Guaranteed Basic Income for All

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:48 pm

occupation vs vocation. technology will eventually remove this enigma.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:32 am

Thanks for your 'flat-earther' style contribution, Rowls.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:05 am

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:15 am

TomBenderson wrote:No. The more you think about it, the more difficult and unworkable it becomes. Take your £8k idea. OK, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (they're not my kind of people but I can imagine those proposing this are reasonably warm to them) say that the minimum standard is £17k for an individual. £40k for a couple with two children. That through UBI would be economic suicide and while the Communists may hanker after a return to an agrarian economy, few others do. Your £8k idea leaves everyone who doesn't work or have extra income on less than half the required income. The answer? Some sort of means tested benefit. Now you've just wiped out all the savings you made in reduced admin.

I still think the economics are less important than the social impacts and that its time is coming, so we should think about it. However, its time is not yet. At the minute our version of it where we give people money and housing when they can't support themselves is enough.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's idea of the minimum income for basic essentials is rather different from mine. For example, they say a single person needs £7.23 per day for food - but for £7.23 you can buy (for example) a dozen fish fingers, 5 pounds of potatoes, two pounds of peas, two pounds of corn, two pounds of cauliflower, a large loaf of bread, 7 pints of milk, and 15 apples. (Farmfoods.) And that's a good deal more than a day's worth of food.

For example again, Rowntree reckons a single man needs £45.25 per week for "social and cultural participation". That's £2,353 per year. We aren't just talking about a Premier League season ticket as essential - we're talking a seat in the executive lounge, with travel and admission to all away games too. There's £5 per week for "essential" alcohol, there's £7.25 per week for clothes (ever heard of charity shops?), there;s £626 per year for household goods. All this spending is well and good if Rowntree man is paying for it himself, but he wants me to pay for it, he can pull his horns in a bit and make do with less.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:16 am

taio wrote:Know little about it, but on the face of it and at £1,755 pcm it could presumably have disastrous consequences.

Maybe this has been pointed out to you but literally no one is saying that £1,755 pcm is what the UK would offer it's citizens. Don't be ridiculous.
Just like in Switzerland it would be related to the cost of living.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:17 am

taio wrote:It's probably only remained a theory for a long time for a reason.

Because mass automation is only a recent thing?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:27 am

AndrewJB wrote:
As for flat tax - what is the point? At one end of the spectrum you will always be taking too much from an earner, and at the other you'll always be taking too little.

You've answered your own question. The point of a flat tax is exactly that, to keep the proletariat financially dependent on those who we'd be taking too little tax from.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:03 am

Basic Income seems like a brilliant idea and one that will inevitably come to pass, but whether technology and automation have advanced far enough for it to be the right time for it will always be the question that needs answered, whether it's now or in 20 years. The same people saying it's too soon now will still be saying it's too soon in 20, 40 or 60 years.

One of the things that needs to happen is that manufacturing here with robotics must be more profitable than manufacturing in China or Africa with labour and having the products shipped to the UK for sale. There are some industries where that is already the case but we could force the issue if we wanted to. We should be disincentive the use of fossil fuels anyway so a prohibitive tariff on imported goods that could have been made here with affordable automation can help solve two problems; it takes carbon out of the atmosphere in reduced emissions, and it brings manufacturing back to the UK where it can help pay for B.I.

Another thing we can do is stop allowing companies to get away with paying a pittance of tax on their revenue. Currently tax is only paid on profit, which is then fudged to make the tax bill even less.
I'm a worker. I'm not taxed on my profits. I'd love to only be taxed after I've paid for all those things i need to pay for in order to be a productive employee, like food, transport, housing, but **** me for not being a company. Right?

There are so many ways to make B.I. easily affordable, the only thing preventing it is political will, because it ***** with the survival incentive of people to work for companies for peanuts, which in turn means to attract competent employees they'd have to pay more than they are happy with. It's why so many of them hate welfare, it's much easier to get a hungry person living in a bedsit to work for £3/hr than a financially secure person with a full stomach.

It's insane that as automation becomes more prevalent, corporations are paying less and less tax and that needs to change. Maybe instead of the few hundred million/year lost to dole dossers who aren't interested in working, it's the tens of billions lost to tax avoidance (along with lower taxes anyway) that is why we "can't afford the NHS/renewables/welfare" (delete as appropriate)

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:19 am

welcome to the state of Human Extintion.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:55 am

IT
"Currently tax is only paid on profit, which is then fudged to make the tax bill even less."

Shall we tax companies on losses then ? That'll help the economy for sure !!

Brilliant

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:18 am

Fortunately, not everybody is as narrow minded as Rowls (who's provided some real insight here).

These are the early stages, but people are realising that as the population increases and the requirement for human labour reduces, there has to be a new way of looking at things. Hence the discussion and pilot of things like UBI. It may not work. It may lead to something else which does work. But these things have to be studied and explored.

Or would you rather just keep equating work = money forever?

I can see Tories 100 years from now complaining about the 20 million unemployed people on welfare and telling them to get a job.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:32 am

HatfieldClaret wrote:IT
"Currently tax is only paid on profit, which is then fudged to make the tax bill even less."

Shall we tax companies on losses then ? That'll help the economy for sure !!

Brilliant

I think you missed the part where Turtle pointed out that companies find ways to fib about the size of their profits, thus reducing their tax bills.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:25 am

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:22 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 3:26 pm

If GBI is possible - and, I believe we have to take "politics" out of our thinking as a first premise - automation is irrelevant. I contend that automation is neither a pre-requisite or a contributor to the possibility of GBI.

In recent years we have experienced unimaginable progress in automation. I'm using the world wide web, a laptop and, in my case, Windows operating system. On this message board I'm communicating with several people. None of these capabilities existed 40 years ago. One hundred years ago - we are approaching the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme - "productivity" had a terrible impact on modern warfare. Many years earlier the luddites were protesting about the introduction of "modern" weaving technology.

We can all add to the list of automation and productivity gains. And, we can all link these changes - I've avoided the term "progress" as some might want to be selective about the meaning of "progress" in this context - to changes in employment. Automation in the car manufacturing industry reduces the numbers of employees. The same applies with containerisation of shipping, no more/very few dockers. There were over 100,000 coal miners employed in the UK in 1970 (perhaps more). Thirty years later there were less than 5,000. There are very few today. Do we regret now that we don't have a coal industry and the jobs that go with it, or do we welcome the carbon emissions reduction that the closure of coal fired generation contributes to?

My examples are all from "male dominated" employment sectors. We can add the same in what were "traditionally" female dominated sectors. We know better, now, that gender should not determine the roles that people play in society.

I'm pretty sure that stats quoted above - real wages, productivity changes etc - are all referring to the UK.

What about the rest of the world?

Yesterday, Switzerland voted - and rejected - GBI. Some limited "trials" (or "experiments") have been tried/are proposed in Canada, Netherlands and Finland. Can we consider the UK's tax credit system an fore-runner of GBI?

If GBI is possible it must be possible in any country - and, possibly, all countries. What would be required for GBI to work in Norway - a country with a modest population, enormous natural resources (oil and gas and mountains and rivers - so, hydrogenation)? What would be required for GBI to work in Singapore - a country of similar population to Norway, but only an "island city state" where everyone works hard to achieve their progress. What would be required for GBI in India? Or in Australia?

Can GBI work under some political "philosophies" but not in others? Is democracy essential for GBI?

Enough from me.

walter the softy · Post by **walter the softy** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:27 pm

If it be your will wrote:This post is purely economics, apologies in advance.

The debate regarding what level of automation is required to fund a BI for me needs concrete numbers. Otherwise, as Imploding Turtle suggests, the 'correct' level of automation might always seem beyond the horizon. The best measure of automation is productivity per person per hour worked. This approximately doubled between 1980 and 2010 (but has stalled since).

Productivity gains are shared between 4 'things', but not equally. Political decisions decide the allocation. So if productivity doubles:

Wages could double (or we could work half as much for the same pay) or,
Prices could halve or,
Profits could double or, finally,
Rents could increase (which is reflected in underlying asset prices).

The promise of a two day working week in the 1970s assumed productivity gains would be reflected in the first category, with us working less and less as a result. This was reasonable because between 1950-1980 the first category did indeed 'win'. Since 1980 productivity gains have gone almost exclusively in the bottom 2 categories (with the exception of some very high wage earners).

The automation promise did happen, it's just most of us didn't see the benefit. If the current, future automation prediction comes true as well, it's important it doesn't just end up sliding into asset prices and profits again. A BI, in effect, adds a fifth category. This is why I propose a BI to be introduced now, and link it with future productivity gains, so that everyone will benefit from future automation.

I know I know. Boring post. But the conversation has reached the point where it was necessary.

Not a boring post at all. Your have summarised a seemingly complicated concept very well in my opinion. I am not sure I completely agree with all your conclusions though as I think all four outcomes can be observed even if the standard "working week" hasn't really changed.

Dante.El.Chunk · Post by **Dante.El.Chunk** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:56 pm

They voted against it.

No surprise there but I suppose we should celebrate that the concept has gotten to the point of a vote.

I was personally rooting for this as my work isn't paid but I think valid nonetheless, I contribute to society and I am not entitled to ask for anything back from it, which I find sad.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:02 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:13 pm

If it be your will wrote:What an unbelievably enlightening and persuasive argument for a BI. To my shame, bogged down in the theory and economics of it all, it never crossed my mind the millions doing worthwhile unpaid work who get nothing back for it. Not just in your circumstances, but all those doing bits and bobs for free everywhere you look. Yes, a BI would reassure a great many people who obviously care enough about society to do something, that society values them also. (I'm going to copy that argument in future, Dante. Hope you don't mind.)

Does everything need to have a monetary value? If I want to do something for free, can't I be free to do it?

I'm not sure that "unpaid worthwhile work" is an argument for GBI. More likely the opposite.

Are you also making the case for "unpaid non-worthwhile work" should not receive GBI? And, similarly, "unpaid, nothing, no work" should not receive GBI?

Dante.El.Chunk · Post by **Dante.El.Chunk** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:21 pm

TomBenderson wrote:I read what you do on a previous thread and it seems interesting. The questions below are phrased very directly for the purposes of debate - not to 'have a go'.

Debate is good.

TomBenderson wrote:If it's valid, why not charge for it? And if no-one will pay for it, how is it valid other than in your own self-interest? If you buy into a role/lifestyle that rejects/looks sceptically at (not sure what terminology you'd use) materialism, is it philosophically coherent to then ask the rest of us to indulge you materially?

Well I do not charge the monastery for it, because I agree with their teachings and also their use of money by and large. People do pay for it when they stay here (we sleep over 200) or when they donate to it.

How is it valid?

Well I have a few answers to this.

1) We get around 60,000 visitors (underestimate in my opinion) a year and is in the top five visited places in Scotland. It is also the largest Buddhist temple in the West. The monastery attracts a lot of people into the UK with the promise of authentic Tibetan Buddhist teachings (and it delivers). Every summer our community swells (usually to over 100) with a substantial amount of people coming into the country specifically for teachings. This is good money coming into the country that would otherwise have not, it helps the residents of the nearby Eskdalemuir Community Hub owned and run by the community. Residents in Langholm and Lockerbie (both around 15 miles away) have noted the benefit on their economy from all of the extra people passing through. So in short: "Economy and Tourism".

2) World Heritage. We have some of the biggest collection of Tibetan texts and artifacts dating back hundreds of years. Soon a museum will open to display select items. On the same note we are in the final stages of building a library for all religions with the hope of being able to eventually offer degrees in the subject.

3) Rokpa. You should definitely google that. It is the charity that is run here giving soup kitchens around the world including Glasgow, Tibet, Nepal, Zimbabwe and South Africa. What I can certainly say about them is that not a penny is wasting on adverts, admin etc. The operation is so barebones it is amazing how many projects they get up and running worldwide.

In regards to materialism, it simply doesn't come down to that, the monastery provides food and shelter, beyond that you are on your own. Toiletries, clothes, new shoes ( we walk an average of 4 miles a day).

To clear up a misconception. Buddhism does not ask you to give up anything. Buddha tried the path of severe austerity and did not find any enlightenment from it. From what I have been told the point is to find the middle way between extremes on pretty much all issues.

The whole point of the monastery is kindness, therefore everything is geared around volunteerism, donations and sponsorship, their view is that the entire thing should be built on kindness.

For me, all I want is; to do around 40 hours a week of work that I enjoy, (I really don't believe Basic Income would make people lazy)
enough to maintain clothes and hygiene,
enough to maintain my connection, physical and otherwise, to friends and family in Burnley.
Video games......my one weakness.......you got me......

Tying this all in to Basic Income I believe that if one isn't demanding too much out of life and if one can prove themselves to be financially responsible, if they offer their sweat/mind/talents, and if those things lead to benefit for others, then it is valid, no more, no less.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:44 pm

[quote="Dante.El.Chunk"]Debate is good.

"To clear up a misconception. Buddhism does not ask you to give up anything. Buddha tried the path of severe austerity and did not find any enlightenment from it. From what I have been told the point is to find the middle way between extremes on pretty much all issues.

The whole point of the monastery is kindness, therefore everything is geared around volunteerism, donations and sponsorship, their view is that the entire thing should be built on kindness."

D El C, you have my total respect for your activities. What you do certainly deserves the support from all members of society. (Though, I guess we should also defend the rights of those that might choose a different path).

The debate about GBI goes beyond those that we might judge to be doing "worthwhile actions." If GBI were to exist all should qualify, even the "drug dealers" and other "undesirables" (however, our own personal views might define them).

Bordeaux · Post by **Bordeaux** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:58 pm

If robots produce our goods, who is going to consume them? If AI supplies our services same applies...remove the linkage between work and income. Who should benefit from this the next industrial revolution..the robots? the robots owners? the robot makers? or all of us that made it possible. Show your passport, get a basic income, consume the proceeds and relax....

Dante.El.Chunk · Post by **Dante.El.Chunk** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:00 pm

TomBenderson wrote:OK. Interesting view - thanks - and you would no doubt see me as too tied to a traditional way of thinking to see past it but it seems incoherent as a stance to do everything out of kindness and then look to a mandatory kindness imposed on the rest of 'society'. To me, if the enterprise generates money elsewhere, no reason why it shouldn't share in that. Either that or resign itself to virtue being its own (and only) reward.

Well to me, Basic Income is being considered to everyone without the need to "work" for it, regardless of whether it comes in or not the majority of my labour will be offered to this monastery. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me if BI comes or not. That being said, I am no aesthetic and the idea of having an improvement in my quality of life (like being able to run a car) interests me a lot.

And yeah you're right a lot of the time I must resign myself virtue being the only reward. However sometimes things come up out of the blue, we have a lot of people associated with the monastery and kindness does prevail

Not having to compete with my peers does put a certain relief on the day to day grind and that can be considered a big bonus.

Dante.El.Chunk · Post by **Dante.El.Chunk** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:04 pm

Paul Waine wrote:

Of course, I believe the theory is that if you take away certain pressures on people, you remove a lot of desperate actions linked to survival, such as drug dealing etc.

For the theory to work, yes, no person excluded is a must. I only highlight my own situation in a bid to show people that this isn't simply about whether people want to laze about or to work hard - there are other situations.

Dante.El.Chunk · Post by **Dante.El.Chunk** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:20 pm

Bordeaux wrote:If robots produce our goods, who is going to consume them? If AI supplies our services same applies...remove the linkage between work and income. Who should benefit from this the next industrial revolution..the robots? the robots owners? the robot makers? or all of us that made it possible. Show your passport, get a basic income, consume the proceeds and relax....

Over the last few years through interest, I managed to learn how to strip and rebuild a home PC. I didn't do it because I intended to make money or satisfy my core needs (they are already satisfied) I only did it out of curiosity.

As a result I have fixed LOADS of peoples machines, some of it as a favour, some of it for some cash. People would not simply do nothing because their core needs are satisfied, you would go mental if your life was eat, sleep, sit on a sofa all day. Some people like music, some people like to draw, some people like technology, or sport. These are all massive motivators for people to find a way to contribute and earn something more, BI simply takes away the "need" to do so.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:06 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Maybe this has been pointed out to you but literally no one is saying that £1,755 pcm is what the UK would offer it's citizens. Don't be ridiculous.
Just like in Switzerland it would be related to the cost of living.

Maybe it has been pointed out to you but I didn't say that £1,755 pcm is what the UK would offer it's citizens. Don't be ridiculous.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:03 am

Some of the posts on this thread are absolutely brilliant. Whether you agree with his philosophies or not, you can't argue that Dante's contributions, on a thread about, essentially, politics, are way...WAY beyond what anyone would expect from a football message board. At the risk of indulging in limp, fluffy, borderline-esoteric rhetoric; ultimately we are all Human beings and we have to reflect on, critique and consider the purpose and efficacy of an economic system, and if the survival (conservation?) of today's socio-economic system, designed to serve Human beings, takes precedence not only over, but necessarily at the expense of the people for whom the system was supposed to serve, then is that system not, for the many at least, redundant? There have been massive advances in technological innovation which have ostensibly improved our living standards over the years but the reality is that most people in their 20's or 30's are poorer than their parents, and at the current rate, always will be; at which point one has to consider and, yes, re-evaluate the way in which the fruits of technological innovation and Human ingenuity are distributed. Now it's time for someone to label me a Communist.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:58 am

Dante.El.Chunk wrote:Over the last few years through interest, I managed to learn how to strip and rebuild a home PC. I didn't do it because I intended to make money or satisfy my core needs (they are already satisfied) I only did it out of curiosity.

As a result I have fixed LOADS of peoples machines, some of it as a favour, some of it for some cash. People would not simply do nothing because their core needs are satisfied, you would go mental if your life was eat, sleep, sit on a sofa all day. Some people like music, some people like to draw, some people like technology, or sport. These are all massive motivators for people to find a way to contribute and earn something more, BI simply takes away the "need" to do so.

You may be right. This is perhaps the crux of the matter. What does motivate people?

Until recently in this country we have been forced to work to survive. In many other countries it is still like that. Don't work (or obtain the earnings of work by other means - steal, welfare, charity) and you die.

I'm sure there are many people like you - probably more intelligent people - who see that there's more to life than just existing. Not all are like that. Perhaps they would be with a basic income that means they can obtain their 'core needs' as you put it. But perhaps they will be satisfied with fulfilling their basics alone. What sort of life will these people have?

In other words, if core needs does not include work, what then for the non-motivated types?

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:06 am

The socio-economic system hasn't been designed to serve humans. It developed through history and has been constantly adapted by war, pestilence, politics and some philosophy to arrive at what we have today. It seems to be an unpredictable beast that we tinker with but can't predict the outcomes.

That perhaps reflects evolution generally.

Has anyone actually fully applied an economic theory and succeeded?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:22 pm

Hipper wrote:You may be right. This is perhaps the crux of the matter. What does motivate people?

Until recently in this country we have been forced to work to survive. In many other countries it is still like that. Don't work (or obtain the earnings of work by other means - steal, welfare, charity) and you die.

I'm sure there are many people like you - probably more intelligent people - who see that there's more to life than just existing. Not all are like that. Perhaps they would be with a basic income that means they can obtain their 'core needs' as you put it. But perhaps they will be satisfied with fulfilling their basics alone. What sort of life will these people have?

In other words, if core needs does not include work, what then for the non-motivated types?

Those people are already content to live on JSA. I think most people currently out of work would still want to work under UBI, but just like most other people not the full 40 hours of a full-time job. I'd expect more people to be working 2 or 3 days a week instead of 5 or 6, which will free up those other days for someone else to work.

I also think any loss of income tax revenue from people refusing to work will be more than made up for by the increase in the percentage of working hours taxed. There'd be no need for the "personal allowance" any more, so every penny of wages can be taxed, not just that above £11,000 pa

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:36 pm

TomBenderson wrote:My rough calc is nominal GDP / capita CH = $81k. Nominal GDP / capita UK = $44k. (On a PPP basis CH $59k; UK $41k.)

CH proposal c.$32k/annum = 40% of GDP. Equivalent UK = $17.6k = £11.8k / annum= £1000pcm. The relative costs of living narrow that apparent gap. Apologies for rough calculations.

This is exactly why it would fall on its arse straight away - no human factors considered whatsoever.

What on earth do you imagine your local friendly shop keeper will do the second he realises that EVERYBODY has got an extra £1000 burning a hole in their tracksuit bottoms?

You're looking at instantaneous runaway inflation on top of the crippling cost of it all. We're still paying for Gordon Brown's tax credit scheme (which cut poverty by nil and about doubled welfare expenditure) so imagine our current debt problem magnified by multiple factors.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:39 pm

And what happens to all the working class people who are only earning IRO £11,000 pa anyway?

Do you think they'll continue with the hard manual work and labour when they get given the same amount for doing diddly squat?

You'd have about 6 million people resigning en mass. Minimum.

So not only would prices be going through the roof - so would wages. You'd massively increase the incentives for immigrants - especially from the southern EU states.

Tax receipts would drop dramatically.

What about people earning IRO £20,000 pa? At least half of them would want to cut back their hours by half and spend more time with their families... (who wouldn't?)

It's a lunatic idea.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:42 pm

Rowls wrote:This is exactly why it would fall on its arse straight away - no human factors considered whatsoever.

What on earth do you imagine your local friendly shop keeper will do the second he realises that EVERYBODY has got an extra £1000 burning a hole in their tracksuit bottoms?

You're looking at instantaneous runaway inflation on top of the crippling cost of it all. We're still paying for Gordon Brown's tax credit scheme (which cut poverty by nil and about doubled welfare expenditure) so imagine our current debt problem magnified by multiple factors.

An extra £1000? How much more than the current JSA rate + Housing Benefit do you think a monthly UBI would be?
And wasn't uncontrollable inflation one of the reasons a minimum wage couldn't work? Along with crippling job losses?

How many times do people like you have to be wrong before some level of doubt sets in to your predictions?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:51 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:An extra £1000? How much more than the current JSA rate + Housing Benefit do you think a monthly UBI would be?
And wasn't uncontrollable inflation one of the reasons a minimum wage couldn't work? Along with crippling job losses?

How many times do people like you have to be wrong before some level of doubt sets in to your predictions?

Ecky thump turtlebrains.

I even put the important factor in CAPITAL letters - and still you missed it.

Come back when you understand the difference between "wrong" and unproven.

Or else, when the first country daft enough to implement a BI scheme as generous as the Swiss proposal does so, I'll come back to gloat a few months later when the project is abandoned amid economic chaos.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:26 pm

Are you suggesting that because you put one word in capital letters that it's perfectly OK for everything else in the post to be bullshit?

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:42 pm

Rowls wrote:I'll come back to gloat a few months later when the project is abandoned amid economic chaos.

I thought you were firmly in the 'Brexit' camp? Have you had a change of heart, Rowls?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:21 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:25 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:54 pm

If it be your will wrote:I told you I was hopeless at articulating social arguments. Let me have another go at post 78.

Essentially, by means of introducing a Universal Basic Income, society would be making the statement: "Society values you - unconditionally. Whether or not you choose value society in return is entirely your prerogative. We will cope either way."

[/i]
We are all better than that (and I think a BI would prove it).

Hi If it be your will. You're doing a great job articulating.

I can happily accept your "Society values you - unconditionally" statement.

Do we have enough people that will go along with this view?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:08 pm

Spiral wrote:There have been massive advances in technological innovation which have ostensibly improved our living standards over the years but the reality is that most people in their 20's or 30's are poorer than their parents, and at the current rate, always will be; at which point one has to consider and, yes, re-evaluate the way in which the fruits of technological innovation and Human ingenuity are distributed. Now it's time for someone to label me a Communist.

Hi Spiral, are you sure that most 20s and 30 year olds are poorer than their parents were when they were 20/30? I'm pretty sure my 3 off-spring are much better off than I was 30 years ago.

I'm happy to label you "a communist" if thinking about the way economic systems functions is something communists do.

The 19th and 20th centuries were the periods when people thought that the economic system could be changed by re-distribution. My understanding is that most communists have now given up on this thinking and are all believers in market forces.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:13 pm

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:22 pm

If it be your will wrote:I appreciate you are not in favour of a BI, but I'd just like to make an objection to this point in case others consider it plausible.

If a BI was not funded by 'printing new money', it cannot cause runaway inflation*; if it was funded by 'printing money' - it would cost nothing. It is not possible for both the conditions you state to be met.

(*Technically speaking, it might, just might cause a little, transient inflation by increasing the 'velocity' of money - the rate at which money changes hands. 'Runaway' inflation, no.)

For the ideologically entrenched the impossibility of their fears ever coming to pass if no reason to abandon their fears.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:30 pm

If it be your will wrote:If a BI was not funded by 'printing new money', it cannot cause runaway inflation*; if it was funded by 'printing money' - it would cost nothing. It is not possible for both the conditions you state to be met.

You're claiming that inflation only happens when money is printed?

BI would cause a massive increase in inflation. But credit to you for trying to answer a point I raised.

I note nobody has even tried to answer my question of what would happen if millions of low paid workers all resigned overnight.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:35 pm

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:39 pm

Come on you clever economists who think this is a good idea.

Suppose all adults get £1000.00 per month BI.

What incentive do the millions and millions of cleaners, porters, waiting staff, bar staff, teaching assistants, dinner ladies, temps, office clerks, receptionists, telephonists, restaurant workers, chefs/cooks, etc etc who work part time and/or in low paid jobs have to actually carry on doing their jobs?

Would you work a 30 hour week getting up at 5am in the morning when you get given the same amount in "guaranteed income" for doing diddly-squat?

First to answer this question authoratively wins a perpetual motion machine.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:42 pm

i doubt any serious person is advocating all people are paid equally.

but you didn't answer my question, rowls.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:42 pm

I may look at answers in the morning but I'm off to bed. Night all.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:43 pm

yTib wrote:i doubt any serious person is advocating all people are paid equally.

but you didn't answer my question, rowls.

That's exactly what they are proposing and I can't remember your question. I tend to avoid engaging you (usually after a certain hour) on here yTib.

I'm off to bed now. I'll have a look for your question in the morning.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:45 pm

your arrogance is smelly. sleep well.