- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- 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:
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?
___________________________
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.
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?
___________________________