Universal Citizens Income

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Universal Citizens Income

Post #1

Post by 2ndRateMind »

So, Finland is experimenting with this idea.

As I understand it, everyone gets a minimum basic income sufficient to cover their basic needs; rent, bills, food, etc.

If they want more than that, they can get a job, offer a service, build a corporation, whatever.

The advantage is that no one is homeless, and no one starves. The disadvantage is a higher tax rate on those earning more than the basic essentials.

Do you have an opinion on this arrangement?

Best wishes, 2RM.
Last edited by 2ndRateMind on Tue Dec 29, 2020 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Universal Citizens Income

Post #11

Post by bluethread »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 6 by bluethread]

Because economists focus their knowledge base in this area. Would you want a plumber to work on heart surgery and a heart surgeon doing your computer programming?
You appear to be presuming that a bureaucracy would be better at determining may my needs than I am. On what do you base this?
Basic needs in this sense is typically food shelter and clothing. I.e. On X income will person a be able to by c clothes per year pay y rent per year and buy B amount of food. Health care may or may not be a separate issue depending on the country.
What is the right amount for c+y+B? If we are just handing out money, how do we know it is going for c+y+B and not D(drugs)+S(sex)?

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Universal Citizens Income

Post #12

Post by bluethread »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 6 by bluethread]
Why not allow the economy adjust and people to innovate? I am more interested in the other end. What are people going to do when they aren't expected to attain? Quite frankly, I think we have already seen this episode repeatedly in syndication as once great cities, like Detroit, become dystopian wastelands.
I am sure that's probably what we will do. What is nice is we will have different economies to study. Will Finland's economy shrink or grow and how will that compare to similar economic powers that have a more capitalistic based economy.

We actually haven't seen this episode before as the concept has not actually been implemented. The crash of Detroit hasn't really had much to do with socialism either. More to the implosion of the American car market as they were making an inferior product compared to foreign competition for several decades.
That is the excuse in every case, Detroit, Venezuela. Cuba ... They just did not do it right. OK, you can watch Finland, but when it doesn't do well, you will probably say that about them also. Just don't be asking me to buy into this silliness.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Universal Citizens Income

Post #13

Post by DanieltheDragon »

bluethread wrote:
DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 6 by bluethread]

Because economists focus their knowledge base in this area. Would you want a plumber to work on heart surgery and a heart surgeon doing your computer programming?
You appear to be presuming that a bureaucracy would be better at determining may my needs than I am. On what do you base this?
Basic needs in this sense is typically food shelter and clothing. I.e. On X income will person a be able to by c clothes per year pay y rent per year and buy B amount of food. Health care may or may not be a separate issue depending on the country.
What is the right amount for c+y+B? If we are just handing out money, how do we know it is going for c+y+B and not D(drugs)+S(sex)?
Well if they spend it on drugs in sex tough luck for them as they want have food clothing or shelter. The idea isn't to control what people spend it on, the idea is to subsidize the displacement of work via various economic triggers. If people want to spend their income on drugs and sex it's honestly not my problem to care about it.

I am not presuming a beuracracy to know your needs better than you what I am expecting is that an economist could figure out how much money a person In Your area would need to live on. Past that would be on the individual.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #14

Post by bluethread »

2ndRateMind wrote:
bluethread wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote: I'm not expert on Finland's politics, and they are, as I say, experimenting.

But suppose the income were sufficient to live, if not well, then at least without pressing want.

Best wishes, 2RM.
What is pressing want? If I feel pressure, because I want something, does that count?
By 'pressing want', I guess I mean fundamental needs, such as food for oneself and family; clean, safe, water; adequate sanitation; climate appropriate clothing; secure shelter; primary education and healthcare, etc. Ie., those basics without which one is so poor as to be said to be in want, rather than just wanting stuff that might be nice to have.

Cheers, 2RM.
"so poor as to be said to be in what"? What does that mean? How much food and how big a family? How clean and how safe must the water be? I own a distiller, is that going to be provided to everyone one? What is adequate sanitation? Is the government going to provide a sterile environment for every germaphobe? We are already seeing the myriad of such problems in our public education system and healthcare. We are arguably one of the most, if not the most privileged societies that has ever existed, yet it is still said that people are in want. This is a bottomless pit. Regardless of how good it gets, it will still be said that people are in want.
Last edited by bluethread on Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Universal Citizens Income

Post #15

Post by bluethread »

DanieltheDragon wrote:
Well if they spend it on drugs in sex tough luck for them as they want have food clothing or shelter. The idea isn't to control what people spend it on, the idea is to subsidize the displacement of work via various economic triggers. If people want to spend their income on drugs and sex it's honestly not my problem to care about it.
So, you have no problem with the government subsidizing the drug and sex trade? I agree that if people want to spend THEIR money on drugs and sex it's not my problem. What I have a problem with is them spending MY money on drugs and sex. You are aware that the economic principle behind of government subsidies is to increase what is subsidized? So, if one subsidizes work displacement, one gets more work displacement.
I am not presuming a beuracracy to know your needs better than you what I am expecting is that an economist could figure out how much money a person In Your area would need to live on. Past that would be on the individual.
You are presuming that an economist knows better than I do how much I need to live. How are these economists selected, if not in a bureaucratic fashion? Are we going to elect these economists? If so, what is the criteria by which I am supposed to determine who is a good economist and who is a bad economist.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Universal Citizens Income

Post #16

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

Just legalize drugs and prostitution and tax the stuffings out of it problem solved. No reason it should be illegal anyways.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Universal Citizens Income

Post #17

Post by 2ndRateMind »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

Just legalize drugs and prostitution and tax the stuffings out of it problem solved. No reason it should be illegal anyways.
Well, actually, the idea is to protect the citizenry (and the rest of society) from the consequences of their own moral inadequacies. Whether this kind of paternalism is a valid attitude and role for the state to adopt is a matter of some controversy; libertarians tend to think it is not, while many others, from varying political persuasions and religious traditions, often think that it is.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Last edited by 2ndRateMind on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Post #18

Post by 2ndRateMind »

bluethread wrote:
"so poor as to be said to be in what"? What does that mean?
To be in want is to lack, and specifically to lack enough to sustain one's own life and those of one's family. It's not a difficult concept.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Universal Citizens Income

Post #19

Post by bluethread »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

Just legalize drugs and prostitution and tax the stuffings out of it problem solved. No reason it should be illegal anyways.
Though it still doesn't address the question of what a need is, if you wish to finance these government handouts using funds derived from recreational drug and sex sales, I can accept that. However, I doubt that would be sufficient to meet the insatiable demand for "free" stuff.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #20

Post by bluethread »

2ndRateMind wrote:
bluethread wrote:
"so poor as to be said to be in what"? What does that mean?
To be in want is to lack, and specifically to lack enough to sustain one's own life and those of one's family. It's not a difficult concept.

Best wishes, 2RM.
One can philosophically envision the concept. However, when it comes to public policy, one needs more than a philosophical vision. One must have a mechanism for implementation and a standard by which to judge failure or success. What is enough to sustain one's own life and those of one's family? Half of the worlds population lives on $2920 a year or less, less than $10,000 per household. Anyone who lives on more than that has enough to sustain themselves and their family. Is that what you have in mind? Also, one must determine if one is talking about giving everyone that amount, or just giving people enough money to make sure that they have that amount. One problem with either of those approaches is that the next year the amount given to those people will cause the median to rise, thus creating an inflationary spiral.

Post Reply