[weddpros]

There's a logic problem with Basic Income.

They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI)

But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time.

Instead they should think either : 1- it won't change a thing 2- it won't change a thing (so why do it?)

OR

1- it will help me earn more 2- I will earn less so others can earn more

BI advocates say it is an important change. So they advocate for a tax raise, but they "forget" to say it.

[dragonwriter]

> There's a logic problem with Basic Income.

No, there's not. At least, if there is, its not the one you claim.

> They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI)

Who is "they"?

> But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time.

They can both be true if the benefits plus (reduced) admin costs from BI come strictly from the benefits plus (higher) admin costs of the welfare programs it is replacing. (There are people who make less, in the short term, in that scheme, but its only some subset of the people who are making money from the admin costs of the replaced programs.)

They can't if you set BI at a level that requires more money than that, or if you do it without replacing any existing programs, but neither of those is inherent in the concept of BI (and the latter, at least, I've never seen proposed.)

[weddpros]

So you'll agree that there IS a problem IF the left wing is pushing towards BI: reducing administration (or state) footprint is more libertarian than anything. It's only credible if libertarians ask for BI... How funny!

[dragonwriter]

> So you'll agree that there IS a problem IF the left wing is pushing towards BI

I didn't say anything that resembles that, no.

> reducing administration (or state) footprint is more libertarian than anything.

"Left wing" and "libertarian" are not opposed, and improving efficiency in achieiving left wing policy goals is not at all a view point incompatible with the left wing.

Heck, improving efficiency of government isn't incompatible with left or right wing, or libertarian or even authoritarian philosophies. Even authoritarian conservatives would probably prefer that, to the extent that liberal goals are going to be addressed by government at all, they ought to be addressed by the least wasteful means possible (if only so as to maximize resources available for authoritarian approaches to conservative goals.)

[AnthonyMouse]

Basic income doesn't inherently require taxes to increase, especially if you measure it as taxes paid less government benefits received. You're thinking of things in class warfare terms -- someone else gets more money from the government therefore I get less or pay more. Any program that works on that principle is just redistribution of wealth, or naked corruption.

The benefit of a basic income is that it changes incentives. In the existing system you lose government benefits if you take a job, so if the only job you can get pays low wages you have a significantly reduced incentive to seek employment. Higher unemployment means lower tax revenues, lower economic growth, etc. Fighting that is why a basic income is superior to means tested government assistance.

[weddpros]

Say I'm jobless, and I make 1000/m. If I find a job that pays 1100 : - with BI I'll make 1100. That's the value of work. - without BI I'll make 100 + 1000. The value of work is 100.

With BI, people will think "I don't want to work for 100/m" (you know, it's the gov that pays the other 1000/m). You'll hear people say "I'm paid 1000 just to breathe, why work for 100?".

It you want to limit this problem as much as possible, you'll need a basic income of exactly 0.

[streptomycin]

Problem is, rich countries already have welfare systems and hardly anyone would support completely eliminating them. So people are already paid to breathe. The question is how to do so while minimizing perverse incentives.

[AnthonyMouse]

Exactly. The problem right now is that if you have no job, you get government assistance. If you get a job, you lose the government assistance, so a job that pays $1200/month only allows you to keep $200 in your pocket because you've lost $1000 in government benefits by taking the job and no longer "needing" the assistance. We've created a de facto 80+% marginal tax rate on the working class vs. being unemployed, which is economically Very Bad.

[weddpros]

I don't agree with you. If you find a job at 1200$/m you keep 1200$/m in your pocket, not 200... The real problem is if you get paid 80% of that for breathing, because of government assistance!

When you want to help some industry, you'll give subventions to it. It should be no surprise that subventions to unemployment lead to more unemployment!

France (where I live) has a track record : we almost have basic income (it's called RSA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_activ...), unemployment rate is >10%, taxes are record high and growth is NaN.

Recently, I heard a lady (29 yo) tell me that her 1700€/m salary was not enough to compensate for the loss of social assistance. She decided to resign... but 1700€/m is the MEDIAN SALARY in France! 50% earn less than that!

[streptomycin]

I think you're confused about the difference between a basic income and a guaranteed minimum income. What you are describing is the latter, but what we are advocating is the former.

[sharemywin]

I think with basic income you would get $2100.

[weddpros]

Sorry, no.

And it's a good thing: imagine the inflation rate if salaries were raised by up to 100% overnight...

[makomk]

You're assuming that all that matters is the amount someone earns. If people care about more than just their on-paper income, then they can think:

1: it won't change my income now, but will save me from having to jump through ridiculous, demeaning and counter-productive requirements added to the current welfare program in an attempt to punish "undeserving" receipients.

2: it won't change my income now, but will provide a nice safety net in case I become unemployed for any reason.

[weddpros]

1- I don't need to find a job anymore 2- It doesn't really matter if I lose my job, let's take some "vacation"

A bit more about myself : I'm self employed in France, and I earn less than the minimal wage (because I pay 46+% in taxes). But I'm not entitled to any unemployment benefit if I stop working. I would greatly benefit from a 1000€/m Basic Income, but I KNOW it's unfair because someone else will have to pay for it. I KNOW I have to work to earn a living.

We (almost) have Basic Income in France, it's called RSA (450€/m). That's why I'm paying 46+% taxes. That's social taxes, not income taxes (almost 50% of the population in France don't pay income taxes).