Koroviev Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Reading the /. headlines this morning and came across an article on Basic Income ( A.K.A. Guaranteed Income, annual unearned income, etc.) and I felt like I was missing something. The idea of having money taken from me (through taxes) so that they could give a percentage of that back to me just didn't seem to sit right. Even if this was implemented while or after abolishing the welfare state so it does not raise taxes (theoretically it would cost no more than welfare costs now) it seems like it would just raise demand thus raising prices, thus raising cost of living, thus invalidating the whole system. It turns out it was referring to an article from the VICE network which I'm pretty sure is just another liberal media shill, but then I found an article Charles Murray wrote about it and thought well maybe, just maybe, I'm missing something. Would this be a good compromise between the left and the right? Does it somehow both increase and decrease state power at the same time? Could it bring both families and communities together? Or is it just another ploy to get more government control over peoples lives, another way to introduce central planning, and another government plan doomed to failure? Charles Murray - "GUARANTEED INCOME AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE WELFARE STATE" http://www.fljs.org/sites/www.fljs.org/files/publications/Murray.pdf /. headline - The Campaign To Get Every American Free Money, Every Year http://politics.slashdot.org/story/15/09/17/1632226/the-campaign-to-get-every-american-free-money-every-year vice article http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-campaign-to-give-every-american-free-money-091515 the economist article http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/government-guaranteed-basic-income found this thread right after I posted apologies for the overlap :https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45105-the-living-wage-ripped-apart/ Edited September 18, 2015 by Koroviev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 The presumption is that if you compromise with evil and injustice, then it will back off, rather than escalate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 You can't guarantee resources for all lives. It's a ridiculous notion based on the idea that there are enough resources for everyone no matter how much you breed. Rabbit and grass thinking that deludes itself and is quite harmful to productive people and non-thieves. People that promote such ideas are insane and thieves masking their aggression under misguided right to life and sympathy for the poor ideas. These socialist ideas are quite toxic and anti-life in many ways. Guaranteed income is welfare... replacing welfare with welfare; you'd be right in thinking that makes no sense. A lot of these people are just perpetually relabeling things to sneak their wrong ideas in under a new label that people haven't shot down yet, because their proper names have gotten an appropriately bad rep. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 The problem has always been the taking of money and resources from those who have earned an produced them. How the money is being spent is not important, the forceful taking is the crime. No "let's divide the loot this way" makes it right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorBlux Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 "it seems like it would just raise demand thus raising prices, thus raising cost of living, thus invalidating the whole system." The seen and unseen. You'd also cut out a huge swath of bureaucrats and their demand so it wouldn't cause across the board inflation. Another objection is that some people genuinely need more, as the severely disabled or seriously sick. I think it would empower a lot of people to leave the cash nexus, to live of the land or join a communal house. On the converse you could see a lot more small businesses started especially among the young where they just had to worry about no loosing money for the first few years instead of trying to feed themselves as well. So I definitely support it over the current system but still can't advocate for it since it would be tax-funded. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 The seen and unseen. You'd also cut out a huge swath of bureaucrats and their demand so it wouldn't cause across the board inflation. Suuure the state is going to shrink itself. Like that's ever going to happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crallask Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I wonder what the income for the people pushing the system would be. I've had a few arguments with people over this topic before. I first heard about it from a guy talking about Hypercapitalism on Bitcointalk.net. He also linked back to a lot of his own material as sources for how it (provably) works. Another guy told me he wanted to do it to "Make everyone happy. To give everyone a basic level of happiness in a way that some do not exploit others." ...Mind you this guy also said he had no desire to preserve his own life yet found himself ideal to manage others. He even went so far as to say "Yes, I would back it with coercion and taxes because to take something from the world without paying into my system is theft. That which existed in nature belongs to everyone so others shouldn't be able to refine/use it without asking permission via paying first." But hey, it was okay, since the government represents the will of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts