(public).sospep.subjects ~ view article ~ why-basic-income-should-be-the-next-big-thing

<h1 style="text-align: center;">why a basic income should be the next big thing</h1>
<h2>[WHAT]</h2>
<ol>
<li>] by Paula Dwyer @bloomberg.com - Dwyer outlines the basic income premise, that by removing all of the many social assistance programs that Americans currently support, it could come close to meeting the projected costs of said program.&nbsp;</li>
<li>] America is not a leader in a adopting a program such as this, other countries like Canada, Denmark have taken the lead with several different initiatives</li>
<li>] Even <span style="text-decoration: underline;">SV is getting in on the idea</span>, and <span style="text-decoration: underline;">testing their own theory,</span> worried that the coming automation revolution could leave many people jobless and unable to afford to buy their goods and services.</li>
<li>] welfare industry lobby could be opponent</li>
</ol>
<h2>[WHY]</h2>
<ol>
<li>]&nbsp;</li>
<li>] Surprisingly UBI is supported more by conservatives than by liberals, possible by the incentive of cost savings and reducing government overhead</li>
<li>] Canada's previous experiment with found that it did not kill productivity, but actually increased it.&nbsp;</li>
<li>] Current patchwork quilt of programs, not proven to lift people out of poverty,&nbsp;</li>
</ol>
<h2>[WHERE]</h2>
<ol>
<li><strong>] READ THE FULL ARTICLE</strong></li>
<ol>
<li>]&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-02/a-basic-income-should-be-the-next-big-thing" target="_blank">http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-02/a-basic-income-should-be-the-next-big-thing</a></li>
</ol></ol>
<h2>[WHEN]</h2>
<ol>
<li>] 2016-05-03&nbsp;</li>
</ol>
<h2>[EXAMPLE]</h2>
<p>Now and then a worthy economic proposal comes along that seems as politically unattainable as it is sensible. Then, on closer inspection, you see that it's more than a policy-wonk's fantasy.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;the concept of a universal basic income. The notion that government should guarantee every citizen an annual stipend of, say, $10,000 -- no strings attached, no questions asked -- is being studied by politicians, economists and policy experts worldwide.</p>
<p>In the social democracies of Europe, Canada and South America, experiments are planned or underway. In the U.S., it's still little more than a concept -- one that appears to have more conservative backers than liberal ones. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Some progressives see it as the ultimate expression of what a developed economy can achieve: a way to lessen poverty and inequality, and ease the pain of job loss and economic stagnation. But in the U.S., many liberals see it as naive and a distraction from more practical priorities, such as a $15 minimum wage and paid family leave.</p>
<p>For conservatives, the attraction is smaller government. Dozens of social-welfare programs now costing U.S. taxpayers about $1 trillion a year could be folded into a basic-income program, they argue.</p>
<p>With no eligibility criteria or enforcement needed, administrative costs would be bare-bones. Waste, fraud and abuse would be greatly reduced, the argument goes, if not close to zero.</p>
<p>The fear that people with a guaranteed basic income would become slackers may be unfounded. One economist who studied trials conducted in the 1970s in Canada found the opposite: Recipients were healthier and finished high school at higher rates. Adults with full-time jobs worked the same number of hours with one exception: Women took off more time after having a baby, an utterly reasonable outcome.</p>
<p>Yes, the costs of guaranteeing 322 million Americans $10,000 a year would be prohibitive -- a whopping $3.2 trillion a year.</p>
<p>But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 trillion. And if the benefit is phased out for households earning more than $100,000 (that would be 20 percent of the U.S.'s 115 million households, or about 70 million people, assuming three to a household), the cost declines to about $2 trillion. You could confine the program to adults and shrink the price tag even more, possibly to as low as $1.5 trillion.</p>
<p>&nbsp;Now we're getting close to the $1 trillion cost of all those unemployment checks, tax credits, food stamps, housing vouchers and a myriad other means-tested benefits that a basic income could supplant.</p>
<h2>[HOW-TO]</h2>
<ol>
<li>]</li>
</ol>
<h2>[REFERENCE]</h2>
<ol>
<li>&gt;]&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-02/a-basic-income-should-be-the-next-big-thing" target="_blank">A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing</a>&nbsp;(bloombergview.com), SRC=hn(641)/<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11618896" target="_blank">comments</a>(809)&nbsp;</li>
<li>] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-01/a-basic-income-is-smarter-than-minimum-wages&nbsp;</li>
<li>] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-16/here-come-the-tech-industry-basic-income-bros&nbsp;</li>
<li>] author: pdwyer11@bloomberg.net&nbsp;</li>
</ol>
<h2>[RELATED]</h2>
<div><ol>
<li><strong>] NEW article IN techology/analysis/politics</strong></li>
<ol>
<li>x] # 4945&nbsp;<a href="/view/article?id=4955" target="_blank">basic-income-overview</a>&nbsp; IN tech- a look at the evolving discussion around the concept of implementing a Universal Basic Income(UBI) program. &nbsp;</li>
</ol></ol></div>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;</h1>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">comments mined</h1>
<div>
<div><strong>gjm11</strong></div>
<p>where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like</p>
<div>&gt; But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 trillion. And if the benefit is phased out for households earning more than $100,000 (that would be 20 percent of the U.S.'s 115 million households, or about 70 million people, assuming three to a household), the cost declines to about $2 trillion.</div>
<div>You could confine the program to adults and shrink the price tag even more, possibly to as low as $1.5 trillion.</div>
<div>Yes, you can reduce the amount paid out by making it not a universal basic income scheme any more. But that rather misses the point.</div>
</div>
<div>(The correct thing to say here is: Yes, a universal basic income sufficient to keep everyone out of poverty would be really expensive. Taxes would need to go up a lot, which would leave wealthier people less well off than they are now. If you don't want a large-scale redistribution of wealth, then you don't want a BI scheme sufficient to keep everyone out of poverty. But you might still want to consider a BI scheme that's not sufficient to keep everyone out of poverty, to simplify and to reduce poverty traps. No one would have to be much worse off then. But it wouldn't be enough for anyone to live on, and would still need supplementing by other safety nets.)&nbsp;</div>
<div>
<p><strong>caseysoftware 20 days ago</strong></p>
<p>&gt; Yes, you can reduce the amount paid out by making it not a universal basic income scheme any more. But that rather misses the point.</p>
<div>You are entirely correct.. but I think you're missing the point.</div>
<div>Think of that first description as the marketing pitch to the general public. By saying it is universal and "free" to administer, it gets people behind it who don't think through the consequences.. which is a large chunk of the target audience. They are also the people who could put amicable politicians in power and keep them there.</div>
<div>But a "no-strings-attached" basic income would force politicians to give up the one thing they desire more than anything: power. So the second description with the actual mechanics of it, is for those people who actually get to administer the "free" program and tie their strings to groups, situations, and behaviors they want to punish or promote.</div>
<div>I am as free market as they come and find myself intrigued by the UBI... but the thing that prevents me from supporting it is that politicians and political systems DO NOT give up power so the "we can get rid of everything else" line is obviously a lie</div>
</div>
<p><strong>another</strong></p>
<p>check /r&nbsp;saved comments for interesting very long comment/theory&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>yummyfajitas 20 days ago</strong></p>
<div>It's not just wealthier people who will be worse off - it's everyone.<br />Basic income is known to create a large disincentive for work. In previous experiments (Mincome) labor supply dropped by about 10% - double what happened during the great recession.<br />This means that fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. No matter how much money you give to people, fewer services provided makes us all become poorer. That's simple arithmetic.<br /><br /></div>

~ view article ~ Chapter] political-issues-federal FROM [ Book] canada IN [ libraries] nations