Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Basic Income

  1. #41
    Ieilaelite pensive_pilgrim's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,429
    Quote Originally Posted by stuck View Post
    The problem with basic income is that it becomes a subsidy to landlords.
    When /where has that happened?

  2. #42
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,424
    Quote Originally Posted by pensive_pilgrim View Post
    When /where has that happened?
    No basic income, but students here just got an increase in their accomodation allowance and landlords immediately increased their rent.

  3. #43
    Ieilaelite pensive_pilgrim's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    No basic income, but students here just got an increase in their accomodation allowance and landlords immediately increased their rent.
    That makes sense - money that can only be spent on rent is captive demand not subject to elasticity.

    Even so, as long as there is nothing stopping people from creating new housing, that should level off as more housing is constructed.

    It's also nothing to do with basic income, which is a cash handout that can be spent on anything.

  4. #44
    凸(ಠ_ರೃ )凸 stuck's Avatar
    Type
    xNxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,830
    You're right, I don't have evidence of basic income raising rents.

    The paper I posted is worth a read. I'll point out that, included in the idea, is a Universal Basic Dividend. It's an ingenious way of insuring that wealth disparity doesn't decouple our society worse than it already is. I like it better than basic income also because it also provides a rudimentary education about investments and it seems like it'd be harder to get rid of than basic income. Look at how hard it is for republicans to try to destroy social security.

  5. #45
    Ieilaelite pensive_pilgrim's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,429
    Quote Originally Posted by stuck View Post
    You're right, I don't have evidence of basic income raising rents.

    The paper I posted is worth a read. I'll point out that, included in the idea, is a Universal Basic Dividend. It's an ingenious way of insuring that wealth disparity doesn't decouple our society worse than it already is. I like it better than basic income also because it also provides a rudimentary education about investments and it seems like it'd be harder to get rid of than basic income. Look at how hard it is for republicans to try to destroy social security.
    I think the thing that makes social security hard to get rid of is the universality. But as far as I know the payments from social security aren't based on how much money is in the social security fund. I could be wrong on that - info about how exactly social security is funded seems complicated and open to interpretation. Lots of people say that the fund is almost/already bankrupt.

    I'm not opposed to the idea of a social wealth fund as proposed in that article, but I don't see it as an alternative to a basic income. It could be used to fund a basic income as you say. I also noticed that the first method of paying into the social wealth fund that the author thinks is likely to be effective enough to make the idea work is a VAT. Other methods are suggested of course, and I'm not as familiar with them enough to comment, but I don't see any straight-up nationalizing of industries, so that's good.

    I think a minimum-level basic income is just a necessity to alleviate poverty. To me it would be important that the money in the fund be paid to people directly in cash, and not diverted into means-tested welfare programs, or things like public housing projects. But if the fund could be managed such that it could also fund things like infrastructure programs (subject to direct popular vote), that wouldn't be a bad thing either.

  6. #46
    凸(ಠ_ರೃ )凸 stuck's Avatar
    Type
    xNxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by pensive_pilgrim View Post
    Other methods are suggested of course, and I'm not as familiar with them enough to comment, but I don't see any straight-up nationalizing of industries, so that's good.
    No, it's much more insidious than nationalizing, it's having the state as a board member. In Norway they aren't allowed to invest in fossil fuels for instance, and they own a ridiculous proportion of enterprises. To my mind it's a moderate solution that doesn't crush innovation or incentivize mediocrity like straight up nationalizing might.

    Quote Originally Posted by pensive_pilgrim View Post
    I think a minimum-level basic income is just a necessity to alleviate poverty. To me it would be important that the money in the fund be paid to people directly in cash, and not diverted into means-tested welfare programs, or things like public housing projects. But if the fund could be managed such that it could also fund things like infrastructure programs (subject to direct popular vote), that wouldn't be a bad thing either.
    There's certainly more parts of ye olde overton window that need to be shifted in order to give society some kind of a chance to not disintegrate. I don't disagree with what you're saying. A fund would grow on its own after some initial (admittedly likely substantial) headaches- imagine trying to get a financial surtax passed before passing some kind of lobbying reform!

  7. #47
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,424
    Quote Originally Posted by stuck View Post
    No, it's much more insidious than nationalizing, it's having the state as a board member. In Norway they aren't allowed to invest in fossil fuels for instance, and they own a ridiculous proportion of enterprises. To my mind it's a moderate solution that doesn't crush innovation or incentivize mediocrity like straight up nationalizing might.
    Our superannuation fund is now struggling to find projects big enough to invest in. It's becoming quite a big pile of indigenous capital. There are rumours it may even buy one of the Australian banks which would be a start to stopping $3 billion heading directly to Australia every year in banking profits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •