Do rich ppl deserve their money?

[benny]

Well first of all, that article is from three years ago, long before the current market meltdown, so Murray's scheme to turn everyone into investors (similar to the Bush plan to privatize social security) would have found even more suckers preyed upon by bankers and hedge fund managers that have gambled away billions on the latest market bubbles.

An unconditional monthly basic income scheme like the one proposed by Murray makes banks, hedge funds and a lot of other workplaces redundant since each individual, for a while once a month, becomes a small banker himself.

[tango]

A guaranteed annual income is an excellent idea!

But $10,000 isn't enough. I'd say $at least 20,000 for everybody, so at least you can live on it if you live carefully. Then if you want to do more than spend your time watching your pennies, you can work for more.

Think of all the money saved on bureaucrats and multi-million dollar software programs that we no longer need to verify incomes ... welfare, CPP, OAS, ODSP, disability ... millions are spent on people to verify income and track income every month. That's a lot of money saved if we no longer have to do 'means testing'.

Probably enough to pay for the annual incomes.

[benny]

The question remains of what would be a non-arbitrary amount of money (purchasing power) to give to each human being. An answer based on the needs of people is not very satisfying because it leaves opened the question of what to do with the entire surplus that comes from social cooperation (the spillovers,...). I think a better answer is to start with the Gross World Product per capita (i.e. GWP divided by the world population) and then allow income inequalities only if they are judge legitimate by a deliberative assembly.

[M.Dancer]

just enough for the able bodied to live but not enough to drink, smoke, get basic cable or put on weight....

[tango]

The question remains of what would be a non-arbitrary amount of money (purchasing power) to give to each human being. An answer based on the needs of people is not very satisfying because it leaves opened the question of what to do with the entire surplus that comes from social cooperation (the spillovers,...). I think a better answer is to start with the Gross World Product per capita (i.e. GWP divided by the world population) and then allow income inequalities only if they are judge legitimate by a deliberative assembly.

I think we want to get out of the business of spending millions judging people or their incomes, and just give everyone a livable income. Then those who want to work for more can do so.

[blueblood]

A guaranteed annual income is an excellent idea!

But $10,000 isn't enough. I'd say $at least 20,000 for everybody, so at least you can live on it if you live carefully. Then if you want to do more than spend your time watching your pennies, you can work for more.

Think of all the money saved on bureaucrats and multi-million dollar software programs that we no longer need to verify incomes ... welfare, CPP, OAS, ODSP, disability ... millions are spent on people to verify income and track income every month. That's a lot of money saved if we no longer have to do 'means testing'.

Probably enough to pay for the annual incomes.

And who is going to bankroll that? The USSR tried that little experiment with disasterous results.

Not to mention what you are proposing is a recipe for inflation.

[tango]

And who is going to bankroll that? The USSR tried that little experiment with disasterous results.

Not to mention what you are proposing is a recipe for inflation.

It's explained in the post you didn't read.

[Riverwind]

It's explained in the post you didn't read.

Sorry the math does not work out.

Current taxes collected by the govt: $200 billion/year.

Estimated cost of a GIA of 20K/year for 30 million people: $600 billion/year

The proposal does not even pass the giggle test yet you think it "makes sense".

[benny]

I think we want to get out of the business of spending millions judging people or their incomes, and just give everyone a livable income. Then those who want to work for more can do so.

All to the contrary, because doing justice to people is very liberating and motivating, I think we want to get in that to save trillions and make trillions.

[WIP]

An unconditional monthly basic income scheme like the one proposed by Murray makes banks, hedge funds and a lot of other workplaces redundant since each individual, for a while once a month, becomes a small banker himself.

But there is no means test offered to qualify for this basic monthly income. Does someone earning 100,000 or 1 million dollars per year deserve an extra 10,000 for play money? And as Tango already mentioned, $10,000 is not enough money to live on for someone with no other sources of income.

[tango]

Sorry the math does not work out.

Current taxes collected by the govt: $200 billion/year.

Estimated cost of a GIA of 20K/year for 30 million people: $600 billion/year

The proposal does not even pass the giggle test yet you think it "makes sense".

Well ... I don't think we want to give it to the kids, eh?

back to the math now.

I'm sure you can make it work out.

Taxes can change, eh?

Especially from the biggest spenders.

Can you break down the taxes into consumption and income, personal and corporate?

- edit

here it is

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/plan/bpc4-eng.asp#10

But the other issue is the money saved from all the bureaucracy that will disappear, all the 'means-testing', benefit-calculating people in several different government ministries.

All of those displaced, of course, will immediately receive their GAI.

Edited March 28, 2009 by tango

[Riverwind]

Taxes can change, eh?

$200 billion is all taxes from all sources and that represents 20% of GDP or so.

Even you taxed every person with income over 20K at 100% you would not be able raise the taxes required to pay the benefits you suggested.

But the other issue is the money saved from all the bureaucracy that will disappear, all the 'means-testing', benefit-calculating people in several different government ministries.

Total government spending is no more than 250 billion. Reducing that to 0 would not provide enough savings to cover the cost of the benefits you suggested.

The math does not work. The liberals took a serious look at GAI in the 90s and concluded that it was just too expensive.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[tango]

People like you really should not waste time expressing an opinion on taxation. You clearly don't have a clue.

$200 billion is all taxes from all sources and that represents 20% of GDP or so.

Even you taxed every person with income over 20K at 100% you would not be able raise the taxes required to pay the benefits you suggested.

That's ridiculous ... but for tomorrow.

Of course it's expensive.

So is poverty.

Edited March 28, 2009 by tango

[Riverwind]

But the other issue is the money saved from all the bureaucracy that will disappear, all the 'means-testing', benefit-calculating people in several different government ministries, and levels of government.

$200 billion in federal expenditures includes transfers to provinces. The savings don't even come close to the money needed. Edited March 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

I think the idea of putting money into the hands of the poor so they can consume more is just what we need right now to get the economy moving again!

Tango

Sharing the wealth by force only creates more poor people. Look at the late Soviet Union and those countries in the old Warsaw pact.

I think a better way would be to tax the environmental footprints that individuals leave, i.e. a consumption/carbon tax and use these funds to lessen our collective environmental footprint by compensating people who voluntarily forgo having children.

The world of the future will be richer, unless our great-great-grandchildren live in a dark age of ignorance, superstition and medieval religion where women must cover their heads, even in public.

August1991

Our grandchildren are virtually guaranteed to be poorer because the world they inherit will be depleted of most of the natural capital we're taking for granted is just there for us to take. You'd think this generation thought the universe owed it a living or something.

Do you know what would happen if any government seriously entertained what I just suggested? Mainstream religions and apparently several women's right's groups would go ape shit at the suggestion that governments should use incentives that encourge zero-population growth.

Of course, mainstream economists would be joining the chorus of fear and outrage and predicting that the end of growth would convey us to the end of the world even faster.

The better question is, will the human race deserve what it gets?

Edited March 28, 2009 by eyeball

[blueblood]

I think a better way would be to tax the environmental footprints that individuals leave, i.e. a consumption/carbon tax and use these funds to lessen our collective environmental footprint by compensating people who voluntarily forgo having children.

Our grandchildren are virtually guaranteed to be poorer because the world they inherit will be depleted of most of the natural capital we're taking for granted is just there for us to take. You'd think this generation thought the universe owed it a living or something.

Do you know what would happen if any government seriously entertained what I just suggested? Mainstream religions and apparently several women's right's groups would go ape shit at the suggestion that governments should use incentives that encourge zero-population growth.

Of course, mainstream economists would be joining the chorus of fear and outrage and predicting that the end of growth would convey us to the end of the world even faster.

The better question is, will the human race deserve what it gets?

And this is why luddite hippies will never see any power in their lifetime.

No one in their right mind is stupid enough to swallow that.

The human race has a knack for evolving and making the best out of bad situations.

[benny]

But there is no means test offered to qualify for this basic monthly income. Does someone earning 100,000 or 1 million dollars per year deserve an extra 10,000 for play money? And as Tango already mentioned, $10,000 is not enough money to live on for someone with no other sources of income.

There are a very wide variety of basic income schemes. Here is my favorite:

ti = k * (wm - wi)

ti: transfer to the person i

wm: mean wage in the population

wi: wage of the person i

k: a number of hours of work (each worker gives this quantity for redistribution purpose).

Edited March 29, 2009 by benny

[Riverwind]

k: an amount of hours of work (each worker gives this amount for redistribution purpose).

I will never figure out why people think society is unfair unless everyone has the same income. The fact is different people have different skills and willingness to work hard and that will lead to income inequality.

General transfers between individuals should be based on need. The average income of others is irrelevant.

[benny]

skills

k is an integral part of a theory of distributive justice precisely because skills (talents) is in part given to individuals (undeserved, in other words).

[Riverwind]

k is an integral part of a theory of distributive justice precisely because skills (talents) is in part given to individuals (undeserved, in other words).

People have skills because they worked to attain those skills. There are many people with natural talent who do nothing with it. Society works because the people who work hard are rewarded. Take away that system and you have economic stagnation like we saw in the USSR.

[eyeball]

I will never figure out why people think society is unfair unless everyone has the same income. The fact is different people have different skills and willingness to work hard and that will lead to income inequality.

General transfers between individuals should be based on need. The average income of others is irrelevant.

Why do you assume its only about the money? You're absolutely correct, the fact is different people do have different levels of skill and willingness to work etc. and its completely natural that income levels will reflect this.

Its the political power that goes with wealth that results in so much unfairness and injustice in the world. Rich people do not deserve any more representation than anyone else. When they get it as a result of wealth its entirely natural that wealth is given a bad rap. Wealth is just as often its own worse enemy.

[benny]

People have skills because they worked to attain those skills. There are many people with natural talent who do nothing with it. Society works because the people who work hard are rewarded. Take away that system and you have economic stagnation like we saw in the USSR.

A sane economy is an economy that is preventing the people who use their natural talents to monopolize the things they do with these talents.

Edited March 28, 2009 by benny

[Riverwind]

Its the political power that goes with wealth that results in so much unfairness and injustice in the world. Rich people do not deserve any more representation than anyone else.

Everyone is equal at the ballot box. If they choose not to vote that is their problem. We have a system now that is designed to minimize the power granted to people with the means to make large political donations. It is not perfect but nothing is perfect.

[eyeball]

The human race has a knack for evolving and making the best out of bad situations.

You really do believe the human race can just grow without limit and things will only get better don't you? What sort of Cornucopian cult do you subscribe to anyway?

I'm just wondering what you'd do in the event that someone develops and mass produces something like a Star Trek replicator that makes absolutely everything free for the asking. What will society do without a moral imperitive to compel people to produce something to earn their keep? What will the masses do without their betters to lord it over them and point out their failings and to ponitificate about the rightousness of maintaining one's station, above all else.

Then we'll see who calls who a Luddite.

[eyeball]

Everyone is equal at the ballot box. If they choose not to vote that is their problem. We have a system now that is designed to minimize the power granted to people with the means to make large political donations. It is not perfect but nothing is perfect.