• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From the Economist: Basically flawed

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,121
Reaction score
1,356
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The debate regarding a Basic Income is very current throughout Europe. Do not even expect a whisper about it in the upcoming election debates. Out of fear, likely, that the "wrath of God will smite the candidate with due vengeance".

Still the debate continues here on this side of the pond. And though I don't agree entirely with the Economist on this one, the commentary is worthy of debate.

Excerpts:
"Rethinking the welfare state ..."

Proponents of a basic income underestimate how disruptive it would be

WORK is one of society’s most important institutions. It is the main mechanism through which spending power is allocated. It provides people with meaning, structure and identity. Yet work is a less generous, and less certain, provider of these benefits than it once was. Since 2000 economic growth across the rich world has failed to generate decent pay increases for most workers. Now there is growing fear of a more fundamental threat to the world of work: the possibility that new technologies, from machine learning to driverless cars, will cause havoc to employment.

20160604_LDC584.png


Such worries have revived interest in an old idea: the payment of a “universal basic income”, an unconditional government payment given to all citizens, as a supplement to or replacement for wages.

If the need for a basic income is unproven, the costs are certain. Its universality is designed to encourage citizens to think of the payment as a basic right. However, universality also means that the policy would be fantastically costly. An economy as rich as America’s could afford to pay citizens a basic income worth about $10,000 a year if it began collecting about as much tax as a share of GDP as Germany (35%, as opposed to the current 26%) and replaced all other welfare programmes (including Social Security, or pensions, but not including health care) with the basic-income payment.

A universal basic income would also destroy the conditionality on which modern welfare states are built. During an experiment with a basic-income-like programme in ... most people continued to work. But over time, the stigma against leaving the workforce would surely erode: large segments of society could drift into an alienated idleness. Tensions between those who continue to work and pay taxes and those opting out weaken the current system; under a basic income, they could rip the welfare state apart.

The article is well-worth reading in its entirety.

I cannot agree with some of the arguments posited above, because they seem (for the moment) only intuitive and not based upon hard-fact. In the US, with its high-crime rate - due to a Poverty Threshold containing 50 million people, all of whom desperate to live better lives - perhaps a Basic Income could dampen their urge for murder and mayhem that lands far too many of them in jail?

Is it not worth the effort to "try and see", given that crime is a major problem?
___________________________
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
The debate regarding a Basic Income is very current throughout Europe. Do not even expect a whisper about it in the upcoming election debates. Out of fear, likely, that the "wrath of God will smite the candidate with due vengeance".

Still the debate continues here on this side of the pond. And though I don't agree entirely with the Economist on this one, the commentary is worthy of debate.

Excerpts:

The article is well-worth reading in its entirety.

I cannot agree with some of the arguments posited above, because they seem (for the moment) only intuitive and not based upon hard-fact. In the US, with its high-crime rate - due to a Poverty Threshold containing 50 million people, all of whom desperate to live better lives - perhaps a Basic Income could dampen their urge for murder and mayhem that lands far too many of them in jail?

Is it not worth the effort to "try and see", given that crime is a major problem?
___________________________

basic income would do wonders for reducing crime, instead of selling drugs and robbing liqour stores they can just pick up a check, and they wouldnt have the completely legitimate excuse of "I need to feed myself".
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The debate regarding a Basic Income is very current throughout Europe. Do not even expect a whisper about it in the upcoming election debates. Out of fear, likely, that the "wrath of God will smite the candidate with due vengeance".

Still the debate continues here on this side of the pond. And though I don't agree entirely with the Economist on this one, the commentary is worthy of debate.

Excerpts:

The article is well-worth reading in its entirety.

I cannot agree with some of the arguments posited above, because they seem (for the moment) only intuitive and not based upon hard-fact. In the US, with its high-crime rate - due to a Poverty Threshold containing 50 million people, all of whom desperate to live better lives - perhaps a Basic Income could dampen their urge for murder and mayhem that lands far too many of them in jail?

Is it not worth the effort to "try and see", given that crime is a major problem?
___________________________

The idea that poverty alone causes people to become violent criminals is beyond absurd. Throwing money at degenerates will only subsidize their "urge for murder and mayhem". :roll:
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,121
Reaction score
1,356
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The idea that poverty alone causes people to become violent criminals is beyond absurd. Throwing money at degenerates will only subsidize their "urge for murder and mayhem".

What is absurd is calling anyone the 50 million Americans below the Poverty Threshold that has been incarcerated for a crime as being "decadent". This sort of willful ad-hominem merits "looking in the mirror" towards understanding who is the real degenerate.

I am not excusing criminals for what they did. What I cannot excuse is the fact that incarceration-to-population ratio in the US at 698 per 100K is far, far too much higher than comparable countries like:
UK at 148
France at 100
Germany at 78
Italy at 86
Australia at 151
Canada at 106

Which indicates that there is something very, very wrong in the US and we should be asking "Why?" (Instead of making scabrous remarks like yours.) Perhaps the higher rate of incarceration is merited, but why 5/6 time that of other similar countries?

Are Americans more "bent" towards crime? I don't think so.

Will a Basic Income change that difference? We won't know if we don't try it ...
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What is absurd is calling anyone the 50 million Americans below the Poverty Threshold that has been incarcerated for a crime as being "decadent".
What the heck are you talking about? Who called them "decadent"?
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
The idea that poverty alone causes people to become violent criminals is beyond absurd. Throwing money at degenerates will only subsidize their "urge for murder and mayhem". :roll:

yeah this the real problem, its not that basic income would't work its that, it would hinder the people who want to murder "degenerates"..... racists, bigots, and bible thumpers who want half the population dead or in prison will never be in favor of a basic income program no matter how many charts you show them
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
yeah this the real problem, its not that basic income would't work its that, it would hinder the people who want to murder "degenerates"..... racists, bigots, and bible thumpers who want half the population dead or in prison will never be in favor of a basic income program no matter how many charts you show them

Do you really expect to be taken seriously? What a load of horse manure. :roll:
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
69,280
Reaction score
39,412
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What is absurd is calling anyone the 50 million Americans below the Poverty Threshold that has been incarcerated for a crime as being "decadent". This sort of willful ad-hominem merits "looking in the mirror" towards understanding who is the real degenerate.

I am not excusing criminals for what they did. What I cannot excuse is the fact that incarceration-to-population ratio in the US at 698 per 100K is far, far too much higher than comparable countries like:
UK at 148
France at 100
Germany at 78
Italy at 86
Australia at 151
Canada at 106

Which indicates that there is something very, very wrong in the US and we should be asking "Why?" (Instead of making scabrous remarks like yours.) Perhaps the higher rate of incarceration is merited, but why 5/6 time that of other similar countries?

Are Americans more "bent" towards crime? I don't think so.

Will a Basic Income change that difference? We won't know if we don't try it ...

Do those other nations, mentioned in your post, have a guaranteed income system in place? If not then we should be asking why a guaranteed income would be suggested as a possible solution to crime.
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Do those other nations, mentioned in your post, have a guaranteed income system in place? If not then we should be asking why a guaranteed income would be suggested as a possible solution to crime.

it would lower crime rates it wouldnt "solve crime", you would still have serial killers and rapists, but there wouldn't be anymore 16 year olds selling crack, and becoming prostitutes, or faking credit cards etc etc etc
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
69,280
Reaction score
39,412
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
it would lower crime rates it wouldnt "solve crime", you would still have serial killers and rapists, but there wouldn't be anymore 16 year olds selling crack, and becoming prostitutes, or faking credit cards etc etc etc

Where, exactly, is a guaranteed income system in place so that we may observe its total lack of prostitution and fraud?
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Where, exactly, is a guaranteed income system in place so that we may observe its total lack of prostitution and fraud?

no place in the world has total lack of prositituon or fraud.... so your question is ridiculous
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
:) Then you should link it.

here ya go

WORK is one of society’s most important institutions. It is the main mechanism through which spending power is allocated. It provides people with meaning, structure and identity. Yet work is a less generous, and less certain, provider of these benefits than it once was. Since 2000 economic growth across the rich world has failed to generate decent pay increases for most workers. Now there is growing fear of a more fundamental threat to the world of work: the possibility that new technologies, from machine learning to driverless cars, will cause havoc to employment.

Such worries have revived interest in an old idea: the payment of a “universal basic income”, an unconditional government payment given to all citizens, as a supplement to or replacement for wages (see article). On June 5th Swiss citizens will decide in a referendum whether to require their government to adopt a basic income. Finland and the Netherlands are planning limited experiments in which some citizens are paid a monthly income of roughly €1,000 ($1,100). People from all points on the ideological spectrum, from trade unionists to libertarians, are supporters. It is an idea whose day may come. But not soon.

The basic income is an answer to a problem that has not yet materialised. Worries that technological advance would mean the end of employment have, thus far, always proved misguided; as jobs on the farm were destroyed, work in the factory was created. Today’s angst over robots and artificial intelligence may well turn out to be another in a long line of such scares. A much-quoted study suggesting that 47% of today’s jobs could be automated in the next two decades looks too gloomy, for example (see article). Machines may one day be a match for many workers at most tasks. But that is not a reason to rush to adopt a basic income immediately.

If the need for a basic income is unproven, the costs are certain. Its universality is designed to encourage citizens to think of the payment as a basic right. However, universality also means that the policy would be fantastically costly. An economy as rich as America’s could afford to pay citizens a basic income worth about $10,000 a year if it began collecting about as much tax as a share of GDP as Germany (35%, as opposed to the current 26%) and replaced all other welfare programmes (including Social Security, or pensions, but not including health care) with the basic-income payment.


Such a big jump in the size of the state should make anyone wary. Even if levied efficiently, on an immovable asset like land, tax rises on this scale would have unpredictable effects on growth and wealth creation. Yet an income of $10,000 is still extremely low: it would leave many poorer people, such as those who rely on the state pension, worse off than they are now—at the same time as billionaires started getting more money from the state.

A universal basic income would also destroy the conditionality on which modern welfare states are built. During an experiment with a basic-income-like programme in Manitoba, Canada, most people continued to work. But over time, the stigma against leaving the workforce would surely erode: large segments of society could drift into an alienated idleness. Tensions between those who continue to work and pay taxes and those opting out weaken the current system; under a basic income, they could rip the welfare state apart.

Lastly, a basic income would make it almost impossible for countries to have open borders. The right to an income would encourage rich-world governments either to shut the doors to immigrants, or to create second-class citizenries without access to state support.

Make no mistake: modern welfare states leave plenty to be desired. Disability benefits are for many people an unsatisfactory version of a basic income, providing those who will no longer work with enough to get by. But rather than upend society with radical welfare reforms premised on a job-killing technological revolution that has not yet happened, governments should make better use of the tools they already have.

Labour-market reforms—to crack down on occupational licensing, say—would boost employment growth. More generous wage subsidies, such as an earned-income tax credit, would help people stay out of poverty. Long-overdue public investment in infrastructure would foster demand. Relaxing planning restrictions would create jobs in construction, and homes for workers in places with robust economies.

A universal basic income might just make sense in a world of technological upheaval. But before governments begin planning for a world without work, they should strive to make today’s system function better.
Basically flawed | The Economist
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
69,280
Reaction score
39,412
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
no place in the world has total lack of prositituon or fraud.... so your question is ridiculous

No place mentioned in the OP has a guaranteed income so your premise that it is responsible for reduced incarceration is ridiculous.
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
No place mentioned in the OP has a guaranteed income so your premise that it is responsible for reduced incarceration is ridiculous.

there were no "places" mentioned in the OP
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
69,280
Reaction score
39,412
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
there were no "places" mentioned in the OP

Really?

I am not excusing criminals for what they did. What I cannot excuse is the fact that incarceration-to-population ratio in the US at 698 per 100K is far, far too much higher than comparable countries like:
UK at 148
France at 100
Germany at 78
Italy at 86
Australia at 151
Canada at 106
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
69,280
Reaction score
39,412
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
thats not the original post is it?

Yes, it is in the OP - as in post #1 of this thread. It is not in the OP linked article yet it is the OP. Reading is for the mental - I mean fundamental.

It is most definitely not ridiculous to ask for examples of a policy actually put into place to see what really happens as a result of it. The idea put forth in the OP is that we (in the US?) should try a guaranteed income (at huge expense) to see if it lowers our incarceration rate to the level of other nations (cited in that post) that lack a guaranteed income.
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Yes, it is in the OP - as in post #1 of this thread. It is not in the OP linked article yet it is the OP. Reading is for the mental - I mean fundamental.
no its not, what are you drunk
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The debate regarding a Basic Income is very current throughout Europe. Do not even expect a whisper about it in the upcoming election debates. Out of fear, likely, that the "wrath of God will smite the candidate with due vengeance".

Still the debate continues here on this side of the pond. And though I don't agree entirely with the Economist on this one, the commentary is worthy of debate.

Excerpts:

The article is well-worth reading in its entirety.

I cannot agree with some of the arguments posited above, because they seem (for the moment) only intuitive and not based upon hard-fact. In the US, with its high-crime rate - due to a Poverty Threshold containing 50 million people, all of whom desperate to live better lives - perhaps a Basic Income could dampen their urge for murder and mayhem that lands far too many of them in jail?

Is it not worth the effort to "try and see", given that crime is a major problem?
___________________________

I have looked at the studies quite and the maths a little less rigorously in the past and have been propagating it in German political places for a number of years. Minimum income does reduce the number of hours worked somewhat but not too much. Of course, the experiments were short and the impacts for later periods of a live program are not known. But entry into the such a system could be phased so that any damage could be caught in time to heal it.
It is/was part of the political goals of the FDP in Germany and I believe the Die Linke. The major stumble is the strength of the power of government employees and their unions, as any type of guaranteed minimum income would slash the means tested redistribution and social programs and make a main body if not most of the public sector jobs redundant. As far as I have calculated, the minimum income system would more than pay for itself and probably be much better than the intransparent social system we now have.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
basic income would do wonders for reducing crime, instead of selling drugs and robbing liqour stores they can just pick up a check, and they wouldnt have the completely legitimate excuse of "I need to feed myself".

There aren't that many people committing crime to feed their families. Also, there is work available, people just need to be willing to do it. That's why we have illegal immigrants coming here by the thousands, because there is work here. If the people who aren't working were as willing as the illegal immigrants are to relocate for a better opportunity, we could cut the amount of illegal immigration, cut the small amount of crime you refer to and get more people off of assistance. Simply flying over and dropping money from helicopters is NOT the solution.
 
Top Bottom