And where the money to pay for that will come from? I suspect if you just tax the rich like crazy, they will just move out to somewhere else.
The Mincome experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome) dabbled with this idea and the results were rather surprising. Most people seemed to want to work rather than loaf around and collect benefits.
Don't think you'd have to "tax the rich like crazy". Would returning to the tax rates of the 1990s be "crazy"? Would closing corporate loopholes be "crazy"? Would investigating why trillions of dollars in tax havens have somehow escaped oversight be "crazy"?
This idea does not stand up to any scrutiny at all. The cost of administering a welfare bureaucracy is minuscule compared to the cost of a BI program.
> Don't think you'd have to "tax the rich like crazy". Would returning to the tax rates of the 1990s be "crazy"? Would closing corporate loopholes be "crazy"? Would investigating why trillions of dollars in tax havens have somehow escaped oversight be "crazy"?
None of those suggestions would come anywhere near the amount of money needed for a BI program.
Most of the cost of administering a welfare bureaucracy is in validating and enforcing the conditions on beneficiaries. Unconditional Basic Income avoids these costs quite directly.
The reason people can't find work now is due to the failures of central planning, not the lack of it. Communist and hard-socialist countries all have tried the basic income idea and failed. The only exceptions are where the basic income is funded through resources, not confiscation of wealth - and even this takes wise, benevolent leadership.
When you confiscate wealth to provide a basic income, you create a disincentive to create wealth and an incentive to not work in exchange for basic income. This creates a rapid increase in both, which backfires because you have more people to support with basic income and less revenue because business owners scale back.
It all sounds good in theory, but in practice...
Edit: Interesting on the downvotes without the explanations. Do any of you live in the real world?
I know of a few short lived experiments, but I'm not aware of any country that has implemented a basic income, let alone failed at it. Could you let me know where you're thinking of?
> It all sounds good in theory, but in practice...
... where has it failed in practice?
1.) Cheap money via gov't Fed Policy (created the artificial boom) 2.) Government mandates in mortgage lending (caused a lot of people to buy homes when they weren't in a realistic position to do so)
I need to get back to work so that others don't have to.
At least that's what my USSR-born wife explains.
However, I don't believe in your analysis of the banking crisis, either. You seem to have missed out a lot of other reasons. From wikipedia:
> In its "Declaration of the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy," dated 15 November 2008, leaders of the Group of 20 cited the following causes:
During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.
i.e. Though it was also a failure of other things, it was by large part a failure of corporate risk assessment and lack of regulation.
Communism didn't offer a basic income. People were paid for doing works at jobs. Which everyone had. The constituion of communist Poland even listed having a job as a citizens duty.
How can you ignore globalization and automation? Even if you think those things have had no impact to date, they undoubtedly will in the future, right? Particularly the latter.
Also, keep in mind that nobody is proposing communism. Milton Friedman advocated a basic income.
Apparently corporations will be subsidizing this:
"How would we pay for it? We could start by getting corporations to pay their taxes. As I mentioned above, corporate profit margins have hit an all time high, and that money will circulate far faster if it’s placed in the hands of consumers."
There are various income models, and that's just one example.
Also, these kinds of ideas should be tested on a smaller scale - may be a town of 25,000 people? That would be really interesting.
Quite the contrary! The "Basic Income" idea stems from the rich. They would simply cut all welfare expenses, including medical.