A basic income experiment in Kenya
nordic.businessinsider.com
nordic.businessinsider.com
Slightly misleading headline aside, I'm glad the experiment is being done, since international aid had a lot of problems. The promise of UBI is that you don't need huge bureaucratic infrastructure to help lots of people. Maybe all you need is a payment system. Direct cash can put more resources in the hands of the beneficiaries, and less in the hands of aid organizations that exist primarily to persist.[0]
[0] https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
Well, this is encouraging.
I am not pro basic income because I think it won't fix anything in the US without other changes first, such as universal basic healthcare and more affordable housing, and most discussions about basic income start from an assumption that it will be handled at the national level. I think the current focus on basic income actively takes attention away from things like healthcare and housing. We already don't want to fix those things because they are hard problems to solve. Focusing on basic income strikes me as a variation on how so many people fantasize about winning the lottery. It seems like an easy answer. And people would rather imagine that there is an easy answer than wrestle with hard problems.
Like others are saying, I am unconvinced that this experiment really proves anything about basic income. But I think this may be the first time I have heard of a basic income experiment where the money came from elsewhere.
Maybe this approach does not further basic income. Maybe it will only provide new models for charity. Or maybe it provides a different model for basic income, one that puts a floor in globally and potentially starts the process of moving towards a world government, which doesn't have to be in place of national governments. It can be another layer on top of them. So emergent global order makes more sense than a top down approach to creating it.
One of the issues with basic income is the questions surrounding how it impacts immigration. If you give all Americans $1000/mo, that makes citizenship here an even more valuable commodity.
But if basic income starts as a global initiative to begin closing the gap between rich and poor nations, instead of a local initiative to help the poor within rich nations, maybe basic income can start resolving some of the problems currently fueling immigration pressures and bring barriers down to a more manageable level.
The US is an incredibly cheap place to live. Go to Europe and see what you can get for the same money.
From what I hear - I've never been there - this remains true only as long as you're not ill, don't need education and are employed. In most EU countries these things are taken care of for you, so the comparison seems a bit unfair.
There are even some big scale ideas here. Get just 10,000 people together and that income is $10million/month. If these people were willing to contribute and work together, they could actually begin to build their own new areas from the ground up given nothing more than basic land. Ideally I think the perfect value for a basic income would be enough to provide the bare essentials of housing and sustenance in the areas of the US with lower living expenses.
The one condition of basic income would need to be citizenship by birth to two parents who were also citizens of birth. If somebody immigrates to the nation, their grandchildren can participate in the program. This removes any incentive for social program targeted migration, or to try to give birth just within the borders. Furthermore, basic income would enable us to remove many current social programs, which provide such incentives to a lesser degree, as they would become redundant.
In this sense, we provide a lot of "basic income" to people, such as public education, police presence, various kinds of physical infrastructure, etc. The quality of those services could certainly be debated. My own "take" on basic income would be to bolster those services, perhaps even to a radical extent, but to consider that they are still not a complete substitute for each person having some discretionary income.
If we give every American $1,000/mo basic income, that’s $12,000/yr times 300 million, or about 1.2 trillion per year. For that much money, we could fix all our infrastructure, build better subways in every American city, build a Loftstrom-style launch loop to keep space launch costs down, land on Mars, replace the entire military arsenal, invest billions into basic science, expand health coverage, and still have some money left over. Plus, building all of that shit will probably get the country to full employment, give people meaningful things to do with their lives, and we get a lot out of it.
Or we could just mail people checks so they can sit around at home playing video games.
I think the biggest problem is that it amounts to squandering wealth, not creating more. It envisions most ordinary people as mere consumers. It's a little like saying "Our body would be healthier if we made sure to adequately feed the leeches."
Yeah, no.
We need to not actively turn people into leeches. We need to stop treating them like they can't do anything but consume. It is a terrible way to treat people and it creates a very unhealthy and unsustainable system.
> Yeah, no.
> We need to not actively turn people into leeches. We need to stop treating them like they can't do anything but consume. It is a terrible way to treat people and it creates a very unhealthy and unsustainable system.
What the heck are you talking about... If it's universal, then everybody gets it. How can anyone be a leech? And if you think some people consume more than they produce it's the same problem as with any other welfare. I don't see a problem with UBI being a replacement for welfare to some extent. Giving people dedicated restricted help is like treating them like incapable of decision making. Give them money and let them buy food themselves. What's the difference between a food stamp and food money? Pardon my ignorance.
Regarding creating new leeches, about every experiment with this shows that on average by great margin it activises people. So this in practice shows the exact opposite of what you say. People usually feel empowered and regained control over their lives and try to do something with it.
I am not a real proponent of universal basic income, the results seem too good. Maybe not being used to, and suddenly being given cold cash under monitor has this effect. Nevertheless, in my opinion your logic is completely reversed to what is being published.
The cost is $12,000 * 300 million minus income taxes raised. Most plans have a slight increase in personal income tax attached, that leads to a breakeven at around $36K -> $40K.
And the comparative cost in the budget is the cost of the program minus all existing welfare programs this replaces. $1,145 billion was the guesstimate for welfare, so for the USA at $3.5 trillion, it would be a cost of $2 trillion.
I wonder too if there aren't more cuts than just welfare that can be made as a flow on of this. The proposal I saw from a conservative economist was $13K, with $3k reserved for healthcare. That would replace a lot of the medical schemes that exist, which many states likely pay for as well.
Still, it is gonna be hella expensive for the first country that does it at scale.
Regardless, you’re still introducing a large amount of net new spending—an amount that could be productively invested in infrastructure, research, and other productive projects.
I'm 44, it would be a dream come true. Part of me says "bring it on" but the adult part of me realizes that you can't run a nation where everyone wants to retire early and produce nothing or next to nothing. I reminds me of Firefly and planet Miranda where everyone was drugged for "their own good" but they all just laid down and died!
My question is how does that transfer to other environments? Do the results at $22 a month in Kenya translate to the results at $1000 a month in the US? There's a lot more interesting things to buy with a $1000 in New York than there is with $22 in a village in Kenya. It's also a different society, different people. Maybe more religious, etc.
Just throwing out a stupid idea: Kenya's population is 47 million. To give all of them $22 a month (ignoring age cutoffs), unless I'm doing the math wrong would be just under $13 billion a year. If some really wealthy people really want to test this, it's not impossible.
Unlike the article's repeated claim that this is the "greatest myth" (it's really annoying how news articles editorialize with untestable statements like that), the biggest issue is still cost. How do you realistically put together and pay for a program that can become policy in the US? It's the 3 trillion dollar question.
It'd be fair to assume that a successful experiment would eventually become self-funding and discontinued if unsuccessful. Your $13B number puts the budget in the same ballpark as ITER; smaller than half of the foreign aid donated by the US in 2013, an order of magnitude smaller than Project Apollo, and less than 10% the size of the Marshall plan.
However such a project will not be able to avoid wide publicity which would attract many "confounding factors" trying to ensure its success, or more likely its failure.
a) Donor funding causes poorer members of society to turn a blind eye to inept leadership who misappropriate taxes and who don't really care about effecting sustainable change. The fact that they can live on $22 a month doesn't change the fact that their village has shitty schools, shitty hospitals, and non-existent public infrastructure... and the Kenyans responsible for fixing that get richer by the day.
b) Efforts by East African countries to build sustainable industries are curtailed by the same economies that purport to support them. Kenya had to back out of a plan to prevent the importation of second-hand clothing (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/world/africa/east-africa-...) because the States threatened to review Kenya’s eligibility to export textiles to the US.
I think it's nice that 3rd parties are so keen on being helpful... but I think that change will have to come from within.
The one hopeful thing I read was that it seemed to reduce alcohol usage. This matches with most evidence of alcohol usage increasing during a recession, etc. When things are hopeless, people cope how they can.
This does help reinforce the concept that most people need a hand up, not a hand out. We get so little benefit from too many of our social programs today. We need to fix things to allow people to help themselves and grow to become self sufficient.
Preschool the US is pretty expensive, about $500 a month. It would seem if you could pay for preschool with $22 a month, then the purchasing power is quite substantial.
I believe that this is not a replacement for existing income streams but a supplement that puts these recipients above subsistence.
This is very much a handout however.
We do an okay job of trying to funnel money to the people and necessities but we focus too little on job training and development. I would love for us to bring community projects back into the fold. Learn construction and landscaping while fixing up a park. Let people refurbish old buildings to create low income housing while learning the "trades". Use all the intelligence and energy of people to create after/before school programs and tutoring.
Personally, I believe that basic income would be a net good if 99% of basic income recipients wasted money on booze, as long as there’s a 1% doing interesting things with their lives.
I'm slightly suspicious of the self-reported drinking levels. I'd be afraid that the aid recipients might fear having the money taken away from them (no matter how much they're assured otherwise) if they report their true amounts of drinking or other behavior they assume the study organizers don't approve of. Do surveys of people who drink typically reveal true results, when further investigation is done?
The incentives here are so painfully slanted. Is there a B Team investigating this adversarially? Ideally this study would be done by researchers who aren't true believers in basic income. If it really works, it works when those carrying it out don't believe in it.
Especially considering that if this does get implemented globally, a big percent of those running the show will be bored bureaucrats, not people passionate about the fate of the impoverished.
So just add to the "basic income" scheme a "basic mental health" package, and where are good to go.
Personally, I don't see how UBI scales beyond small tests to whole countries/economies.
I do wonder though if it would be possible to fund with a combination of a sell off of public land plus technology. Theoretically, with a UBI, there would be little to no need for the government to provide subsidized housing, and a technological solution where money could be sent directly to landlords rather than via recipients would provide the sort of risk reduction that many landlords need. That could lead to a boom in sub $1,000 a month rentals, where landlords are guaranteed they will be paid.
Combine with a sell off of some public housing assets, and it might be possible to fund a UBI for several years, not so much to push the can down the line, but to see if the trillion dollars is recouped with economic growth as the entire amount would be spent by all recipients up to and slightly above the median US income, so there should be some positive economic growth.
That's the rub though, this is hard to pass. The left in particular won't like the replacement of programs for direct cash and a public assets sell off is kind of the left's idea of heresy. Conversely, the right won't let it through without MASSIVELY reducing the number of programs that are currently funded. There is virtually no country in the world with a sane and rational enough parliament to be able to perform the sort of radical surgery their budgets need to introduce a UBI.
People drink because it's the cheapest entertainment. When people have more money they try out other forms of entertainment.
I imagine rich people use alcohol to spice up other entertainment and poor people more often entertain themselves with alcohol only.
These are the top Google results for "alcohol consumption by income level", by the way. There's no need to speculate about it without sources as people in this thread are doing.
The article says that one recipient was able to buy more milk and send his kid to school. Fine, how much does milk cost now and which kid is now unable to go to school because his son is sitting in the seat?
You can have as much money as the government wants, but goods are a limited resource (in the short term). Just printing money to give people more money is not a solution.
Venezuela just hiked minimum wage up to 797,510 BSF a month. That's 79,751 dollars at the official exchange rate (which is 10 to 1). On the black market it's about 6.50. And nothing is available on shelves.
As for Venezuela, and similar situations, look towards the exchange rate.
From [0], "However, Zimbabwe's peak month of inflation is estimated at 79.6 billion percent in mid-November 2008."
Even a private charitable organization cannot deal with that level of inflation by tweaking the minimum wage. Plus, you start running out of money (the physical paper kind) really quickly because you can't afford it anymore.
Or you can go further down the rabbit hole and enforce price controls. Which leads to shortages of goods and lack of supply because of zero incentive to work and produce. Seeing your children cold and hungry and fair prices is a huge incentive to be productive.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe
BI as a concept do not, and will never, fix exchange rate problems.
BI is for when on paper the nation has a functioning domestic economy, but one that exclude large parts of the population from taking part in said economy via jobs.
Weimar Germany was left with a non-functioning industry after WW1, and saddled with reparations denominated in foreign currency. Even Keynes warned that it would be a mess.
Zimbabwe similar ended up with a broken domestic industry, but in this instance it was the leadership that tried to keep up appearance via imports that ran things into the ground.
For Venezuela i would say that judge is still out, but the slide started with the bet on oil exports to shore up imports, only or for the oil price to take a dip. but in this instance i can't eliminate the potential for foreign meddling as the leadership had incensed certain world powers...
The only thing world powers would have to do is let Maduro continue his economic policies.
There doesn't need to be an external plot, just stupidity in economic powers.
With such high inflation, nobody wants to take the BSF, so they insist on hard currency. Thus, prices increases. Even when you make bread, you need hard currency to buy yeast and machine parts (baking and mixing machines) as most of them are imported.
With prices spiking, the government gets the bright idea to slap on price controls, at an artificially low bring to "ensure the common man" has access to goods. The price controls don't allow breakeven considering the cost of production and imports, especially when the price rises faster than price controls allow. So they don't make anything that is price controlled.
Also, the price control board is controlled by the government. Every year during Christmas and before elections, the government goes in and slashes prices. Sure, you get a big screen TV for cheap, but they never get imported any more. Same thing with airlines. They're not allowed to repatriate profits at anything close to a realistic exchange rate, so they just stop flying there.
Again, it's only the rich who can afford to find tax havens and expensive accountants. The middle class is stuck paying taxes.
This is why we need the estate tax (Paris Hilton tax or death tax as opponents like to say) to stay and probably increase in rate.
> For 2017, the estate and gift tax exemption is $5.49 million per individual, up from $5.45 million in 2016. That means an individual can leave $5.49 million to heirs and pay no federal estate or gift tax.
This is plenty generous. We should tax any estate beyond that at a minimum of fifty percent and close all loopholes.
I am not a big fan of income tax on businesses but I can see why we need it.
How is it relevant to giving up citizenship and owning property or company? There's no death involved. If their children are not citizen either, they are not hit by inheritance tax too.
> I am not a big fan of income tax on businesses but I can see why we need it.
VAT is sort of like income tax for businesses. Except it's not taxed on B2B transactions. Which makes sense. Otherwise everybody would bring in whole production chain in-house and we'd be left with huge conglomerates and no SMBs.
> That's not what the OP is getting at. BI may work well given certain preconditions, and subpopulations. But what use is the money if resource supply and the productive capacity of the economy is limited?
I'd go further and say this is not true for most consumables within reasonable limits. Does this sound like a circular logic? I think my reasoning is flawed (I hope it is not) so pardon my thinking out loud. I mean if I define luxuries as superior goods[wiki] which we consume more of as we have more disposable income, then I imagine we might see prices increase on those things at some point but we don't mind because they are luxuries. But can we dismiss all superior goods as luxuries? If we can prove this connection, then I think we can put down this fear of inflation once and for all.
Thoughts?
[wiki] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_good Superior goods make up a larger proportion of consumption as income rises, and therefore are a type of normal goods in consumer theory. Such a good must possess two economic characteristics: it must be scarce, and, along with that, it must have a high price. The scarcity of the good can be natural or artificial; however, the general population (i.e., consumers) must recognize the good as distinguishably better. Possession of such a good usually signifies "superiority" in resources, and usually is accompanied by prestige.
I think ~1 car per adult is enough transportation for everybody. http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-automotiv...
Half of produce in the US is thrown away. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-...
Healthcare is certainly lacking in the US but other countries with far lower GDP per capita have somehow managed to give everyone healthcare.
I think the vast majority of necessities are not really particularly scarce in the US and there is easily enough at the very minimum for i.e. absolutely zero homeless and starvation.
But even still, I think you're better off considering that as a necessary condition, not a definition. Giffen goods[0] follow the same pattern, and they are almost always under "basic necessities".
I return to the basic question: can the PPF curve for the economy under which BI is instituted be reshaped to supply what its recipients would buy? That's the key question.
I appreciate your open-mindedness to "think out loud."
To say that these things can't be done at all and that more demand is bad is a defeatist attitude.
Venezuela is a special case where the government is attacking production. It's not what happens in a healthy economy.
The 11 million percent price inflation rate in Zimbabwe was not caused by a 11 million percent reduction in goods supply.
Why would they take money in a rapidly depreciating asset instead of just demanding hard currency that holds value decently well?
That starts mattering when you have nothing really to export and still require supplies (parts and food) from foreign countries.
It's shocking how connected and interdependent industries are now. I can't think of a single thing produced that doesn't need foreign inputs for production. Even apples need ladders for harvest, when one breaks, pesticides and fertilizer.
You know, instead of shaming kids.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=national+school+lunc...
OTOH, I do expect a good majority of basic income recipients to waste their time on stuff that tickles the meaningfulness receptors in the brain: video games, social media, and other easy tribe forming activities such as sports fandom.
But I agree with your basic point: you don't need very many geniuses and artists supported by BI to justify a large number of freeloaders IMO.
But of course it does because there is a Big White Friendly Brother supplying the money. If it was coming from Kenya's budget, these people would have to be taxed at a higher rate just so there is enough money to distribute as basic income.
Factually speaking, the money involved would be about 16% of Kenya's GDP, which would indeed be a very substantial tax hike. If it had to be supplied by the village itself, rather than Kenyawide, it would presumably be a proportionally even larger burden; if it had to be supplied by the EAC or by Kenya and its neighboring countries, it would also be a proportionally even larger burden.
(Perhaps a useful point of comparison is that the Kenyan Defense Forces cost 5.3% of GDP.)
On the other hand, eliminating poverty entirely in exchange for only 15%–20% of taxation seems like it would be a pretty good deal; it falls far short of the costs of providing a Scandinavian-style welfare state. In the US, Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97B per year, almost 11% of the US GDP. A substantial fraction of the US military budget also needs to be counted as poverty-reducing giveaways — whether to individual people for whom a job as a soldier is a path out of poverty, or to the military-supported industries that employ a substantial fraction of the US population. The US armed forces directly amount to 3.3% of US GDP, US$597B, but there's another half-percent split between DHS and DoE.
> In the US, Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid adds up to US$1.97B per year, almost 11% of the US GDP
Yes, and you want to dismantle them and share that sum among everyone in the form of basic income. That would mean you'd be taking money from people who actually need it, to give to people who need it less. To counter that, you'd have to increase everyone's taxes just so the former welfare recipients aren't worse off. Of course, the taxes won't be raised just enough to offset the newly gained income, it will have to be raised more, probably substantially more because there will be people who haven't qualified for welfare before but will receive the UBI.
My post has no racist tone, you're seeing something that isn't there.
We ban accounts that post flamebait, whether racial or otherwise, so please don't do this again. If you'd instead read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and really take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it. As you'll see, it means a lot more than editing flamebait out, though that's definitely required.
Double-check your numbers, mate. The US GDP is more than $15 trillion.
It's true that how much it costs to avoid this — if it can even be avoided with money — depends on where you live; here in Buenos Aires, I don't need a car to get around, because I can take the bus anywhere in the city for €0,44, or a taxi for perhaps €8 if I'm in a hurry. There are plenty of cultural events that are free or very cheap. When I lived in the US, I had to have a car, and that was more expensive. (I did try commuting by bicycle and public transport, but it wasn't very practical.) Public universities here are free, but few people can afford the time off work to study.
Poverty is vulnerability. Poverty is helplessness. Poverty is weakness. Poverty is not a lack of money; it is a consequence of a lack of money in a money-driven society.
First, people knew timespan is limited. Thus they had incentive to invest money wisely. What would happen if they knew the money would be coming forever?
Second, the money came from outside of the community. In Basic Income, money comes from within the community. In true BI scheme, the caregiver dude would be donor and paying to his neighbours.
Your second point is valid: this is additional money from outside. But the word "donor" would not apply in a true BI scheme. It would be seen as obligation to the community (via taxes), in the same way you pay for public infrastructure, because it adds a value to the community as a whole. (If it wasn't seen that way, it would probably not be implemented in the first place.)
Of course, even if they were promised money forever, some people would call bullshit and still plan ahead. But quite a few people do believe existing system, without declared timeout, are permanent. Especially if they were born in the system and haven't experienced any alternatives. But building system based on assumption that humans won't believe it's permanent would be kinda dumb :)
Donor is exactly correct word for net-loss in BI scheme. You give up part of your wealth and get nothing in return.
You know what you get back in return for your taxes. Like infrastructure or school for your kids. Welfare, when done correctly, is insurance. You know you can get in trouble, thus you pitch in. You have a chance to get in trouble and cash out.
But once "welfare queens" pop up, people are pissed off. Since they feel like donors instead of paying insurance.
What adds value to community is, for example, funding a local theatre, newspaper or building a park. You pay and you get something in return. You may pay proportionally more than other members of community. But you still get something in return nevertheless.
Meanwhile BI doesn't add value by itself. Nor it gives anything in return to those who pay.
Depends on the country and the quartile. Read the program, and they target the poorest of the poor in Kenya. I'm not really sure that the poorest in Kenya have a life expectancy approaching that of westerners. Happy to be corrected!
By the way, Kenya's life expectancy is over 60, varies from source to source. One could argue that this is life expectancy for people born today and older generations have it much shorter. But it was over 50 since late 60s! I'm pretty sure 20-something expecting to live to 50 or 60 do not consider 12 years as "forever". Nor do 40-something who expects to beat the statistics.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013...
“Unconditional”, usually.
https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basi...
2) It only works as 'charity' between a vast income gap like you have here. Within local communities it's unlikely that many people have enough money and the disposition to support all the others.
We already know giving money to poor people makes them happy. The question is how the whole community reacts to UBI
> 2) It only works as 'charity' between a vast income gap like you have here. Within local communities it's unlikely that many people have enough money and the disposition to support all the others.
Looks like Kenya have pretty high GINI coefficient [0] inside of it's regions as well as nation-wide. Thus there's wealth to be moved around inside of the country or even it's regions.
Many western countries have much lower GINI coefficient, so following this logic, there'd be even less people to share money with other people. Which is why BI opponents think it won't ever work.
[0] http://inequalities.sidint.net/kenya/abridged/gini-coefficie...
In day-to-day case, BI would be either working people sharing most of their wealth with the rest on massive scale. Which would cause uproar of the working people. Or charity-like situation where working people would just drop some breadcrumbs for the peasants. Which wouldn't be great either.
I think you've got your sense of morality mixed up if you think somebody's right to hoard 1000x more than they need is more sacred than someone else's right to basic healthcare, housing, and food. Not to mention the rapid automating and offshoring of job opportunities.
Finally, I realize that this doesnt have to come from the state. Foundations and other aspects of the private sector are capable of doing this on a larger scale than we realize
Exactly. And more specifically, if Silicon Valley were to identify this as a problem to solve with its brains, money, and technology, then the problem might be solved much sooner, more easily, and more efficiently as compared to waiting for a politically correct solution from a government.
One experiment for basic income that has not been tried: create a new cryptocurrency that makes UBI distributions to all wallets. The question created by such a cryptocurrency is whether the issues created by making such distributions (such as preventing people from making an infinite number of wallets) have practical technological solutions.
If there are technological solutions to the problems inherent in a UBI cryptocurrency, then the idea should be implementable by either a cryptocurrency or a government (if a government ever got around to it). Furthermore, if there are not solutions to the problems inherent in a UBI cryptocurrency, then that could help convince UBI supporters that 1) UBI might not be a good solution and 2) a solution other than UBI needs be identified.
This is less “solving a problem” than it is an experiment at this time, of course.
I am skeptical that UBI will work because paying people for nothing seems like it may be counterproductive by creating rampant inflation or by acting as a disincentive for most.
The rampant inflation argument, which most economists would use to argue against UBI, is interesting because most countries seem to be suffering from deflation. If deflation is a problem, then inflation created by UBI could be beneficial to an economy. But getting a government to start up a new UBI program to combat deflation does not seem like an efficient path for creating a solution because governments are slow, rarely do things correctly, and magnify their mistakes by taking years to correct initial imperfections.
Rather, focusing the brains, money, and technology of Silicon Valley on proving the idea with a cryptocurrency based UBI seems like a much more efficient approach to either 1) create a solution (the preferred option) or 2) settle the debate so that we can move on.
Because I believe this, I support much higher deficits, and thus am a hybrid Republican/Democrat: I want low taxes, and high government spending. However, aside from infrastructure, I'd want the government spending to be a bottom up type of spending like UBI, because it would give people seed money to start businesses, and more money to spend at other's businesses.
[2] https://www.mannabase.com/
[3] https://medium.com/@fcecin/the-basic-whitepaper-7e789f16abe
[4] http://www.greshm.org/files/greshm.pdf
[5] https://ourbasicincome.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/circles-univ...
To me is seems like an attempt to retain the current power structures and the current status of the contemporary elite, by trying to retain an outdated economic system past the point when the vast majority of people will end up completely cut of from it.
That said, I think a UBI-like scheme will have HUGE unintended consequences in the dating/marriage market. Many/all potential partners/mates will no longer have an 'easy' way to signal their potential marriage value outside of physical fitness and proven virility/fertility. For a lot of the population you'll have taken away a key factor in assessing potential marriage value. I think that'll tend towards polygamy/andry in a few decades' time.
We all exist in that landscape, so we all need to have the discipline not to be sensationalist when commenting about it on HN, or we won't have much of an HN left to comment on. Could you please help us with that? The spirit of the site is described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html.
The USA is different to most countries in that it has almost all the world's biggest companies. The number one way to maximise US tax revenues is to reduce the incentives to offshore cash, and even a small change in the monetary strategy could have huge results.
Contrast that with Iceland (~330K people) and their best way to maximise tax revenue is to sell their cheap geothermal power to aluminium smelters and have them pay virtually no company taxes, as taxing the wage earners the smelters generate is their best bet.
Pragmatism is often extremely ugly.
These guys obviously weren't the 0.1%, but people do try to study these things.
1. Take a bunch of people
2. Make them all give you 20% if their income for X years
3. Give them all back ((total money in) - (overhead costs to run the program)) / (total participants)
I suspect it would be difficult to find people who would participate willingly.
https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basi...
An ERC20 token from Athene, the best paladin in the world. No, this is not a scam.