Basic income as a human right

Post Reply New Topic

I'd like to live in a world where this is a thing, where each person despite their financial status is given a monthly income from the government to cover basic expenses like food and shelter.
Of course this might require some adjustments in our system, and I acknowledge that a fool and his money are soon parted and a wise person will devise a way to part said fool from that money, no system is flawless and we are adults not children, but check out the video and actually watch it with an open mind before you reply whether you are predisposed to agree or disagree.
I think this could empower the individual, it would be easier for lower class people to become subcontractors instead of employees and hopefully it could disperse the wealth a little bit more fairly, allow each person to own a fairer portion of their work.

Thomas Paine sure thought so.

Take this passage from his essay Agrarian Justice:

"Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property;

And also, the sum of ten pounds per anum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."

Interesting

When it comes to the most efficient way to spend money on people you owe nothing to, and need nothing from, the option of not spending any is hard to beat.

As I read Paine (and I do despite his frequent oversight of the details of his ideas), it appears to me that, in this passage, he is proposing a substitution of governmental assistance "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance" in the amount of "the sum of fifteen pounds sterling[.]" The key phrase being "for the loss of his or her natural inheritance[.]" So, it appears that he didn't propose a universal-assistance program (for reason of ongoing subsidized living) in addition to an individual's inheritance of property, but one of a one-time payment of $3,517.42 (in today's U.S. dollars) instead of that individual's inheritance (which would then be seized by the assistance fund), or absence thereof. These aren't the terms to which I would happily agree. The amount is less than half of what the U.S. Social Security Administration distributes annually among its SSI recipients (not including food, housing and medical EBTs). No, I consider his scheme to be too little on which to live my life. It wouldn't even amount to a nice gesture as a partial subsidy of living expenses; a one-time payment gets spent, expenses are forever.

It used to be, in America, they gave you a piece of land and you worked it by planting crops and raising livestock and that is pretty much how you "gave back" for the "free" land and people could survive this way.

The entire system needs to be changed but will not happen without a mass-awakening of the general-public.

The entire socio-economic system needs to be changed but will not happen without a mass-raising of consciousness of the general-public.

What is consciousness ? Human-consciousness is to humans as CPU-Power (Processing Ability) is to computers. That is how I have decided to define Consciousness.

The raising of Consciousness in Humans is like increasing the CPU-Speed of a Computer's Central Processor-Unit (like having better brain-power).

Another term that I have also coined & recently started using for Consciousness is Quantum-Awareness-Systems (worded this way in order to be able to account for Artificial-Intelligence to also include cases where the A.I. becomes advanced enough to no longer be considered merely artificial).

Now for a clip from George Carlin...

But what if this system actually proves cheaper than our current welfare setup as social psychology experiments have repeatedly indicated? Everyone whether rich or poor would receive the same monthly grant, which would be a set amount calculated to cover the cost of basic shelter and food.

We live in a society that is prosperous enough to allow everyone so enjoy it's fruits, if we empower people to worry less about basic sustenance it allows them to focus their energies more on advancing themselves and their educations, and mankind as a whole.

The percentage of people who will choose not to contribute to society is extremely low, most people have ambitions beyond scraping by just above poverty, and this monthly grant will not change that.

We are developing technology that could drastically reduce the need for manpower, manual labor will be replaced by exoskeletons operated by highly skilled professionals, most stores could be automated and remotely monitored by a much smaller workforce, our increasing understanding of neuromarketing could be applied to sell products more efficiently than the use of an in person sales associate.

Poverty is a flytrap, it saps time, energy, and morale from what is in my opinion our greatest untapped resource, the human mind.

Here is a test, to see if you even watched the video, who was the famous Republican president who tried to implement this?

Homelessness and poverty are areas of interest for me. I've thought about this solution quite a bit, but I just don't see the numbers adding up.

If we gave 300 million Americans $10,000.00/year as basic income, that would cost $3 trillion/year (please check my math). That's just not financially possible.

We could do something less ambitious based on means testing.

Means testing would make the program practical but politically impossible.

In short, it cannot be done because if everyone can't get it, no one can.

People are selfish dicks.

Same as it ever was... same as it ever was.

Less impossible in Europe.

Yes. In a number of European countries (mainly the highly egalitarian Scandinavians and the Green Party in the UK), there are proposals for a basic 'Citizens' Income' to be automatically paid to everyone, including children, regardless of their means. According to the UK Green Party it would replace the State pension, unemployment benefit, child benefit, tax credits and most other government-funded social security payments except housing benefit, so although it would cost a vast amount it would ultimately save money as well as ensuring that everyone had enough money to live on. For those on higher incomes it would be partly or wholly reclaimed in income tax.

It would be nice to think that one day such a human right will be met.

This illustrates the importance of "the currency circulation cycle." It's not just a matter of giving people $10,000 a year, it's one of keeping the money circulating throughout society because that way people can meet their needs. So people get $10,000, and they spend it and this goes for everyone receiving any amount. Their $10,000 goes into the hands of others, and then the others spend it, and so on and so on until everyone has a place to live, clothing, food, healthcare needs taken care of. Spending is the key. Spending is maligned but think about it, when people do not spend, money is not going to other people, so where will the money come from? There won't be an exchange of currency if everyone holds onto what they have. Saving is like a death sentence to the economy because if everyone saved all the time, where would the money for interest come from? How would you earn money on your savings if not for the money circulation cycle? Your money will end up worthless. You are not able to earn money on your own money unless someone spends theirs first.

Look, I'm a Fordist. I definitely agree that economies are driven by spending and the lower down in the economy that spending starts, the more hands money passes through, the better.

However, the fact remains that we're talking about $3 trillion in direct transfers (even if much of it is taken right back in taxes). Right now the annual budget runs about $3.5 trillion. Most of that IS NOT spent on social welfare. So, a program like this would require a lot more money that we'd need to get from somewhere.

We could not do this without massive tax increases at the top. That just won't happen--not in our current political climate.

What might help is investing the ten thousand dolllars.

If you want to get rid of homelessness, just get rid of homes.

And if you want to get rid of poverty, just get rid of money.