Slashdot Mirror
Cryptocurrency Based Basic Income Program Started In Finland
jovius writes: Krypto Fin ry, the association behind Fimkrypto cryptocurrency (FIMK), has started to provide each registered Finnish citizen a payment of 1000 FIMK per month in December. 1000 FIMK equals few dimes at the moment, and a bit over 100 people have registered so far. (The registration is free.)
FIMK is based on NXT 2nd generation crypto system; the add-ons and development making it into 2.5G. The roadmap includes payment cards and other technology to enable easier exchange between fiat currencies — FIMK, Bitcoins and others. Krypto Fin ry received 533 BTC in initial donations last Summer. FIMK can be traded for example on DGEX, and it's also a valid payment method in few stores in Finland.
FIMK is based on NXT 2nd generation crypto system; the add-ons and development making it into 2.5G. The roadmap includes payment cards and other technology to enable easier exchange between fiat currencies — FIMK, Bitcoins and others. Krypto Fin ry received 533 BTC in initial donations last Summer. FIMK can be traded for example on DGEX, and it's also a valid payment method in few stores in Finland.
Con artists try to encourage entire nation to fall victim to their con by promising to pay them money every month.
Seriously, if it looks too good to be true (they're paying you for doing nothing), it probably is.
Basic Income is welfare, not something that sounds like it. The difference between it and normal welfare is, everyone gets a basic income whether they want it or not. It's meant to be enough to live off.
The idea of a BI is a very old one. It has nothing to do with cryptocurrency, and I'm not sure what relevance cryptocurrency has (and I say that as a Bitcoin developer, so I'm a fan of CC in general). In theory a society rich enough to afford it would have moved to the oft-fictionalised post work utopia that you sometimes see in things like Star Trek. Because everyone gets it whether they want it or not, unconditionally, the basic income would be supposedly stigma free. Thus if you want to pursue things that are not very profitable but are beneficial to society nonetheless (production of art, charity, etc) then you could do that and not have to worry about being seen as a welfare sponger.
I love the concept in theory, but a society rich enough to afford one is pretty unimaginable in today's world. Western societies are clearly incapable of even providing the current levels of welfare let alone a vastly larger level. I see a BI as a useful goal to inspire people about the future rather than something practical for today.
Well, to be fair to the basic-income schemes people propose, they're supposed to turn the current levels of overall welfare spending into more effective levels of welfare by disintermediating the funds from the millions of government employees who are paid to manage it (and paid reasonably well, at that).
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I love the concept in theory, but a society rich enough to afford one is pretty unimaginable in today's world.
The USA is more than rich enough, especially if we stop the whole war-for-profit thing.
Western societies are clearly incapable of even providing the current levels of welfare let alone a vastly larger level.
Unwilling != incapable. Some of them are managing it just fine, in fact.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not to mention, MOST of the costs associated with poverty in the US are associated with MEDICAL costs. Nobody is proposing to change that, Obamacare or not.
Socialized medicine in Europe makes us look like greedy, stupid barbarians.
by disintermediating the funds from the millions of government employees who are paid to manage it (and paid reasonably well, at that).
There are many welfare programs where the overhead exceeds the benefit. For instance, in America nearly half the cost of the "free lunch" program for low income students in public schools goes to administration. For any school where more than half the kids benefit, it would be more cost effective to just make all the lunches free, and eliminate the overhead. You would could feed twice as many kids for the same money.
America tends to do welfare exceptionally poorly. We have more than 70 government bureaus involved in a least one welfare scheme, spread through most departments, including HHS, Agriculture, DOD, Interior, HUD, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Commerce. Each of these has a strong incentive to defend their turf, and no incentive to improve efficiency, or consider permanent solutions to the underlying social problems.
> The USA is more than rich enough, especially if we stop the whole war-for-profit thing.
So eliminating a source of profit will make us richer? Instead of basic income, we should subsidize Economy 101 courses.
I think I generally agree with what you're saying, but let me paraphrase to make sure: Basic income would work, so long as there wasn't such a thing as supply and demand for currency.
The only way I can see "basic income" working is if we also mandate that prices cannot be raised; to make (more) profit this would mean production must be increased, rather than just make profit based on increased demand for a scarce good.
Something tells me the problem thus isn't a technical one related to the existence of basic income or welfare, but rather a social one.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
The stigma argument doesn't hold. BI doesn't work for the vast majority of the population because of relative poverty, i.e. few people are satisfied with basic shelter and nutrition if the people around them have better housing, clothing, food, gizmos etc. And that's before you start looking at healthcare that another commenter brought up. The only reason it works in star trek is replicators that can generate virtually everything anyone might want cost free and magical infinite real estate.
"everyone gets a basic income whether they want it or not. It's meant to be enough to live off"
So, from each according to ability, to each according to need (where "need" is defined to be a uniform quantity).
Well, it is profit to some, but not to the government. So while the total income over the entire usa could become lower (no idea of the numbers), the government would probably save.
You can't just give everyone cryptocoins (effectively tokens) and expect them to get value... at the heart, a basic income is welfare, and requires wealth redistribution. The value has to come from somewhere.
I found and copied an article about a possible implementation that solves this issue. It's hidden in discordian bullshit, but I think the theory is sound... if somewhat dangerous.
Valuable in the imagination of the proponents.
Greedy maybe, stupid, no. When did it become stupid to prioritize your own best interests over those of society at large? Socialized medicine provides no incentive to my doctor to prioritize my care over the common good. Plus I end up paying for care of random people instead of saving for my own family's expenses.
"Basic income" is already working in one area.
We call them "farm subsidies" - crop price support.
Somehow the nation survived.
Anyone who thinks wars of false facts and attrition make us "RICHER"? Is a moron who should not ever SAY the word "economics" period.
"For instance, in America nearly half the cost of the "free lunch" program for low income students in public schools goes to administration."
Citation needed! Here's mine:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3655&emailView=1
I think I generally agree with what you're saying, but let me paraphrase to make sure: Basic income would work, so long as there wasn't such a thing as supply and demand for currency.
There really isn't. Fiat currency is just imaginary value that has no real meaning or input to it.
what does bennett haselton write?
To be fair, Obama proposed exactly that (he proposed a government option insurance so that the cost of basic insurance was effectively capped). Just the Republicans shot it down.
You seem to be confusing basic income with utopia. If one want more stuff than the BI provides one can try to get one or more jobs.
I love the concept in theory, but a society rich enough to afford one is pretty unimaginable in today's world. Western societies are clearly incapable of even providing the current levels of welfare
That's absurd. The amount of private and public wealth in Western states would be enough to give the whole world a living income. That they don't even do it for their own citizens is a political decision in order to keep people exploitable.
We call them "farm subsidies" - crop price support.
A far far larger example is "national security".
Every society that is currently stable is rich enough to guarantee income good enough to live by to all its members (because otherwise they're starving and the society is about to collapse). The reason they typically won't do so is because it would free people to live as they please. Wealth disparity makes the majority of people dependent on the whims of those with wealth, which is just peachy with the wealthy. But of course that can't be openly admitted, thus it's put in terms of "incentivizing".
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"Unwilling != incapable"
This.
We throw away ~half the food we produce in this country. We burn it or bury it, but god forbid we give it away.
Likewise, we happily pay to incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than any other country in the world, but we'll be *damned* if we will let people have a little apartment - which would be cheaper.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
To be fair, that's exactly what drinkypoo claimed.
"Thanks Stephen Elop!"
No. From each according to ability and willingness to work, to each enough to live. Most civilized countries have "according to need" under welfare and medical care though.
All these digital currencies have spawned for the same reason - it's easy to mine out coins in the easy stages so early adopters are incentivized to lie and hype up the currency (the usual BS about libertarianism, fiat currency etc.) in order to boost its value (and thus their coins). When enough rubes have been suckered into buying or mining coins the early adopters exit with a profit. It's basically a crowd sourced ponzi. Bitcoin was the first and all these wannabes are just trying to reboot the scam from the start.
> Basic income would work, so long as there wasn't such a thing as supply and demand for currency.
That's not exactly true... imagine the coin is distributed to everyone in the system equally... okay... it exists, everyone has some, but it doesn't have value... there is supply, but no demand.
Now say the government buys (from the people who hold it) that coin through an exchange, like everyone else... Say, they buy $10M worth... then throw that $10M of coin away (burn it)... Well... the remaining coins will now be worth $10M more (not 100% sure of the maths here, would have to double check, really you have to do this continuously too... cause the value will be based on the future expectation of that demand)... but it would definitely have an effect, because now you've created demand (somewhat artificially, but really it is paid for with taxes).
So, it is entirely possible... as long as someone was willing to demand and destroy a reasonable portion of the coins.
They probably haven't had to pay 600 € per month per bank since they're using a middle man between themselves and all the banks. That is a little bit cheaper.
There were proposals to do this in the UK instead of the current mess of universal benefit or whatever it was.
They took the current budgets for all non-work incomes, benefits, welfare, pension, everything, re-arranged it across every person in Britain and it seemed to work out.
Some people even got more than what they are getting presently on benefits and/or pensions.
Adults got a certain amount, teens and younger got a little lower, and pensioners got a bit higher.
And all the values seemed to be pretty reasonable to live off of as well. I'd get more than what I get due to the Crohns and IBS craptastrophe that my body is.
My life as it is now is worrying whether or not the Department of Work and Pensions is going to decide to fuck me over this month or next.
If basic income was guaranteed, I could actually Get Things Done instead of half-dying every month from stress. If it was 5 years ago, I'd maybe actually even be independent now since I have been slowly working towards doing webdev, general programming, game dev, art & design work and a few other small things that I was doing before I ended up crapping it. (quite literally at that)
My friend who was out of work for a couple years got screwed over constantly by the job center because they said he never "done enough work to find jobs", this guy was literally searching all the time to find a solid job, but he was always turned down. And I will be totally honest here, he suffered acne problems to the extreme, he also has an odour problem, and he has a squint. So you can imagine many dickish HR types would turn him down for that alone, even non-interacting jobs with anyone outside the company, like IT or inventory or something like that. Noped the hell out.
He managed to get a temp job over the holidays there.
But sooner or later, he is going to be getting screwed over by them again. Fuck the Job Center, worst place ever, it doesn't help for shit.
I had one of the staff straight up insult me once before, and threaten me. Absolute pricks with no oversight, that is what has happened to the system.
Not only that, I've had a "doctor" straight up lie about my Work Capability assessments. Notice the S there. Twice. Record everything, no matter how innocent and honest it may look, record every single thing.
People have died because of stress due to being taken off while under long term treatment for severe illnesses that I couldn't even begin to imagine how awful they were. Cancer too. Chemo is a god-awful treatment at best, na, totally capable, you could run a marathon. Little pale are we, go get a sun-tan, stop with the laziness.
Just imagine how many people would actually be able to get things done instead of the constant worry of these people attacking them and accusing them of lies and laziness.
Not only that, all of those pricks would be out of the job as well and be put on basic income too, saving even more of the tax payers money being wasted. The DWP itself is such a stupid money-sink as it is, and they also screwed over that French company ATOS by restricting them and forcing them in to ambiguous questions to try get as many people to FAIL their tests so they'd need to appeal. (which cost MORE money to the tax payer! All so these supposed doctors could get a bonus!)
Support basic income today, down with means-testing, down with lies, down with corruption, yay for Getting Shit Done.
In theory a society rich enough to afford it would have moved to the oft-fictionalised post work utopia that you sometimes see in things like Star Trek.
But all you ever really see in Star Trek is life as viewed through the lens of the Starfleet officer. Utopian societies always look plausible when viewed from a height --- and you can't get much higher than a starship.
I had a slight error - I shouldn't have said "supply and demand for currency" but rather "supply and demand for things purchased by currency".
That is - as long as currency is separate from actual goods and services, if you don't balance the demand for those goods and services, a "basic income" is almost futile because the value of goods and services relative to that currency is always going to be a moving target.
If all you do is give people currency, but don't actually give people more of the things that are useful to buy with that currency, it's only an accounting exercise.
It doesn't help that it's a very multi-variable problem. Sometimes there is incentive to increase supply when prices increase, thus helping mitigate price increases - but only in instances with low barriers to entry to increase supply. Sometimes - especially in situations where there is a physical or legal constraint on supply (such as housing, or professional sports say) - there is incentive to keep supply low and simply extract higher rent. Basic income alone cannot ameliorate that type of situation.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
And, on top of that, if the number of students receiving free lunches at a particular school reaches a particular threshold, the entire school can receive free lunches (I don't know the exact details of what the threshold is or whether or not this is a federal, state, or district decision, but I used to work at a school where ~85% of the students qualified for free lunches, and the entire school got free lunches).
Until they start, at which point maybe they become unstable and lose their wealth. Wealth doesn't rain down from heaven. Automation has reduced the amount of human effort required, but less is not zero.
"Basic income" is already working in one area.
We call them "farm subsidies" - crop price support.
Somehow the nation survived.
That is nothing like a basic income. But since you mention farm subsidies, basic income would eliminate the need for farm subsidies entirely, because if a farmer didn't make enough money to survive, no big deal.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But all you ever really see in Star Trek is life as viewed through the lens of the Starfleet officer. Utopian societies always look plausible when viewed from a height --- and you can't get much higher than a starship.
Actually, Deep Space 9 showed Earth street scenes several times. But in any case, life on Earth by the time of TOS (let alone TNG) is generally considered to be great for everyone, although limited. Earth is a park. Colonists' lives are depicted throughout the series, usually as being pretty crappy (mostly depending on how far people live from Earth.) Colonies don't typically seem to get much support from home.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
To be fair, that's exactly what drinkypoo claimed.
No it isn't, and no amount of your cowardly bullshit will make it so. Wars make some people richer. We don't all profit, yet the wars are still motivated by profit. See how that works, coward?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When did it become stupid to prioritize your own best interests over those of society at large?
It's in your best interest to live in a nation of healthy people.
Socialized medicine provides no incentive to my doctor to prioritize my care over the common good.
Yes, it does, but that's not what this is. This is a half-assed version of socialized medicine designed to force us to give our money to insurance companies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't know the exact details of what the threshold is
According to this page, the threshold is 75%. The school has to requalify once every four years.
No, that's not true either... You could pay a basic income using fiat... and fiat gets its value because it is the only thing you can use to pay your taxes with. It's not a problem with basic income.
It is a problem with a cryptocurrency... bitcoins for example are relatively scarce, but there are people willing to purchase (demand) them (for many reasons that I won't go into)... but a basic income cryptocurrency, that everyone gets a small amount of at some interval, has no implicit demand.
You don't need a whole economy, you don't even have to be able to purchase a single good or service with that cryptocurrency... all you need is an exchange where it can be converted to fiat which can be used to purchase goods and services with... still... it has no implicit demand and therefore no value.
Now, a government, which can force people to pay taxes, which creates demand for fiat, can then use fiat to purchase and burn that cryptocurrency... now you have demand... now it has scarcity... and therefore, it will have value.
So, it can be made to work, as long as someone is willing to demand that currency... and that's about all you need to make it work.
... easier exchange between fiat currencies — FIMK, Bitcoins and others."
I think you don't understand the meaning of "Fiat". By definition, these are non-fiat currencies. Fiat currencies are those created by government decree (a.k.a. a fiat).
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Also, tell that to senior citizens in the USA who almost all get a what is essentially a basic income from Social Security. Most seniors have *not* paid full value into that relative to what they expect to get out of it, so it is not like a retirement investment plan (even if people pay a tax that goes towards it when they work for wages). Social Security in the USA is essentially an income redistribution system, originally based on ten young workers to one elderly person (original recipients had not paid into the system) and now at about three young workers per elderly person. Personally, I feel it is unfair that the elderly in the USA get Medicare and Social Security when everyone else does not and these days reflects age discrimination backed by the political power of the elderly in the USA. Many young parents, for example, have a very hard lot, often caught between caring for their young children and their own elderly parents, while also needing to hold down a full-time job with increasingly worse benefits. A basic income would make it possible for more young parents to spend more time with their own young children while also caring for their own parents. I feel the resolution to the age discrimination issue there is to make the two programs of Medicare and Social Security available to every US citizen without discrimination based on age. We can then talk about eventually expanding those programs to all residents, legal or not, and then looking at doing it globally.
Arguments for a basic income include that, because governments have privatized almost all land, citizens have some right to the fruits of the land. Also, citizens have a claim to some of the fruits of the common inheritance of ideas and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://www.basicincome.org/bie...
http://www.usbig.net/
http://www.livableincome.org/
See also my essay: http://www.pdfernhout.net/basi... ..."
"One may ask, why should millionaires support a basic income as depicted in Marshall Brain's Australia Project fictional example in "Manna", but, say, right now in the USA, of US$2000 a month per person (with some deducted for universal health insurance), or $24K per year? With about 300 million residents in the USA, this would require about seven trillion US dollars a year, or half the current US GDP. Surely such a proposal would be a disaster for millionaires in terms of crushing taxes? Or would it?
Anyway, even while I'm not especially a fan of crypto currencies (good currencies need to be backed by a social constitution controlling their production IMHO), I applaud the experiment in this direction.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I had a slight error - I shouldn't have said "supply and demand for currency" but rather "supply and demand for things purchased by currency".
That is - as long as currency is separate from actual goods and services, if you don't balance the demand for those goods and services, a "basic income" is almost futile because the value of goods and services relative to that currency is always going to be a moving target.
Most things in economics are moving targets, what with the continual flow of production, technology, and even personal needs.
A static economy may be the dream of some, but few economists expect that would work well at all.
"Unwilling != incapable"
This.
We throw away ~half the food we produce in this country. We burn it or bury it, but god forbid we give it away.
Likewise, we happily pay to incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than any other country in the world, but we'll be *damned* if we will let people have a little apartment - which would be cheaper.
A.
wow, this sinks to a new level of cognitive dissonance
To be clear, my comment is more directed to the implication from the poster's point that a "basic income" itself is a "con" (assuming that was part of what was intended). There could indeed be any number of specific problems with this specific cryptocurrency proposal, including privacy or identity theft issues as raised by other posters. Building in a basic income aspect is an interesting way to get publicity for a cryptocurrency, but as I said, a good currency is backed by a community constitution, which is going to imply checks and balances and various safeguards. If those are not in place here, like to prevent identity theft, than that could be a big problem.
However, as another comparison, LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems) systems have helped a lot of communities, and may treat LETS currency more as a lose account of favors owed than more what we think of as hard currency. ... just as they would from family and friends. But rather than do all this helping without any recording at all, keeping LETS accounts allows the group to keep track of the members' activities so they can balance their trading activities fairly, knowing that once their accounts are back to zero, they have given to the group just as much as they have received. Basically, it's just a matter of keeping score and nothing more."
http://www.lets-linkup.com/
"Let me start by saying that the generally accepted view by all LETS people is that a LETS point is not cash, or federal currency, and I agree. However, I do not feel comfortable viewing LETS points as an alternative currency with an equivalent value in cash. I prefer to interpret LETS points as being like LETS favours. That has always made trading more enjoyable for me. I love doing favours for members and they show genuine appreciation for the favour - in LETS points. It doesn't get any better than that! I view LETS more like a voluntary self-help group where like-minded people in a local community give their time and experience to help their fellow members and feel welcomed to ask for the same in return
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The USA is more than rich enough, especially if we stop the whole war-for-profit thing.
We are? I thought we owed more money than anyone or anything ever has, ever.
I'd be pretty "rich" too if I could borrow endlessly and never pay it back.
Oh, and if it's "war for profit", where's the profit? How would stopping a supposedly profitable activity make us richer?
So when you say "No.", you mean "Yes.".
a bit over 100
So, 108?
"a society rich enough to afford one is pretty unimaginable in today's world."
Have you in fact tried to imagine it?
Let's try a thought experiment on a simplified economy. Poverty level is $25k per "household" vs. median household income of $50k. 15% of household are below the poverty level, and we'll flatten out the income distribution by saying every household below the poverty level has no income and every household above the poverty level brings in ~$59k.
For a household below the poverty level to receive a basic income that after taxes gets them back to the poverty level would cost the households above the poverty level 7.5% in BI taxes.
BUT
"Western societies are clearly incapable of even providing the current levels of welfare let alone a vastly larger level."
Once you have basic income you can start eliminating other programs which have been made redundant and their taxes. For example, Social Security "payroll taxes" alone are 6.2%. We already have order-of-magnitude agreement between basic income and the redundant costs, so there will be no "vastly larger level".
The Roman's had welfare, each 'Roman' was entitled to ~30kg of grain from the emperor per month for their 'loyalty', it was distributed in the form of bread from local bakeries. This meant that the people in conquered lands quickly started signing up to be 'Romans'. Once they had conquered all of Europe the scheme could no longer keep up with demand and the empire simply fell apart.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
IIRC the original star trek series also had several stories criticizing various alien 'utopias'.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
We are? I thought we owed more money than anyone or anything ever has, ever.
Our debt is arguably reasonably related to our production, as compared to other countries. It doesn't seem to have caused the economy to implode yet.
I'd be pretty "rich" too if I could borrow endlessly and never pay it back.
Hey look, England invented this shit, we're just better at it.
Oh, and if it's "war for profit", where's the profit? How would stopping a supposedly profitable activity make us richer?
It would make you richer, unless you own a big piece of Halliburton, or FMC, etc etc. Then you probably want war, like Dick Cheney did.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are several concrete basic income proposals that would potentially decrease the cost of welfare while providing a basic income to everyone.
e.g. This Newsweek Article
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Fiat currency has value, if for no other reason, because everyone needs it to pay their taxes. That's the unchangeable, fundamental value - ~everyone wants it because most everyone needsneeds it to pay taxes. Because the local store owner wants dollars to pay her taxes, she'll give me a box of cereal in exchange for dollars. Therefore, dollars are valuable to me even if I didn't pay taxes.
I actually pay half my income as various taxes, but even if I didn't, I could use dollars to get stuff from someone else who needs to pay their taxes.
Your grossly simplified thought experiment is missing many things of course, but most importantly you assume that people don't change their behavior based on the rewards l. Specifically, you assume that people aren't motivated by money.
Let's take as an example a typical person currently bringing home $30,000. Under your scenario, they'd have a choice: they could continue working and bringing home $30,000, or they could stop working, play video games all day, and get $25,000. For many people, that would be an easy decision, and they wouldn't decide to keep working for $25,000 as you assume they would.
It gets worse. Their children have the choice of going to school today, and studying hard today, in hopes of making $30k fifteen years from now, or they can skip school, eat Cheetoh's all day, and plan to live on the $25k they'll get from the taxpayers. Now you have a whole generation of uneducated dolts who couldn't produce much value even if you fixed the policies that caused it.
As a mental exercise two years ago I took the time to calculate what my investment would have been worth if my yearly SS contribution was put in the stock market starting with my first paycheck in 1970. Most of my life I made less then forty thousand a year. It would have been six-hundred and fifty thousand. For gold it would have been the same. I calculated Apple stock and almost got sick. Most people probably use up that much in Medicare but that is another discussion.
It's in your best interest to live in a nation of healthy people.
When it comes to communicable disease, yes, but comprehensive health care, no.
Socialized medicine provides no incentive to my doctor to prioritize my care over the common good.
Yes, it does
Socialized medicine calls for the greatest good to the greatest number. That's not a good incentive to provide an unusual expensive service to an individual who may need it, when it takes resources away from less expensive preventative care for others.
To the poster volmtech, the idea of a privately investing social security sounds good, until something goes wrong and you end up with a lot less. A low interest with a guarantee is better than a high interest gamble.
To Paul Fernhout...
I'd favor a negative income tax. Here is my proposal...
(Poverty Level - Federal AGI) / 2 = Credit
Legal residents only
Must be 22+ years old
18-21, must be living away from relatives
17 and younger, must be living away from relatives and emancipated
If married, it goes by the younger individual.
I also say we need single-payer universal healthcare (think a Medicare/Medicaid hybrid) along with prescription drug patent reform.
Also, cap federal Direct loans at inflation based on the CPI. Among other things.
As for the negative income tax thing, imagine four individuals, all homeless, being able to pool their $5.5k together (assuming a federal AGI of $0/year each) and renting out a place to live together.
I think basic income as mentioned would be too extreme. Too burdensome as it would require a huge overhaul.
And if I'm not mistaken, social security is based on the best 35 years and some formula.
https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+lake+city+homeless&num=50&lr=&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X
Personally, I feel it is unfair that the elderly in the USA get Medicare and Social Security when everyone else does not
The most ridiculous part of this is that the elderly are the group that consumes the majority of health care services, and thus the US is bearing the majority of the brunt of an entirely public health care system anyways. I have a feeling this is why health care spending is so much higher in the US than other countries.Why not just cover the generally-freak accidents of people in their youth for the small incremental cost?
Health care is one industry, much like policing or firefighting, that is makes no sense to not run as a public program. It will undoubtedly take the US another 20-30 years to figure this out. Oh, and the excessive health care spending doesn't translate into results, at least if we go by life expectancy.
Sorry, this argument is so ridiculous it reminds me of religious fundamentalists, who are so entrenched in their own ideology they lose sight of rationality.
In a single payer system, the doctor still provides and bills for services, same as in a private system, and eliminates all sorts of ridiculous problems like hospitals only treating you if you subscribe to a particular brand of insurance. In fact, I would think it gives every doctor more incentive to treat you, as they aren't focused at all on whether they're going to get paid by you.
Capitalism and private ownership are great, no one is arguing you there - but it has definite limits, and now you're just arguing things that are clearly, demonstrably, not smart.
Socialized medicine calls for the greatest good to the greatest number
That number is made up of individuals, your doctor is motivated to help you so that he doesn't have to see you again, because under national health he doesn't get rich by lying to you, slapping you on the ass, and sending you on your way.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
These countries can only support welfare because other being are working and paying these bills. Your whole post seems to ignore that part, get a job and stop moaning because your free benefits are potentially volatile. Other people who work have real stress, like losing their job because they can't get to work because the car broke down.
The study actually proves my point nicely. The subjects did just enough to get the minimum - they didn't do better to get more. Applying that to this discussion, the results indicate people would sign up for basic income just as they signed up for the study. They would not be more productive, working all day, to make $30,000 instead of the $25,000 that's adequate.
Go visit anyone truly in need and offer them $500. You'll find that most people will do almost anything to get what they NEED - even go to work if NECESARY. As the study you mentioned found, most won't do much more than that to get more.
Few notes here.
First, you provide a basic income to everyone, expectations change (everyone expects their kids to always get basic income), and population goes up. You cannot back that kind of a plan without pretty solid resource planning. The alternative to letting people starve on their whim or by the situation, or enabling the chaos of the market to make selections, is to elect someone to play God.
Second, those Billions of dollars the rich have, can't readily be converted into resources; it's just money. If you jack a billionaire, the math of dividing a billion dollars by the cost of a loaf of bread by number of needy in the general population, doesn't work. There's an entire economy of rich people who do nothing but play financialized games and they mix in actual, productive companies with the fake Chinese fire-drills they fund, on a frequent enough basis, to induce a fair amount of hemorrhaging in our lives. If that class of leeches were removed tomorrow, companies would be a lot more stable, and products and services would get a fair bit cheaper, and would be of immensely better quality.
Third, Capitalism is the ultimate socialism because, in holding society to consistent values from one generation to the next, it disables any one single individual or group from taking control of society, and at the same point in time, it provides equal opportunity for everyone to make something of themselves. It enables technology to greatly improve our lives. So long as human dignity is held in the highest regard, meaning that people realize working 80 hour weeks, and using desperation to make a buck, are never to be tolerated by anyone, ever, then it works.
Forth and finally, the baby boomers will be remembered as the "We take whatever we want and fuck you" generation. Index social security to average age and break up the medical monopolies, that will fix this. Politically, there are a lot of rotten apples, and everyone is believing the horseshit line of "get what you deserve".
> heres another thought experiment for you, how many people would become more educated if they didng have to worry about working for an income to survive?
Most people go to college in order to get a better job. They show up in high school in order to get into college. Most people (not all) are essentially lazy - they will sit on their butt if they don't need to do more than that to meet their "needs". (Where needs is defined by media, etc.) If you doubt that, show up to any government office building at 5:15 PM and see how many people are still there, doing extra to serve the community. You'll see it's roughly zero. Any of them could theoretically stick around serving the society, but they do't - they leave at five because that's al that's required to get the paycheck.
Providing BI may well save money from the massive cost welfare system incurs to determined who should be getting anything.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
>. All of that is irrelevant to the point that my thought experiment was responding to, which is how much would BI cost relative to current expenditures.
Current expenditures IN ABSOLUTE TERMS is irrelevant. Here's a thought experiment for you. In the 1950s, the median income was $25k in today's dollars. Suppose EVERYONE decided that they didn't need a bigger house than their parents - not if they could get that same $25k by sitting on their butt and expecting someone else take care of them. So everyone is sitting at home, nobody is working. The taxpayer is paying for everyone. Problem - there ARE no taxpayers, because everyone is sitting home expecting the other guy to pay his bills. No taxpayers, no revenue, no payments. No payments, no food. You've just created a situation where Americans are literally starving to death. See how people's response to policies kind of matters a little bit?
There actually is a limit to how many people can sit on their butt vs how many need to be working. It's a little over 50%. One guy working can't provide for ten parasites (and wouldn't if he could). You can have have, at max, about three parasites for every two productive people. And the US is almost at that ratio now.
Having said all that, since you think it's such a good idea, I wonder why you're in the US. Greece, Cuba, France, and Iran all have economic systems that suit your preferences much better.
Once again you have assumed that no one would be willing to work for more than a poverty wage when in *current reality* ~85% of households are both willing and able to do so.