Basic Income Guarantee (BIG)

[fractional slacker]

Can a good/real libertarian support reforming, or possibly expanding, the welfare state instead of eliminating it?

BIG is basically just "granting" every citizen a check, sometimes referred to as a negative income tax. The "government" writes you check with no strings attached. You spend on whatever you desire.  

It sounds like economic lunacy. I know. But it seems to be gaining some traction on the right now.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee
 

[webdever]

Tom woods interviewed him yesterday on basic income. It is gaining a lot of traction right now (just read almost any reddit thread on /r/politics right now with any relation to economics), but I don't see how there can be much of a libertarian argument for it.

 

As others in the comment thread on the article linked pointed out, it doesn't look like it will be cheaper than welfare, and the idea that the government will somehow be able to implement this one government program with very little overhead (as well as ditch all the existing programs) sounds like a fairy tale to me.

 

And it will effect incentives. Even if it doesn't have a huge effect on the employment rate we know praxeologically that theft and redistribution must lead to inefficiencies. It must lead to some disincentive to work or disincentive to pay/receive higher wages. The information in the recent truth on immigration and welfare video showed that currently a lot of immigrants work and receive welfare, when you think of it like that welfare sort of becomes a subsidy to companies who employ cheap labor, and I'm sure you could find many other far-reaching consequences if you look into it.

[AncapFTW]

Libertarian, perhaps, as libertarian includes minarchists, tea party, etc. and this could theoretically make the government smaller and decrease taxes.  The problem is that if everyone is guaranteed $20k per year, prices will increase to advantage of the extra $20k/person in the economy and people will end up in the same place if not worse financially.

 

Anarchist-wise, it's a choice of letting the 10% of the population that has the least sex rape 10 people per year and letting everyone rape 5 people per year.

[dsayers]

The article drops the ball in the title. By saying pragmatic, he's telling you that he's leapfrogging over the moral consideration. He might as well be talking about the usefulness/dangers of a unicorn's horn because a unicorn is just as fictitious as talking about humans existing in different moral categories as if that's an accurate description of the real world.

 

Also, he fails to define Libertarian. That's one of the problems when people use labels/shorthand instead of being clear about what they're saying. It seems as if he equates the minarchist position with liberty, which I think is clearly false. There's no liberty in being stolen from. The problem isn't how the money's being spent, it's that the money is stolen on a grand scale in perpetuity under the guise of being righteous, necessary, and benevolent.

[luxfelix]

Maybe it would be better, instead of giving someone a $100 government check for example, to stop stealing $100 in the first place -- better still to not steal at all... 

[fractional slacker]

Maybe it would be better, instead of giving someone a $100 government check for example, to stop stealing $100 in the first place -- better still to not steal at all... 

Right? Occams Razor.

It's like a doctor making more incisions because he has mad stitching skills.

 

webdever, yeah, I was a little disappointed Woods gave this guy softball interview. It was practically an infomercial

  AncapFTW, It's like no one has ever heard of inflation.   dsayers, the Woods interview attempted to address the moral objection. It's convoluted as hell starting with Zlwinski saying "If we assume the welfare state is here to stay,..." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ace]

But realistically it'll never fly because without boutique tax credits and a laundry list of welfare programs - the government has nothing to sell to voters.  And the unending progression is towards further complication of tax code, social programs, etc. because if you simplify it then you need fewer workers to administer it and then the public sector unions have a fit.
 

Maybe it would be a little better economically, maybe not - who cares.  Ethically it's no improvement.  And no possible chance it's ever going to be implemented so why waste a minute of your life thinking about stuff like this.

[Torero]

Can a good/real libertarian support reforming, or possibly expanding, the welfare state instead of eliminating it?

 

I cannot speak for others, but fail to see how a good (=)/real libertarian can support full state slavery?

 

 

 

BIG is basically just "granting" every citizen a check,

 

I would call it more; complete dependence on the state for your survival. Essentially one loses his natural ability for survival.

 

 

 

sometimes referred to as a negative income tax.

 

Isn't income tax "negative" by definition?

 

 

 

The "government" writes you check with no strings attached. You spend on whatever you desire.

 

Really? No strings attached (only pragmatically, morally it's demonic enough)?? And what if that government suddenly would cut this BIG? What do you do? No strings attached? Maybe use the clause in the TTIP and sue the state? How successful do you think that will be? No strings attached? To a government program? Of this size?

 

 

 

It sounds like economic lunacy. I know. But it seems to be gaining some traction on the right now.

 

It is. And in a global economy and especially in Europe where it's gaining ground in the public debates it's impossible. Prices will be affected drastically, taxes will rise sky high to pay for all that and how would that work with hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to use this BIG?

 

I'd call it "BIGS"; Blatantly Immoral Government Slavery.

[pumpkinhead]

In response to Finland considering giving 800 euros to each citizen per month;  

 

If the argument is that it can be controlled based on tax receipts, as luxfelix mentioned here previously, it would be given back to you.  The Atlantic's "The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income", points to Hayek, Friedman, and many others taking such an approach. Returns and an oversite program would be null and void, as it would then be unnecessary to take the money in the first place.  As Mccartney said, "Let it be."; laissez faire.

 

I have no argument for the effect on the incentive to work being positive.  I can see a few angles, such as the stability of regular money would inspire a certain person towards success.  But, I am totally speculating based on my own position of wanting to create value and acquire skill and experience.  

 

I won't venture any further down that road, but I would appreciate anyone's thoughts with relevant data.  It seems patchy at best in regards to Dauphin, Manitoba & Madhya Pradesh, India &,& Cherokee, North Carolina.

 

Several attempts to do this are coming in Utrecht, Switzerland, and elsewhere.

 

Why is this important to me? The mechanics of it are interesting.  A pay in system could be adapted as a DRO.  I am planning for a DRO type startup, though not for this function.

 

 

[luxfelix]

Why is this important to me? The mechanics of it are interesting.  A pay in system could be adapted as a DRO.  I am planning for a DRO type startup, though not for this function.

 

I would love to hear more about this. 

[Livemike]

Is the BIG immoral?  Of course.  But then so are all the alternatives that will be forced on us if we don't have it.  De facto there is no reason to believe the welfare state is going to end soon.  So if you had to design the welfare state so as to be as harmless as possible, how would you design it?  Well for a start, eliminate as many bad incentives as you can.  One of these incentives is not to take low paying jobs as the loss of dole money is from 50-70% of the wage.  Another is the incentive to take courses that aren't worthwhile because the cost of tuition and living while you learn is provided by government.  That's not to say that all subsidized courses are bad or even not worth the cost for some people, bu others will enroll only because it's free and they can get student money.  There is also the incentive to fake job searching, wasting the time of employers and employment agency personnel.  Having more children is also encouraged.  

So the question is "Is BIG more immoral than what we would get without it?" and I have to say "No.".  Sure BiG gives people unearned money, but most of the people that get it paid that much in taxes anyway. There are fewer resources wasted on determining eligibility.  Temporary jobs aren't a problem, nor are jobs that might not pay much, but give marketable skills.  If BIG goes only to adult citizens then both irresponsible childbearing and parasitic immigration are not encouraged.  Really it's hard not to see this as a libertarian win if it happens, provided the old, even more corrupt system is swept away.  That being said there's a chance they'll give us both, just to be total hypocrites.

[Torero]

It starts getting ugly in Utrecht, 4th city of The Netherlands....

 

Dutch city plans to pay all citizens a ‘basic income’, and Greens say it could work in the UK

 

Utrecht takes step towards paying people a salary whether they work or not It’s an idea whose adherents over the centuries have ranged from socialists to libertarians to far-right mavericks.

 

It was first proposed by Thomas Paine in his 1797 pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, as a system in which at the “age of majority” everyone would receive an equal capital grant, a “basic income” handed over by the state to each and all, no questions asked, to do with what they wanted. It might be thought that, in these austere times, no idea could be more politically toxic: literally, a policy of the state handing over something for nothing.

 

But in Utrecht, one of the largest cities in the Netherlands, and 19 other Dutch municipalities, a tentative step towards realising the dream of many a marginal and disappointed political theorist is being made. The politicians, well aware of a possible backlash, are rather shy of admitting it.

 

“We had to delete mention of basic income from all the documents to get the policy signed off by the council,” confided Lisa Westerveld, a Green councillor for the city of Nijmegen, near the Dutch-German border. “We don’t call it a basic income in Utrecht because people have an idea about it – that it is just free money and people will sit at home and watch TV,” said Heleen de Boer, a Green councillor in that city, which is half an hour south of Amsterdam.

 

Nevertheless, the municipalities are, in the words of de Boer, taking a “small step” towards a basic income for all by allowing small groups of benefit claimants to be paid £660 a month – and keep any earnings they make from work on top of that. Their monthly pay will not be means-tested.

 

They will instead have the security of that cash every month, and the option to decide whether they want to add to that by finding work. The outcomes will be analysed by eminent economist Loek Groot, a professor at the University of Utrecht.

 

A start date for the scheme has yet to be settled – and only benefit claimants involved in the pilots will receive the cash – but there is no doubting the radical intent. The motivation behind the experiment in Utrecht, according to Nienke Horst, a senior policy adviser to the municipality’s Liberal Democrat leadership, is for claimants to avoid the “poverty trap” – the fact that if they earn, they will lose benefits, and potentially be worse off.

 

The idea also hopes to target “revolving door clients” – those who are forced into jobs by the system but repeatedly walk out of them. If given a basic income, the thinking goes, these people might find the time and space to look for long-term employment that suits them.

 

But the logic of basic income, according to people to the left of Horst, leads only one way – to the cash sum becoming a universal right. It would be unthinkable for those on benefits to be earning and receiving more than their counterparts off benefits. Horst admitted: “Some municipalities are very into the basic income thing.”

 

Indeed leftwing councillors in Utrecht believe this is an opportunity to prove to a sceptical public that people don’t just shirk and watch television if they are given a leg-up. “I think we need to have trust in people,” said de Boer. Caroline Lucas, the Green party’s only MP in the House of Commons, agrees. A basic income – the Greens call it a “citizen’s wage” – has long been party policy. It did not make the cut for their manifesto because they couldn’t find a way to fund it.

 

But developments in the Netherlands, and a parallel pilot in Finland, have bolstered Lucas’s belief that this idea’s time has come. The Royal Society of Arts has been examining the feasibility of the idea, as has campaign group Compass.

 

To those who say it is an unaffordable pipedream, Westerveld points out the huge costs that come with the increasinglytough benefits regimes being set up by western states, including policies that make people do community service to justify their handouts. “In Nijmegen we get £88m to give to people on welfare,” Westerveld said, “but it costs £15m a year for the civil servants running the bureaucracy of the current system. We will save money with a ‘basic income’.” Horst adds: “If you receive benefits from the government [in Holland] now you have to do something in return. But most municipalities don’t have the people to manage that.

 

We have 10,000 unemployed people in Utrecht, but if they all have to do something in return for welfare we just don’t have the people to see to that. It costs too much.” Lucas says she will seek a parliamentary debate on the policy in the new year, and will ask the government to look into the feasibility of a “basic income” pilot here.

 

“I think in Britain people have quite a puritanical idea of work,” she said. “But this is an urgently needed policy. With increased job insecurity, the idea of everyone working nine to five is outdated. People go in and out of work these days.” “People are increasingly working in what they call the gig economy.

 

The current system is not fit for purpose.” The idea faces a tough political headwind, of course, not least in the Netherlands. Last Tuesday, Johanna von Schaik-Vijfschaft, 41, could be found updating her CV on one of the computers made available to benefits claimants at the Utrecht council building.

 

A cleaner at a local department store, she had been told by council officials to find more work than the 12 hours she currently does. But she will be under even more pressure in a few years when her 19-year-old son turns 21 and leaves her care.

 

Once she has no dependants, she will lose £150 of her £500 monthly benefit payment and come under the remit of the participation laws, legislation recently brought in by the rightwing central government to make benefits claimants work harder for their cash. Von Schaik-Vijfschaft could be ordered to do some community work for the council in return for her benefits, and will face the threat of losing more of her income if her application rate for jobs falls away. And if Von Schaik-Vijfschaft were to dress inappropriately for interviews or, worse still, miss an appointment, she will lose all her benefits for a month.

 

The country’s second city, Rotterdam, has even trialled a “work first” system, where aspiring benefits claimants must put on an orange jacket and spend two months clearing rubbish before they are handed any payments. “Rules, always the rules,” von Schaik-Vijfschaft said. “But of course I want to work. I want to be busy – we all do.” If the experiment can prove that, maybe Tom Paine’s idea will have its day yet.

 

■ A “basic income”, first proposed by Thomas Paine is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without any means test or requirement to work

■ It is paid irrespective of any income from other sources.

■ It is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job.

■ Advocates say it will allow people to genuinely choose what sort of employment they take, and to retrain when they wish.

■ Its proponents also claim that a basic income scheme is one of the most simple benefits models, and will reduce all the bureaucracy surrounding the welfare state, making it less complex and much cheaper to administer.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/26/dutch-city-utrecht-basic-income-uk-greens

[JamesP]

I think "Basic Income Guarantee" needs some more color. They should clarify it with Littlest Income Erasure, hence:

 

BIG LIE.

[Libertus]

Some nitpicking from me. Otherwise, fantastic discussion, thank you.

@fractional slacker
> BIG is basically just "granting" every citizen a check, sometimes referred to as a negative income tax.

 

They're not exactly synonymous. Most variations of BIG are not related to income, you get the same amount, not matter how much money you make. One variation of BIG is the negative income tax, its height depends on income.

 

> ...cato-... pragmatic-libertarian...
 

When I see the term "pragmatic libertarian", I can pretty much already tell it's going to be be neither libertarian nor pragmatic.

 

@pumpkinhead
> In response to Finland considering giving 800 euros to each citizen per month;

 

Not true. They're only giving it to citizens who work in low income paying jobs. Almost every newspaper got that headline wrong.

 

@Livemike

> Is BIG more immoral than what we would get without it?" and I have to say "No."

 

There is imho no point in comparing "immorals". In both cases, current system or current system plus BIG, money is being stolen. For the morality of stealing it doesn't matter what the loot is spent on.

 

There is only one advantage of the BIG over the current system. We can all stop pretending. I mean, since all subsidies produce more of what they subsidize, more and more people will be dependent on the BIG, until they make the majority of the electorate. And since their livelihood will depend on the amount of BIG, while prices will rise accordingly, it will be in everybody's self interest to raise the BIG. After one or two election cycles, the political debate will only consist of who offers the higher number. 800. 1000. 2000. Sold. Every other issue will pale in comparison, It's inflation, this time set by the voter directly, since they will have to print a ridiculous amount of money to pay out the BIG for only the first year, let alone a steadily rising BIG for a rising number of poor citizens every year. Because nobody is going to lend your government money if they're just going to give it away. Money lending depends on profit expectations.

[shirgall]

The only way I'd consider accepting a BIG is if it was universally given out to everyone, equally, if it replaced social security, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, and welfare, if all subsidies were ended, if it was based on a single sales tax on all items at food services and retail with no exceptions, if the tax rate was set by popular vote (which directly determines the payout), and if all other personal taxation was permanently ended (personal income taxes, any sales taxes, and property taxes).

 

So, look at November 2015 at a total adjusted food and retail sales of $448B or ~$1445 per person in the USA. Set the BIG at 20% (darned huge) and you get $289 per person for that month. I'm assuming people would tolerate a 20% sales tax if you get rid of income tax, socsec, and medicare.

 

Since the only form of income to pay for the rest of government remaining would be corporate taxes and tariffs, the only way to grow government is to grow businesses, so maybe that's the right incentive, eh?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Generous, kindhearted (with other people's money) Matt Zwolinski strikes again. First , BIG violates the non-aggression-principle (which Zwolinski rejects) so you have to steal the money. Second a guarantee is not possible because the government cannot guarantee it will always have the money to pay the basic income. Utterly retarded. 

[Des]

Now I have this thought experiment:

 

Suppose there were a voluntary community, in which each citizen of a small territory with borders, agreed to this re-distribution system:

Each year, you must auction whatever you own within the territory, and pay 10% into the communal fund.

This fund is then used to pay each citizen a monthly stipend and the stipends are equal for that year (differ from year to year according to how much is raised each year).

Now, I would expect citizens to extract resources quickly, and ship those resources out, and (if wealthy), live outside the territory.

However, the parcels of land from which the resources are extracted, have value related to what profit can be made from the resource.

This means that some money will be paid into the re-distribution system, whatever citizens do to maximise their return on voluntary, contractual participation in the system.

What would people do to adapt to such a system?

Would the result be attractive enough that the system would spread?

[Libertus]

The only way I would support a BIG is if its funding was voluntary, meaning, ALL participants are willing.

[Koroviev]

Now I have this thought experiment:

 

Suppose there were a voluntary community, in which each citizen of a small territory with borders, agreed to this re-distribution system:

Each year, you must auction whatever you own within the territory, and pay 10% into the communal fund.

This fund is then used to pay each citizen a monthly stipend and the stipends are equal for that year (differ from year to year according to how much is raised each year).

Now, I would expect citizens to extract resources quickly, and ship those resources out, and (if wealthy), live outside the territory.

However, the parcels of land from which the resources are extracted, have value related to what profit can be made from the resource.

This means that some money will be paid into the re-distribution system, whatever citizens do to maximise their return on voluntary, contractual participation in the system.

What would people do to adapt to such a system?

Would the result be attractive enough that the system would spread?

 

Is it a voluntary community or are they required to auction their property? Those 2 statements are mutually exclusive.

 

 

Can a good/real libertarian support reforming, or possibly expanding, the welfare state instead of eliminating it?

 

BIG is basically just "granting" every citizen a check, sometimes referred to as a negative income tax. The "government" writes you check with no strings attached. You spend on whatever you desire.  

 

It sounds like economic lunacy. I know. But it seems to be gaining some traction on the right now.

 

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

 

 

I was talking about this a while ago when I came across an article Charles Murray wrote about it

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45141-guaranteed-income-am-i-missing-something/

 

There's also this thread which talks about an article that discusses the counter argument to living wage

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45105-the-living-wage-ripped-apart/

[Susana]

Let everyone get Free Houses. can we go with this idea?

 

Free Housing " "Before the 'Housing First' model, people had to change their lives, and then we would offer them housing. Now what we do is we offer them housing and allow them to change their lives if they choose to do so," Walker said.

 

In one state/study 91% reduction of the problem of chronic homelessness. The homeless and their issues were solved by solving this one root problem of housing. 

 

So maybe cash in your pocket, cash income, BIG, is just a branch issue rather than a root problem. What is the real problem here?

 

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865627447/Chronic-homelessness-in-Utah-down-91-1percent-under-decade-long-Housing-First-initiative.html?pg=all

 

[tux]

I am usually for changes that lead to me keeping more of my money and a smaller government, but I don't bother support such political causes as it is not worth the cost and the pendulum might as well turn in the opposite direction the next day in this experiment of colliding interests we call democracy. Even if it was the case that basic income may be more efficient and save us some tax money and bureaucracy, I remain skeptical to possible degenerating effects it may have on society. 

 

Most industrial nations make demands before handing out welfare money. In some cases it is easy to fool the system, but it is still obvious to most people that other taxpayers' money will not be given away just like that. With basic income, the money is just magically transferred to your bank account on a regular basis. It will be taken for granted and younger generations will believe that they are entitled to this money for the simple merit of existing and being citizens.

 

In a free society, I think individuals and charity organizations would make demands. Even if it was work of very little value, they would still demand some effort by the recipient to maintain the dignity and respect of both parts. Our current welfare system is often degrading, crippling and involves meeting bureaucrats with varying degrees of friendliness, but there is at least a human component to it. Ironically, communitarianism enforced by government was thought to encourage unity and strong relationships between people, but in practice it results in suspicion, disdain and anti-social behavior. I see BIG as a further leap in that direction.

[Mister Mister]

I think the idea is to structure it more sensibly, replacing the welfare "cliff" with more of a smooth ramp.  It's supposed to be some kind of compromise with Leftists.  The whole thing is naive and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of government and the Left.  Sure, BIG is preferable in many ways to the modern welfare state, just as a small state is preferable to a big state, a defensive military is preferable to a nation-building, world-policing, offensive one, and so on.  But it's complete fantasy to think that we can just make clever, well-reasoned arguments and restructure government more sensibly, despite the massive conflicts of interest with those who benefit from the existing system, from welfare recipients to bureaucrats to politicians.  Also Leftists never accept a compromise in the long-term, they always want more until society collapses.  Just another cul-de-sac to trap people interested in Liberty from doing anything productive.

[ResidingOnEarth]

The BIG sum is this:

(QTY_OF_CITIZENS x BIG_VALUE) + ADMIN_OVERHEADS + FRAUD_OVERHEADS

where BIG_VALUE refers to the total amount each person receives per year.

 

Everyone who has ANNUAL_NET_EARNINGS > BIG_VALUE is either paying at least BIG_VALUE in taxes or they are receiving some combination of: their own tax money, debt money, stolen money or printed money (inflation: which is really tax money).

 

Everyone who has ANNUAL_NET_EARNINGS < BIG_VALUE is receiving some combination of: debt money, stolen money or printed money.

 

• If the system relies on debt money then it is inherently guaranteed to fail at some point in the future.  You obviously can't indefinitely survive if your outgoing money is greater than your incoming money.  You can postpone the inevitable by constantly increasing your tax paying population (plenty of ways to do this), continually borrowing more money or getting other government organisations to cover your deficit (this happens in the EU).  As I said: those things will only postpone the inevitable economic crash.
• If the system is not relying on debt money then it must be relying on tax money (including inflation).  In this instance:
  1. If everyone is earning more than BIG_VALUE then the BIG system produces a net loss for everyone as they still have to pay for the ADMIN_OVERHEADS and the FRAUD_OVERHEADS.
  2. If some people are earning less than the BIG_VALUE then other people are forced to pay for them to live.  In all probability the "honest, poor, deprived, victims who are being exploited" will demand that the "horrid, greedy, wealth-hoarding exploiters" (the most productive in our society) should foot the largest percentage of this overhead.  This will result in the following:
     • It will directly discourage people from being wealthy and productive because the harder you work the more is taken from you.  Better not earn more than TAX_BRACKET_3_CAP or I'll be taking a huge hit.
     • The government organisation will be forcibly taking resources from a group of people in society who are extremely efficient at managing their resources and who are very good at producing valuable goods and services.  They will be redistributing those resources to a group of people in society who are extremely inefficient at managing their resources and who don't produce many valuable goods and services.  I'm not one for arguing for effect, but I still want to point out how obvious it is, that this will have a net negative effect on the prosperity of the people who are ruled by a government implementing this BIG scheme.
     • Nations are not closed systems (the people within them can interact with or move to other nations).  BIG incentivizes the most economically productive people to move to countries (or just transact in them) where there is no BIG scheme so less of their resources are stolen from them.

 

Completely,

 

utterly,

 

obviously,

 

insane.

 

 

There isn't a face palm gif on the internet that truly expresses how I feel about this and the people that support it.

[Koroviev]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/26/dutch-city-utrecht-basic-income-uk-greens

[k.lode]

So--20k per person per year is over $6 billion per year for the U.S. to add to an already massive debt. To support this we'd probably have to sell bonds to massive Wall Street interests. Congress could detach the Fed from the debt by guaranteeing a fixed rate of interest. This would command tons of corporate bond buying for any company with low margins but high valuation/cash flow. It would also allow the Fed to cause a huge recession by jacking up the interest rates, then "wisely" guide us out of it by doing nothing while savings increase and people's spending and risk tolerances increase. Runaway inflation could be avoided if corporate debt holders agreed to forgive huge amounts of that debt--in exchange for political favors most likely. Or I could be way off.

[fezjones]

why not just cut taxes, along with announcing a permanent tax cut?

[Libertus]

why not just cut taxes, along with announcing a permanent tax cut?

 

That's a good question, and in fact, what the BIG supporters are thinking, is this: let's drastically raise some taxes (VAT for example) in order to fund the BIG - when in fact it should be the other way around, why not just cut taxes so you need less of a sum to pay out. They seriously believe that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

[ResidingOnEarth]

why not just cut taxes, along with announcing a permanent tax cut?

 

That's a good question, and in fact, what the BIG supporters are thinking, is this: let's drastically raise some taxes (VAT for example) in order to fund the BIG - when in fact it should be the other way around, why not just cut taxes so you need less of a sum to pay out. They seriously believe that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

 

I think the BIG supporters would say that cutting taxes is inferior to their BIG scheme because simply cutting taxes doesn't guarantee that people with no income (or very little) can afford the basics, eg shelter, food and water.

 

If I have no income, the BIG scheme operators will give me money to buy food.

 

If I have no income, a tax cut will leave me with no money to buy food.

 

<Hypothetical BIG Supporter> If you support implementing a tax cut instead of a tax increase to support BIG, then you are ensuring that poor people will go hungry and thirsty!  What kind of evil person are you?</Hypothetical BIG Supporter>

 

(it felt painful typing that ^)

 

The above point is one reason I don't like arguments for effects.  You can cherry pick the likely-positive outcomes of a given action and use that in a sophistic argument to justify your actions.  If BIG was implemented today, in England, it would have the immediate positive effect of providing every person in England with enough money for food, shelter and water.  Obviously though the effects of stealing vast amounts of money from the economically productive and borrowing money to supplement it will have many more effects than just the positive one I stated.  I made an argument in a post further up that all BIG schemes are ultimately unsustainable.  When a BIG scheme inevitably collapses it will likely leave large numbers of dependent people in its wake without immediate recourse.  Even my argument in my post further up (about BIG causing a collapse) is an argument for effect though.  That argument for effect is not the reason why I don't support BIG schemes.  The reason I don't support BIG is because I adhere to moral principles: the most important of all of them being the NAP.  BIG is a violation of the NAP.

 

To all BIG supporters, I have one simple question to ask them: are you comfortable threatening people with violence in order to coerce them into parting with their property?  If not, you should not support BIG.  If so, then do you think it's OK for other charitable organisations (like Oxfam) to use violence to coerce people into giving up their things, so that they can fund their causes?

[Torero]

I think the BIG supporters would say that cutting taxes is inferior to their BIG scheme because simply cutting taxes doesn't guarantee that people with no income (or very little) can afford the basics, eg shelter, food and water.

 

If I have no income, the BIG scheme operators will give me money to buy food.

 

If I have no income, a tax cut will leave me with no money to buy food.

 

<Hypothetical BIG Supporter> If you support implementing a tax cut instead of a tax increase to support BIG, then you are ensuring that poor people will go hungry and thirsty!  What kind of evil person are you?</Hypothetical BIG Supporter>

 

(it felt painful typing that ^)

 

Sorry for your pain, but I had a good laugh reading it, so thanks.

 

 

 

If BIG was implemented today, in England, it would have the immediate positive effect of providing every person in England with enough money for food, shelter and water.  Obviously though the effects of stealing vast amounts of money from the economically productive and borrowing money to supplement it will have many more effects than just the positive one I stated.

 

Exactly; the effect would be that prices will fluctuate much more. If people work less or not anymore and if this BIG would be implemented the prices of goods and services would go nuts (or bananas, or any other fruit). For just that reason in a global economy (or in the EU-crapitalist* version of it) it would already be impossible if 1 country introduced this BIGS**.

 

Also with open borders it's impossible; when does someone get this BIG? Immediately upon arrival? That will boost the immigration to Europe even more and make the whole system even more impossible to maintain (less people paying into it, more people "profiting" from it).

 

* kudos to Stefan in his recent video on the FED and Welfare: "crony-capitalist, let's call it crapitalist"

** Blatantly Immoral Government Slavery

[Libertus]

I think the BIG supporters would say that cutting taxes is inferior to their BIG scheme because simply cutting taxes doesn't guarantee that people with no income (or very little) can afford the basics, eg shelter, food and water.

 

If I have no income, the BIG scheme operators will give me money to buy food.

 

If I have no income, a tax cut will leave me with no money to buy food.

 

You are correct, that would be their argument. However, that's the false dilemma fallacy, since we can have both, eliminate taxes on food, water and shelter *right now*, regardless of the BIG, and then you would need a smaller amount of BIG because the basic necessities would be much cheaper already. It would also be much easier to implement being a much smaller change of structure and it would help people *right now* in this moment. Then again, I don't see them asking for lower taxes at all, for anything, tbh. They think a higher BIG is better, regardless of rising prices. It really speaks to the economic illiterate majority.

[LovePrevails]

[ResidingOnEarth]

It really speaks to the economic illiterate majority.

 

Not so long ago (maybe 6 years) I was among that majority and I'd probably have latched onto BIG like a mosquito to a neck (I thought a parasitical metaphor was fitting).  My economic, truth-awakening started when I stumbled across some documentaries about the true nature of money creation and the federal reserve.  It's been a long and slow journey since then that has sent me down roads sign-posted "Austria this way!", "Free Market Square", "Number 21, Bitcoin Street" and "Keynesian, Unlit Back Alley... Of Doom".

 

Also: you're right about the false dilemma fallacy.  I deliberately didn't want to think too hard about what a BIG supporter might say.  I figured thinking isn't likely to produce the kind of statement a BIG supporter might produce.  The people that support BIG probably all have these 2 things in common:

1. A lack of understanding of even the most basic rational, economic principles.
2. They must only have superficially examined the BIG solution.  This may be because they don't know how to examine a proposed solution to a given problem.

[Libertus]

Preach it, brother. I have a similar background and in fact supported the idea of a BIG before (6-8 years ago maybe) I developed a basic understanding of economics, i.e. before I had a clue about how the world works.

[Des]

Is it a voluntary community or are they required to auction their property? Those 2 statements are mutually exclusive.

The people in the voluntary community agreed to the rules of the community, in a written contract.

 

You could ask why they would agree to such a contract in the first place, and I would guess: "Because they prefer a simplified and orderly system of charity to underpin the more complex, less orderly system of charity".

[rosencrantz]

There is already a BIG in the US, it's called foodstamps. When you work at Walmart or McDonalds and you don't make enough money you are eligible for foodstamps and other programs. Eliminating all subsidies for workers and putting them into one income would reduce overhead and create an incentive for companies to create better paying jobs above the BIG (to play government's advocate for a second). Mc Jobs are only possible because of state intervention.