An Experiment with Guaranteed Income

[Mycroft]

This has been well publicized since last fall. My apologies, I assumed you had read about it.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/finland-basic-income/

LOL!! Donald Trump has been "well publicized since last fall". What's happening in Finland...not so much. Anyway, thanks for the link.

So...it's going to cost them more than their country currently spends and the only notion they have about things are to tax their rich.

$20K/yr is only what Americans would be getting, if the Kenyan experiment was directly translated into the US.
If it were truly replicated in the USA, it'd have to be a scheme like one of the various structures that Finland is testing out. Where the given assistance is at or less than the federal poverty level, and there was some sort of phase out schedule.

The current poverty level in the US is $11,800. Times 300 million comes to $3.54T. Total current government spending in the US is 2.86T. Obama's 2016 budget proposal is $4.1T.

Federal Poverty Guidelines | Families USA

United States Government Spending | 1950-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/proposes-2016-us-budget-total-spending/

You are going to have to cut all but around $500B out of Obama's budget.

Here's a graphic of his spending...what are you going to cut?




Let's look at this from another direction, eh?

1. How much do we spend on social programs? In 2013 it was $2.286T, which includes means tested programs, SS and Medicare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

2. How much does that amount let us pay? $2.286T divided by 300M equals $7,620.00 for each citizen. Is that enough?

btw, keep in mind that to free up that money, we have to end all government medical programs as well as stop sending SS checks.

Even if you try to phase things in over some period of time, eventually the total bill will come due. And the money won't be there.

So...back to my original question: Where will the money come from?

 

[brothern]

So...back to my original question: Where will the money come from?

Ok, I'm glad that you put all that together? LOL.

The point of the experiment is to see if it works. GiveDirectly is pursuing this because we currently don't have any universal, long-term or basic experiment on the records.

So if it turns out that it doesn't work, then it doesn't work.
However if it does work, then the how we pay for it is no limiting factor. It works and is something that should be implemented.

Also. You only focus on Federal spending. You should re-crunch the number with state and other miscellaneous programs that would be made redundant.

 

[Lutherf]

Ok, I'm glad that you put all that together? LOL.

The point of the experiment is to see if it works. GiveDirectly is pursuing this because we currently don't have any universal, long-term or basic experiment on the records.

So if it turns out that it doesn't work, then it doesn't work.
However if it does work, then the how we pay for it is no limiting factor. It works and is something that should be implemented.

Also. You only focus on Federal spending. You should re-crunch the number with state and other miscellaneous programs that would be made redundant.

With all due respect, if you can't pay for it then it doesn't work.

 

[brothern]

With all due respect, if you can't pay for it then it doesn't work.

The program is very possible - there's no doubt about that. There's many thousands of ways to structure the program to make it affordable in a first world country. Whether that's changing the stipend amount, implementing a graduated phase out as your earned income increases, or eliminating or restructuring other programs.

What I'm trying to do steer the conversation away from contrarianism. There's another thousand inventive ways for Mycroft to decide we "can't pay for it" in addition to those thousand ways to make it work ... but we're not at that stage yet, we don't know if such programs work yet!

 

[Mycroft]

Ok, I'm glad that you put all that together? LOL.

The point of the experiment is to see if it works. GiveDirectly is pursuing this because we currently don't have any universal, long-term or basic experiment on the records.

So if it turns out that it doesn't work, then it doesn't work.
However if it does work, then the how we pay for it is no limiting factor. It works and is something that should be implemented.

Also. You only focus on Federal spending. You should re-crunch the number with state and other miscellaneous programs that would be made redundant.

The State numbers are irrelevant...unless you propose that the States should provide the Feds with whatever money they save. Personally, I don't think that'll happen.

In any case, how we pay for this program certainly IS a limiting factor...unless you believe some of the other people who think the government is able to spend, spend and keep on spending with no consequences.

btw, I still haven't seen any justification for your statement that this "is something that should be implemented".

 

[Mycroft]

The program is very possible - there's no doubt about that. There's many thousands of ways to structure the program to make it affordable in a first world country. Whether that's changing the stipend amount, implementing a graduated phase out as your earned income increases, or eliminating or restructuring other programs.

What I'm trying to do steer the conversation away from contrarianism. There's another thousand inventive ways for Mycroft to decide we "can't pay for it" in addition to those thousand ways to make it work ... but we're not at that stage yet, we don't know if such programs work yet!

Actually, I haven't decided we can't pay for it. I've only been asking YOU how we'll pay for it. So far, you haven't given me any reasonable answer.

But don't despair...I'll provide you with one way we can pay for it. If you like it, let me know.

• We can pay for this guaranteed income by requiring that everyone who earns any money turns every single dime over to the federal government. Then, the government will have ample money and will be able to afford the guaranteed income as well as all the other stuff it wants to spend money on.

 

[csbrown28]

Actually, I haven't decided we can't pay for it. I've only been asking YOU how we'll pay for it. So far, you haven't given me any reasonable answer.

But don't despair...I'll provide you with one way we can pay for it. If you like it, let me know.

• We can pay for this guaranteed income by requiring that everyone who earns any money turns every single dime over to the federal government. Then, the government will have ample money and will be able to afford the guaranteed income as well as all the other stuff it wants to spend money on.

Why can't the government increase deficit spending to pay for it?

 

[Mycroft]

Why can't the government increase deficit spending to pay for it?

Because, regardless the opinions of selected, minor people...of which we have a few on this forum...most of our country understands that's not a good idea and they won't let that happen.

 

[Frank Apisa]

THE ONLY WAY OUT



You may indeed be right. But I find your pessimism is perhaps exaggerated.

The post-war years (1950/1990) were four decades of economic expansion powered by the necessity to rebuild from the devastation of WW2. However, in 1971, there was only one person who actually saw an Emerging China.

He was a Frenchman by the name of Alain Peyrfitte, who wrote a book titled "Quand la Chine s'éveillera... le monde tremblera", which was never translated into English (When China Awakens ... the World Will Tremble).

That has come to pass, and we are still "trembling". Because we don't know what to do about it? For sure, we should have seen it coming in the 1990s.

Which is why I keep insisting on The-Only-Way-Out. It must be a Aggregate Enhancement in education, produced by a massive infusion in public-spending, to enhance the skills/competencies in two very different classes of individuals:
*Those presently in secondary schooling, and
*Those having graduated, and presently unemployed because they do not have the necessary credentials (diploma or experience).

In the first-instance, school-testing already shows those secondary-level schools that are not up-to-standard. We must address that problem, and it is not Mission Impossible with significant restructuring of some Public School systems (against Federal funding).

In the second instance, a Tertiary Education can be provided at state-institutions of higher-education (vocational, 2 & 4-year degrees) at very low cost, by means (again) of Federal funding.

MY POINT?

And to those who wail that the "gummint aint got da muney", I say "bollocks!" If we are spending 20% of the budget on the DoD, then we can shift some of that funding to Education (for usage as described above)!

Frankly, the single Future Danger to the country's economy exists in our inability to retrain/enhance the Skills & Competency Sets of Americans - and to do so throughout their professional lifetimes.

This is not a problem that we can waive away by employing Wishful Thinking. Where there's a will, there must be a way ...

You misunderstand me.

OF COURSE we have enough for everyone to live a decent life...with all of the needs of a decent life met and with many of the "wants" also met.

We can do it.

One of the things we have to get rid of first...is the notion that a decent living is something that one MUST EARN.

Everyone should be provided with that decent living...and then the people who are good at work...get a lot more because of their gift of being able to work efficiently.

I do not consider pointing out that we will NOT HAVE ENOUGH WORK TO GO AROUND...to be pessimism. I consider it optimism. Instead of working...many people who are not especially adept at working...will be able to do other things with their time that will actually be better for their lives.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Because, regardless the opinions of selected, minor people...of which we have a few on this forum...most of our country understands that's not a good idea and they won't let that happen.

...even if they can't explain why.

 

[Mycroft]

...even if they can't explain why.

Irrelevant.

Most people cannot explain why the sky is blue, either...doesn't make them wrong.

Nor does it make you right when you concoct a bunch of gobble-de-gook to explain why the sky is actually purple.

 

[gdgyva]

The underlying assumption was that the poor weren’t "good" at making decisions for themselves: Experts had to make the decisions for them.

As it turns out, that assumption was wrong. The poor make crucial decisions that are commensurate with their existence. No money - no great expenditure, and out of self-commiseration, perhaps lots of alcohol (games, debts) to forget momentarily the distress of sensing that "we are not like all the others". (No, I am not making excuses for their misbehaviour!!!)

Give them the money they need for a basic level of existence, and see what happens!

They are human beings like you and me, and they want the best for themselves and their families. If not, then they have to be taught that there are other, better, modes of existence. But an effort is necessary to achieve them, they are not for "free".

Which is the sort of basic truth, just one of them, that they should have been taught from the very beginning. (If not in the family, then at school.)

Everybody has a chance, but the very fact that risk is an integral part of our lives, means that not all will succeed as much as they may have wanted. But, that should never-ever mean that more than 50 million people are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold that is, where parents are earning $24K per year income for a family of two adults and two children.

Not ever - especially in a county where the median income is $52K a year and the average income closer to $73K.

It's just not fair - it's inhuman ...

if a family of four is earning 24k...then mom & pop arent trying very hard

getting a $ 10 hour job is not that difficult....

and that x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 20800 for one of the two

i mean really....did they both quit school at 15?

have they screwed up in every job to where they were fired or let go before they ever earned any raises?

your phantom family has a couple of major screwups for parents is the problem....

giving them a guaranteed income.....why?

what have they done other than breathe to earn it?

 

[csbrown28]

Because, regardless the opinions of selected, minor people...of which we have a few on this forum...most of our country understands that's not a good idea and they won't let that happen.

Do they understand?

How many people out of 100 do you think believe we are still on the gold standard?

Think of how few really understand where our money comes from.

How many understand banking operations.

Given how little people actually know about our economy I think it's possible that, even if you are correct and most people think that increased deficit spending is a bad idea, I submit they hold that opinion though ignorance. Now in all fairness, if they support my position, I freely admit that even if I am right, most will support my ideas based on the same ignorance.

So I won't appeal to the ignorant masses to support my position.

 

[Lafayette]

if a family of four is earning 24k...then mom & pop arent trying very hard

getting a $ 10 hour job is not that difficult....

and that x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 20800 for one of the two

i mean really....did they both quit school at 15?

have they screwed up in every job to where they were fired or let go before they ever earned any raises?

your phantom family has a couple of major screwups for parents is the problem....

giving them a guaranteed income.....why?

what have they done other than breathe to earn it?

Thank you for your compassion. (Been there, done that - have you?)

When you pass the pearly-gates, explain the above to those awaiting you.

Have you got a reception coming ... !

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Irrelevant.

Most people cannot explain why the sky is blue, either...doesn't make them wrong.

Nor does it make you right when you concoct a bunch of gobble-de-gook to explain why the sky is actually purple.

Just because you are incapable of understanding something doesn't make it gobbledygook. This is the all-too-common conservative position - I don't understand it, so it must not be true. Deficit spending, global warming, evolution, etc. It must make your brain hurt.

 

[DA60]

I have thought for some time that it might be wise to eliminate all our current entitlements (social security, welfare, etc.) and replace them with a simple guaranteed income floor across the board. Here's an interesting experiment aimed at finding out what happens when you do that.

First, most of these studies were done in INCREDIBLY poor countries that have very little in common with America/Canada/EU. starving to death in America is almost unheard of (because of food stamps) - you would practically have to try to do it to make it happen. But in developed countries, starving can be a fact of life.
Obviously if you give someone with nothing a few dollars, they will probably buy food with it. But if you give someone that already has enough food extra money, they probably won't spend it on food (since they are not hungry).
Comparing the two is ridiculous, imo.

Second, there is NO WAY you can reliably find out what people would spend their extra money on in America. Oh, you think you can just ask them and they will tell you? Can the people in these studies be any more naive?
If you were on welfare and the government suddenly started giving you an extra $500 per month and let's say you did spend most of it on gambling, beer and cigarettes...would you be incredibly dumb enough to actually tell the government that if they asked? Fearful that they might then take it away?
The answer is NO.
I am not saying they would spend it on beer..but there is NO WAY you can factually say that they would not. It is staggeringly gullible to believe you could, imo.

Third, if this is some silly idea to give a certain amount of money to EVERYBODY...that is ridiculous. SInce most people do not need the money AND since the money comes from taxpayers in the first place AND since it will cost LOTS of money to implement this idea (governments do EVERYTHING wastefully/inefficiently) THEN that means that I would have to spend, say, $105 in taxes so that the government can give me back $100. It's insane. It's just a make work project for bureaucrats.

Fourth, now I believe that the government should provide food, shelter, clothing and basic healthcare (full health care for children/disabled) for everyone. No westerner should ever starve, be homeless, have shoddy clothing or die from preventable illnesses. And there is no reason that these services cannot be provided within the framework of a properly funded and managed welfare system (Me? I personally want large shelters in major regional centers instead of sending out checks to everyone that needs it).
But just giving people cash - whether they need it or not - is ludicrous. And I guarantee you that there will be MASSIVE corruption and fraud - every major welfare system has such a thing when handing out cash is concerned.
I mean if this was a royalty check from some natural resource...fine - share the wealth. But this is taking taxpayer money to give it back to taxpayers. It's stupid.

All this really is, imo, is another attempt to make sure that the poor get cash from the rich.

Finally, I guarantee you that if the amount is more then the poor need to survive, that much of the extra money WILL be spent on illegal drugs, gambling and alcohol. Not because these are bad people. But because these are largely unhappy people who wish to escape their unhappiness through various chemicals/stimuli.
And I would not blame them one bit.

The government should make sure every citizen has the basics of survival - but nothing more. The government should give them what they need...not what they want.

 

[csbrown28]

Irrelevant.

Most people cannot explain why the sky is blue, either...doesn't make them wrong.

Nice deflect.....No one is questioning whether people can identify the color of the sky. If you want to continue with your analogy in a way that is accurate to JfC's point, it would be asking people to make decisions based on their lack knowledge. Let's say they believed it was the blue ocean that gave the sky it's color, not the filtering of different frequencies of light as it passes though the atmosphere. The fact that people can make a correct observation has absolutely nothing to do with there ability to make decisions based on that observation.

Most people beleive that increasing deficit spending would be bad, but as I said in my last post, most people have very little understanding of the economy. Even when they support good ideas, they are often wrong by accident.

 

[DA60]

Nice deflect.....No one is questioning whether people can identify the color of the sky. If you want to continue with your analogy in a way that is accurate to JfC's point, it would be asking people to make decisions based on their lack knowledge. Let's say they believed it was the blue ocean that gave the sky it's color, not the filtering of different frequencies of light as it passes though the atmosphere. The fact that people can make a correct observation has absolutely nothing to do with there ability to make decisions based on that observation.

Most people beleive that increasing deficit spending would be bad, but as I said in my last post, most people have very little understanding of the economy. Even when they support good ideas, they are often wrong by accident.

Are you suggesting that increased deficit spending would be good?

 

[Absentglare]

I have thought for some time that it might be wise to eliminate all our current entitlements (social security, welfare, etc.) and replace them with a simple guaranteed income floor across the board. Here's an interesting experiment aimed at finding out what happens when you do that.

• 
  
  Lifestyle
  We're about to find out what happens when you give poor people basic income for life
  
  Over the past decade, interest has grown in an ostensibly unorthodox approach for helping people who don’t have much money: just give them more of it, no strings attached. In the old days of policymaking by aphorism-give a man a fish, feed him for a day!-simply handing money to the poor was considered an obviously bad idea. How naïve-you can’t just give people money. They’ll stop trying! They’ll just get drunk! The underlying assumption was that the poor weren’t good at making decisions for themselves: Experts had to make the decisions for them. As it turns out, that assumption was wrong. Across many contexts and continents, experimental tests show that the poor don’t stop trying when they are given money, and they don’t get drunk. Instead, they make productive use of the funds, feeding their families, sending their children to school, and investing in businesses and their own futures. . . . .

I 100% support such experiments.

I think empowering the average American with the freedom to better explore their own potential would usher monumental success.

 

[csbrown28]

Are you suggesting that increased deficit spending would be good?

When productive capacity, labor, energy, food, shelter (to name a few) have the ability to expand without significant infrustructure costs, then the answer to your question is, depending on what you are spending it on, the answer can be yes.

 

[Mycroft]

When productive capacity, labor, energy, food, shelter (to name a few) have the ability to expand without significant infrustructure costs, then the answer to your question is, depending on what you are spending it on, the answer can be yes.

And that is why you and a few others are way behind the 8-ball on this issue.

Most people...and, thankfully, most of our politicians...understand that an answer such as your's amounts to insubstantial weasel words that can be used to justify increased spending on any flavor-of-the-day pet agenda item...such as this thread's topic: Guaranteed minimum income.

Most people and most politicians will readily understand that such runaway spending...even for such a dubious program...is unsustainable and would reject it out of hand.

 

[Jack Hays]

First, most of these studies were done in INCREDIBLY poor countries that have very little in common with America/Canada/EU. starving to death in America is almost unheard of (because of food stamps) - you would practically have to try to do it to make it happen. But in developed countries, starving can be a fact of life.
Obviously if you give someone with nothing a few dollars, they will probably buy food with it. But if you give someone that already has enough food extra money, they probably won't spend it on food (since they are not hungry).
Comparing the two is ridiculous, imo.

Second, there is NO WAY you can reliably find out what people would spend their extra money on in America. Oh, you think you can just ask them and they will tell you? Can the people in these studies be any more naive?
If you were on welfare and the government suddenly started giving you an extra $500 per month and let's say you did spend most of it on gambling, beer and cigarettes...would you be incredibly dumb enough to actually tell the government that if they asked? Fearful that they might then take it away?
The answer is NO.
I am not saying they would spend it on beer..but there is NO WAY you can factually say that they would not. It is staggeringly gullible to believe you could, imo.

Third, if this is some silly idea to give a certain amount of money to EVERYBODY...that is ridiculous. SInce most people do not need the money AND since the money comes from taxpayers in the first place AND since it will cost LOTS of money to implement this idea (governments do EVERYTHING wastefully/inefficiently) THEN that means that I would have to spend, say, $105 in taxes so that the government can give me back $100. It's insane. It's just a make work project for bureaucrats.

Fourth, now I believe that the government should provide food, shelter, clothing and basic healthcare (full health care for children/disabled) for everyone. No westerner should ever starve, be homeless, have shoddy clothing or die from preventable illnesses. And there is no reason that these services cannot be provided within the framework of a properly funded and managed welfare system (Me? I personally want large shelters in major regional centers instead of sending out checks to everyone that needs it).
But just giving people cash - whether they need it or not - is ludicrous. And I guarantee you that there will be MASSIVE corruption and fraud - every major welfare system has such a thing when handing out cash is concerned.
I mean if this was a royalty check from some natural resource...fine - share the wealth. But this is taking taxpayer money to give it back to taxpayers. It's stupid.

All this really is, imo, is another attempt to make sure that the poor get cash from the rich.

Finally, I guarantee you that if the amount is more then the poor need to survive, that much of the extra money WILL be spent on illegal drugs, gambling and alcohol. Not because these are bad people. But because these are largely unhappy people who wish to escape their unhappiness through various chemicals/stimuli.
And I would not blame them one bit.

The government should make sure every citizen has the basics of survival - but nothing more. The government should give them what they need...not what they want.

You seem quite suspicious of poor people. We disagree about food, clothing, shelter and health care. I believe those are individual responsibilities. I would prefer an income floor, and then leave people to take care of themselves.

 

[Paleocon]

I have thought for some time that it might be wise to eliminate all our current entitlements (social security, welfare, etc.) and replace them with a simple guaranteed income floor across the board. Here's an interesting experiment aimed at finding out what happens when you do that.

• 
  
  Lifestyle
  We're about to find out what happens when you give poor people basic income for life
  
  Over the past decade, interest has grown in an ostensibly unorthodox approach for helping people who don’t have much money: just give them more of it, no strings attached. In the old days of policymaking by aphorism-give a man a fish, feed him for a day!-simply handing money to the poor was considered an obviously bad idea. How naïve-you can’t just give people money. They’ll stop trying! They’ll just get drunk! The underlying assumption was that the poor weren’t good at making decisions for themselves: Experts had to make the decisions for them. As it turns out, that assumption was wrong. Across many contexts and continents, experimental tests show that the poor don’t stop trying when they are given money, and they don’t get drunk. Instead, they make productive use of the funds, feeding their families, sending their children to school, and investing in businesses and their own futures. . . . .

I don't really care about the empirical aspect of it. The idea of universal basic income is immoral because it makes the state, rather than heads of families, responsible for providing people with subsistence. It allows able bodied adult men to live without working.

 

[DA60]

You seem quite suspicious of poor people. We disagree about food, clothing, shelter and health care. I believe those are individual responsibilities. I would prefer an income floor, and then leave people to take care of themselves.

I am not 'suspicious' of them but I just know how they feel as I was one of them and still to this day know many of them.

It is not usually a fun life and escaping from it was/is often quite desire able. Which is why poor people have the highest percentage of obesity, drug/alcohol abuse and gambling addictions (all of which I had - and quit - at one time or another).

I am not suspicious of poor people - I understand them.

 

[Jack Hays]

I am not 'suspicious' of them but I just know how they feel as I was one of them and still to this day know many of them.

It is not usually a fun life and escaping from it was/is often quite desire able. Which is why poor people have the highest percentage of obesity, drug/alcohol abuse and gambling addictions (all of which I had - and quit - at one time or another).

I am not suspicious of poor people - I understand them.

Sure you do. Slaveholders said they understood their slaves.