Basic income

exactly... people like to make Friedman into some sort of ideologue, but he was quite reasonable and most importantly highly creative in his insights about economic policy.

I recommend reading Capitalism and Freedom for a taste of his creativity.

My understanding of Friedman's position was that the negative income tax was a politically viable (if unlikely) system that would be an improvement (more freedom, less socialism) over the social programs we currently have. Not that he thought the negative income tax was the "ideal".

And of course inflation.

Er, have you looked at the US or California prison populations lately? They're remarkably high as things are, and there are already all sorts of ways to confiscate the property of convicts, which has proved a bonanza for some law enforcement agencies.

As for the other economic incentive, you would need to compare the potential saving with the cost to the state of keeping someone in jail, which can run anywhere from about $15k (Texas) to $35k (Maine). Weather and geography are significant factors in this variation. The basic income we're talking about is probably only sufficient for basic survival; somehow I doubt it's going to be more than the cost of imprisoning someone.

Of all the possible unforeseen ramifications of how something like this might work out, putting people in jail to save money is not high on my list of things to worry about...though now I think about it, the cost per inmate per year might be a reasonable metric for determining this basic income, since it reflects the approximate cost of living in the most literal sense.

I agree. What's to prevent me from cheating the system by having a ton of kids? They'll be provided for by this program. Also, I elect that my salary be $1 and receive bonuses instead... yes, there are arguments against that, but at least right now, I'd have to spend effort to be rich first before taking the $1 salary + bonus.

I just finished reading through the Self-Enforcing Protocols post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=755131), and this scheme strikes me as something being easy to abuse.

According to the article Alaska comes close due to the subsidy. Maybe Alaska is the next Silicon Valley?

Startups, or the companies that they would later turn into would have a substantial tax burden keeping them down. (You can't hide an economic inefficiency - the effect of taxing to pay for it would have a negative impact.)

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Because the basic income money isn't given to purchase any particular good. People can spend it on what they like. If the person gets to choose between spending their $5000 on a laptop or plane tickets, supply-and-demand says laptops will stay at their marginal cost.

Basic income money should be taken from other taxes rather than printed, otherwise, of course, no sense in it.

So what happens if your hands (which you presumably use for programming) stop working and you are unable to do your job? Should you lose all your income, be kicked out of your house, and forced to beg for food? (And eventually get sick, not get medical care, and die at the age of 28?)

I wouldn't want that for you, and I wouldn't want that for myself.

Humans created a society for a reason, and it wasn't so that we could each keep everything we earn and have a slightly bigger flat-screen TV. The collective protects the individual from Bad Things that can be devastating for that individual, in exchange for a tiny bit of each individual's earnings. With that tiny bit, we can also build infrastructure that would be otherwise economically infeasible for a private entity to fun (or for each individual to build himself), but is beneficial to society at large. Roads, public transportation, the Internet, etc.

Assuming that everyone should live in isolation ignores basic human biology -- we are a social animal, and we need the collective.

Are you rejecting the social contract entirely?

The question is about how we distribute our wealth fairly.

The fairest method would be: Who creates the most wealth, gets the most wealth. The current method is: Who negotiates the highest salary (founders and passive income excluded), gets the most wealth. Basic income method: Everybody gets an equal little piece of the wealth, the rest is distributed like before.

It seems fairer to me, because for example moms are not compensated with the current system.

What do you mean "we've become"? Can you point to a time in human history where everyone thought they did not deserve a piece of someone else's stuff?

"No," says the man in Washington. "No," says the man in the Vatican. "No," says the man in Moscow.

Those men are correct.

These are all pertinent observations. The rational of basic income, as applied in France, is to provide some money (not much) to people who have no revenue. It was called the RMI, "Minimum Insertion Revenue". So it was given to indigent people but only without any revenue.

But there was a backside to this system because it produced a threshold below which it wasn't worth to work. This threshold was above the RMI because working needs to cover the cost of the trip to the job, clothing and such.

This is why the system has changed this year into the RSA "Active Solidarity Revenue". People without revenue still get the equivalent of the RMI. But now, when they get a job, they don't lose the RMI. The revenue is now balanced with the income, also providing an incentive to get a job even if it is only a few hours a week.

The huge cost of such basic income model is balanced by the benefit of reduced criminality, because these people don't need to steal, swindle or whatever to survive anymore. This makes France a pleasant place to live even if the taxes are high.

I have a friend on UK disability allowance. He gets more money than me per month, I work an average 6 day week. He also gets housing on top of the money, so in reality he's a lot better off than I. Most council housing, where people are living on unemployment benefits has satellite TV and eat take-away food a lot. I can't afford that. People we know on benefits buy "all new" for their babies (£300 buggys!) whilst we rely on secondhand and hand-me-downs. Basically my argument is that the current system gives too much if it's not a struggle to get by (requiring some work for yourself, mending clothes, growing food) then it's too much IMO.

My friend has considered working, and has in the past, but he makes less money the more he works.

Last time I checked we were at about 75% of the official poverty line but ate healthily and even managed a small holiday. Now I suspect (one more child and ensuing benefit) we're on the line.

The wikipedia article says that basic income is give to all regardless of wealth. That's one of the points - it removes the huge costs involved in administrating a system that has to establish and analyse the wealth of all members of the community.

Hayek and friedman are certainly among the more outspoken proponents of socialism

If the US replaced all of its welfare and re-distributional programs with a negative income tax (sales/estate/corporate/etc taxes would be scrapped as well), the US would be far less socialist than it is today.

There seems to be reasonable evidence that at least some quantity of 'welfare' is beneficial. If that's the case, then the negative income tax can provide that without all the bad distortions that traditional welfare/re-distributions (SS, unemployment insurance, etc) produce. (Alas, we can never escape the DWL of taxation, though).

Haha! :)) This is a good one

Are you using that statement as just a factual observation, or are you attaching a value judgment to it?

It would also make the benefit impossible to kill or reduce no matter how much it strangled the nation. See: Social Security.

The difference is that instead of the AARP threatening nuclear warfare over any reform it would be everyone. (Incidentally, if you think the AARP is going to give up Social Security just because they're getting Basic Income in return, you're dreaming.)

Charles Murray wrote a whole book, In Our Hands : A Plan To Replace The Welfare State,

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Hands-Replace-Welfare-State/dp/084...

on this subject and how it might work in the United States.

Speaking for Germany: Basically yes. But it's split on numerous agencies and bureaucracies. Also it's not unconditional. And among the worst things: The effective marginal tax rate can be quite high for people with low income. I.e. you don't pay much taxes per se, but for each earned Euro above a certain threshold you have to forfeit one Euro of e.g. BAföG. Not a good incentive to work gradually more.

The stipend, IMO, needs to be at a level that requires you to grow your own food, mend your own clothes, etc., in order to not go hungry and naked. That is it should require you to be productive even if you're not employed.

If you can afford to smoke or buy brand new clothes, buy cable telly or go out for food then you're getting too much stipend.

Then the question becomes how many people on minimum wage jobs would give up what they have and live in charity shop clothing, tending an allotment, not smoking or drinking (unless they grow/bottle their own) and preparing their own food at home in shared accommodation.

I don't think you'll see too many of the current generation choosing that sort of lifestyle.

These measures are orthogonal.