is basically serfdom. It has also forced many, the poorer people of course off their land in good times let alone tougher ones.

If it was a tax for owning over X amount of land, then its a bit different conversation. Taxing someone just to own a home (or homestead) to me is a horrible idea. Look at the 30s for instance or the economic issues earlier in the 1900s... Taxation drove million off their land. In the case of the 30s conditions reversed eventually and the area was useful again. Except many of the previous landowners were gone, others moved in of course, but I fail to see wisdom in a system that drove families off their land simply because the couldnt pay the king the tax to keep it.

I agree. I just meant that from a moral/property rights standpoint, I see land ownership as a little less sacrosanct than other property rights, since it wasn't created by anyone. But low or no taxes on small pieces of land would be good, I think.

[aloneibreak]

Taxing someone for land ownership is basically serfdom. It has also forced many, the poorer people of course off their land in good times let alone tougher ones.

If it was a tax for owning over X amount of land, then its a bit different conversation. Taxing someone just to own a home (or homestead) to me is a horrible idea. Look at the 30s for instance or the economic issues earlier in the 1900s... Taxation drove million off their land. In the case of the 30s conditions reversed eventually and the area was useful again. Except many of the previous landowners were gone, others moved in of course, but I fail to see wisdom in a system that drove families off their land simply because the couldnt pay the king the tax to keep it.

I agree. I just meant that from a moral/property rights standpoint, I see land ownership as a little less sacrosanct than other property rights, since it wasn't created by anyone. But low or no taxes on small pieces of land would be good, I think.

another "the rich 1%er landowner should pay his fair share" idea

why should the tax rate be higher for someone who has "more" in regards to land, no matter whether they inherited it, or by years of their own hard labor, through tough times, bought and increased the size of their acreage ?

[Engineer]

Taxing someone for land ownership is basically serfdom. It has also forced many, the poorer people of course off their land in good times let alone tougher ones.

If it was a tax for owning over X amount of land, then its a bit different conversation. Taxing someone just to own a home (or homestead) to me is a horrible idea. Look at the 30s for instance or the economic issues earlier in the 1900s... Taxation drove million off their land. In the case of the 30s conditions reversed eventually and the area was useful again. Except many of the previous landowners were gone, others moved in of course, but I fail to see wisdom in a system that drove families off their land simply because the couldnt pay the king the tax to keep it.

I agree. I just meant that from a moral/property rights standpoint, I see land ownership as a little less sacrosanct than other property rights, since it wasn't created by anyone. But low or no taxes on small pieces of land would be good, I think.

The original idea of property taxes was to prevent the rich from hoarding land without putting it to use. Over time, things have changed to the point where the rich still own large tracts of land, and demand tax credits to do anything with it. Meanwhile, us serfs are paying large percentages of our incomes for a house on a postage stamp lot in order to support public pensioners.

Which leads back to the original topic; A public dividend or credit would eliminate the need to tax the homes of private sector workers to pay for the pensions of the public sector. A tax to prevent the hoarding of land might still be justified, but taxing simple home-ownership works against us rather than for us. If you have to make an extra $5K/year to pay your property taxes, the end result is that your labor is less affordable in relation to the rest of the world.

[Engineer]

why should the tax rate be higher for someone who has "more" in regards to land, no matter whether they inherited it, or by years of their own hard labor, through tough times, bought and increased the size of their acreage ?

It shouldn't be higher, as long as the land is worked. If it's simply hoarded, it decreases productive capacity which drives inflation through unnecessary shortages.

[68Camaro]

Seems like if the land is truly owned then it shouldn't matter if it is hoarded. Telling people what they have to do with their land is worse than taxing them.

[Engineer]

Seems like if the land is truly owned then it shouldn't matter if it is hoarded. Telling people what they have to do with their land is worse than taxing them.

I agree in principle, but what happens when someone like the DeBeer family buys up every beef ranch in existence?

Does the general public's desire to eat a tasty steak at a fair market price outweigh their desire to form a cartel?

[scyther]

Taxing someone for land ownership is basically serfdom. It has also forced many, the poorer people of course off their land in good times let alone tougher ones.

If it was a tax for owning over X amount of land, then its a bit different conversation. Taxing someone just to own a home (or homestead) to me is a horrible idea. Look at the 30s for instance or the economic issues earlier in the 1900s... Taxation drove million off their land. In the case of the 30s conditions reversed eventually and the area was useful again. Except many of the previous landowners were gone, others moved in of course, but I fail to see wisdom in a system that drove families off their land simply because the couldnt pay the king the tax to keep it.

I agree. I just meant that from a moral/property rights standpoint, I see land ownership as a little less sacrosanct than other property rights, since it wasn't created by anyone. But low or no taxes on small pieces of land would be good, I think.

another "the rich 1%er landowner should pay his fair share" idea

why should the tax rate be higher for someone who has "more" in regards to land, no matter whether they inherited it, or by years of their own hard labor, through tough times, bought and increased the size of their acreage ?

If taxes need to come from somewhere, doesn't it make sense to have the people who can most afford them pay them, rather than those who are just scraping by?