Basic Income Guarantee

[BayCityProgressive]

anyone else support this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

I think the B.I.G. along with single-payer healthcare, universal education, a repeal of taft-hartley, and a large co-operative segment in our economy would be ideal.

[bobbolink]

1. Ah, yes, the idea of our last liberal president....

Nixon.

Imagine.... the guy who was so paranoid he destroyed his presidency actually promoted this, and Dems are too afraid of their own shadows to do what's right on this!

Yes, this would be a good step towards making our nation more human.

[EVDebs]

27. Actually Daniel Patrick Moynihan's originally but Nixon bought into the idea

The Politics of a Guaranteed Income 1973 , the NYTimes review speaks about liberal opposition to this idea

[bobbolink]

36. Thanks for the history. It's been a while. ^_^

Haven't a clue about "the NYTimes review", but I'm not surprised about liberal opposition. Some things never change. Oh well, we'll soon die and get out of everyone's way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. I'd like to see some form of it,

perhaps a below-poverty minimum, to which any earned income would be added. If someone is incapable of earning it could be supplemented with food stamps/unemployment/disability etc. to bring the person above poverty level. If they cannot substantiate disability, inablility to find work, etc., they get no supplement, therefore the merely lazy could not subsist on it but those with genuine needs could.

I have to wonder how much a bureaucratic mess it would be, though.

[pitohui]

5. it is very hard to substantiate disability in some states

i think the whole point of having a guaranteed income, given w.out question, is that in some states it takes many years to be able to collect your disability, even if you have a very severe disability

i have not known people w. schizophrenia that doesn't respond to medication to be able to get their disability checks without an attorney and a several year long's process, this is just anecdotal though and based on the few people i have encountered w. that particular problem in the deep south

i have heard that louisiana is one of the most difficult states for filing a disability claim, indeed, one woman i know of ultimately had to relocate to florida even though her schizophrenia was long-standing, severe, and resistant to medication -- even then if i remember right it took probably another 2 years before she started receiving a check

meanwhile the ex (who she had physically battered over several years before he finally got free of the situation) and other family members had to somehow find a way to get cash to her, can you imagine being in a situation where you had to hide your location and avoid your ex, yet you still had to find a way to get money to her so she didn't die -- that was the rather unfair situation that her ex was placed in

(I realize most schizophrenics are not violent, this was an esp. unfortunate and tragic situation)

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. True enough, disablilty for mental illness can be very tricky,

and i would suggest a very lenient and adaptive standard - interviews with a few close associates and/or family members as well as the client should be sufficient to establish that a person has problems. In the meantime, the BGI and food stamps/allotments would keep the person going. The difference between the poverty minimum and what the supplemental payments would give would be at a level that would not make scamming worthwhile. What I'd be going for would the the person who would attempt to scam the system (and there would certainly be a few of those) when they are provably able to earn the difference between the BGI and above-poverty level income. IOW, if you are going to scam the system because you don't like working, you're going to have to WORK at it, which kind of defeats the purpose - easier to take that minimum wage, 20 hr job to supplement the BIG.

See what I'm saying?

I'm afraid I'm not making myself clear - a certain amount of fraud is certain, as you will find it in any system, and I don't want to penalize those with needs just to get those who are scamming, but fiscal responsibility requires that there be some kind of oversight, some kind of built in protection. But then, maybe I'm just a old fogey who is stuck in outmoded thinking. A completely liveable minimum might just guarantee that everybody only works at what they like, and salaries would have to reflect the true worth of their work: trash collectors making $250,000/yr and pro-football players making $10,000. Could be interesting.

EDIT: And I would collect that minimum and live on that while trying to finish that damned novel I'm writing.

[drm604]

11. Bureaucratic mess.

One of the major points about the BIG is that it greatly reduces the bureaucratic mess. Everyone gets it. No means testing, no case workers, etc. Everyone gets enough to survive. You can be dirt poor or a billionaire and you still get the same check (possibly adjusted for local cost of living).

Of course the billionaire would more than pay it back through taxes on his other wealth. We would still have the current IRS bureaucracy but we would be eliminating the AFDC, Social Security, etc. bureaucracies, along with all of their overhead.

You proposal reintroduces the bureaucratic mess that BIG is meant to avoid.

Everyone gets a living income. No means testing. Very simple with very little bureaucracy.

That said, I've never been completely sold on the idea. Like you I have concerns about the number of people who would sit around not contributing to society. I also wonder if it would be inflationary.

Here's how I think it might play out if everyone had a BIG and health-care. This is of course the ideal scenario, the real world might operate differently.

• People who wanted more than just basic living conditions (a nice house, a broadband connection, premium cable channels, steak instead of hamburger, the ability to travel, etc.) would find jobs.
  
• They would have no difficulty in finding those jobs because there would be plenty of jobs available for a number of reasons.
  
  1. People would have more money to spend therefore businesses would have more customers.
     
  2. Business overhead would be lower as there would be no need for health-care benefits and no (or lower) minimum wage.
     
  3. Many people would take part-time, rather than full-time, jobs in order to pay for a few luxuries while still having more leisure time to enjoy those luxuries. If everyone works, for example, 20 hours a week there would be twice as many jobs available
     
  4. There would be a renaissance in entrepreneurship since people would have a guaranteed income that isn't connected to the success or failure of their business. This would result in many new businesses and thus new jobs.
• The rate of property crime would drop dramatically since it would never be necessary to steal in order to survive. Of course, there would still be people who steal to purchase luxuries but I think it would be less common than it is now.
  The same would be true for things like prostitution and street corner drug sales.
  
• People might actually get to know their neighbors and learn more about the world around them in general.
  
• Energy use, pollution, and environmental degradation in general may go down as people stop commuting 5 days a week. They may also have more free time to notice the natural world around them and to notice what we've been doing to it.
  
• People would have more time for volunteerism and political involvement. Of course, they would also have more time to join hate groups and radical religious sects so it could be a mixed bag.

[The2ndWheel]

18. "Like you I have concerns about the"

"number of people who would sit around not contributing to society"

That's where the bureaucratic mess would come in.

"No means testing"

Then you shouldn't worry too much about what anyone may or may not contribute to society by sitting around.

[drm604]

29. If you have means testing then by definition it's not BIG.

People sitting around wouldn't be doing anything illegal or fraudulent, but I wonder about the mental and physical health implications.

As you can tell I have mixed feelings about this. Maybe some kind of public service could be required for a couple of years after high school or college.

[nebenaube]

30. ahh...

but what about the ones, who would finally have the time to sit around, spend time with their children, care, teach, create art, music, software, study new technologies, read, volunteer and thusly better themselves and society?

[Xithras]

38. The big question is how to pay for it.

Our current tax system would have to be completely chucked.

There are 300,000,000 Americans in the US. At the minumum level of funding typically suggested, about $8,000 per year per person, that works out to $2,400,000,000,000 per year...not counting administration costs. That's $2.4 trillion dollars. By comparison, the entire current US federal budget, deficits and all, adds up to only $2.6 trillion. And that's at only $8000 a year.

How do you fund that? Even funding it with a 100% tax on the rich would deplete them of money in under a decade...leaving us where we started, minus the rich people. It's a simple problem of math...in order to pay every American citizen $8000 a year, you have to collect $8000 per year from someone else. If they're also getting $8000 a year, it's a wash. This would have to be funded through means other than the income tax, and I have serious questions about the effect that $2.5 trillion in new taxes would have on the economy if levied against corporations. Even if you're an anti-corporatist, overtaxing ANYTHING will eventually kill it. While some here on this board would see that as a good thing, it begs two additional questions...where will everyone work when the corporations go bankrupt or move out of the US, and who pays the $2.4 trillion in taxes when the corporations are all dead?

I like the concept, but I can't figure out how to make it work without seriously screwing up the US economy (even worse than it is today).

[Sapphire Blue]

3. It would seem to be in compliance w/Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Edited to add: YES, I support it wholeheartedly!

[bobbolink]

15. You are a walking encyclopedia of poverty info!

I guess I didn't even know about this--at least I don't remember seeing it before.

This is great, and something I'm going to file away.

Thanks! :hug:

[midnight]

40. I love this. Why isn't this given the same consideration as all

the respect,tax breaks, and nuturing that Halliburton, Enron, and other corporations enjoy?

[pitohui]

4. yes i support this

my experience has taught me that people who don't and can't work either have serious health problems or else they have experienced so many roadblocks due to class, sex, age, and race that they are never going to be hired in any real job that offers health benefits

"lazy" people, on close inspection, invariably turn out to have several health problems, often substance abuse but also major depression and chronic fatigue

i know a woman of color about my age with a master's degree in a technical field who told me that she had to be fired from over 100 jobs (almost all worked fewer than 1 day) before she could receive her disability checks -- and her disability was a form of schizophrenia that involves severe delusions -- forcing this woman to work wasn't just impractical for her, but it was completely disruptive of the productivity of the workplace -- she didn't ask to have delusions -- she should not have had to spend years documenting what she needed to put food on the table

social security/disability is fine as far as it goes, but too often a person has to spend years begging for it, and so people who cannot get organized at all because of their disability (think brain injury, major depression, drug abuse, PTSD, etc.) often fall through the cracks and end up never receiving the money they need for a decent existence

a basic income, given without question, would help

the only issue is that of drugs/substance abuse -- i suspect the reason many people oppose GMI (guaranteed minimum income) is they figure the money will too often wind up in drug dealer's pockets -- that is a problem -- i do not know what to propose to handle that -- i'm so upset about the damn drug dealers destroying our society that i'm about ready to say we should execute them all like singapore but i realize that isn't a decent or realistic or fair solution either

certainly everyone who does not have an addiction should be given a basic income, we should not have people forced to beg in this country for food, medicine, and shelter

[SanCristobal]

6. There is a simple solution to that problem: legalize drug use.

Legalized drug use would eliminate the criminal element of the drug trade. No one would buy from a sleazy street pusher who might rob them when they could buy from their local WalMart. Even better, they could head to a local reservation and get drugs without paying the state drug tax. It's time to start making the drug trade work for America, instead of against it.

http://leap.cc

This organization has a lot of good legalization information and arguments. Seeing a LEAP presentation completely changed my mind on the issue of drug prohibition in America.

[BayCityProgressive]

7. My take

is that most people who do drugs do them becaus ethey don't have access to good education, healthcare, or make enough money to live a respectful life. i realize there are people who don't fit this mold but I think the BIG would go a long way to helping end drug use. I also think this would be a victory for small government. You wouldn't need a social security department, unemployment department, welfare departments, food stamps ect ect because ti would all be provided for in the BIG. If someone is found on drug charges I would say pay their groceries and housing directly so that the money isn't spent on drugs.

[pitohui]

10. you both have good ideas

it does seem even this issue could be dealt with if top minds put their heads together

[bobbolink]

16. Yes, all poverty is due to drugs.

:crazy:

[SanCristobal]

19. I wasn't talking about povety, I was talking about the criminal element of the drug trade.

Not really on topic, but it got brought up.

[pitohui]

21. i feel it is on topic

i brought it up because in my personal encounters w. people discussing this issue, and i have supported the dole every since it was proposed by nixon in the way back, the first objection i hear is invariably people complaining that the money would just go to drugs and drug dealers

it's a valid objection and a difficult question because the problem of drug addiction is so severe and entrenched in our society

i think it's a problem that can be solved, as you say legalization might be one way to at least get the costs down, as another poster says providing the food/shelter w.out putting money in the hands of those documented to be active in their addiction might be another way

but it isn't an off topic question, it is very much the reason you hear from americans again and again why we can't have a dole and countries like australia can, that and the assumption (which may well be wrong) that americans have a much higher rate of drug addiction than citizens of europe and australia

i would like to see a basic safety net available to everyone and what i'm hearing from people who object to this safety net is that the reason is to avoid putting even more $$$ in the drug dealer's pockets

i think it's a fear that would need to be addressed if we were ever to get serious about providing some small basic guaranteed income to all

[bobbolink]

37. Orrrrrrrr, you could counter their CRAP about drugs and poverty.

[bobbolink]

35. yup, it's what happens to poverty topics.

Interesting that gay topics never "drift" that way.

Or save the animal topics.

or...on and on ....

:(

[BayCityProgressive]

8. I'll take a look at it

My big issue with drugs is not an adult hurting themselves..but what it does to their children and innocent people.

[BayCityProgressive]

12. The revolutionary thing about

this is that it would free the average worker. This could really be an essential part of the New Left. For the last few hundred years of capitalism, the worker (producer) has been at the will and foot of the capitalist (owner of the means of production). The capitalist gets to choose working conditions, number of jobs, ect ect...with a BIG workers could take their time and pick a job they excell at or a job where the employer gives decent working conditions. Capitalists wouldn't have as much power driving down wages by eliminating jobs and making people comete for table scraps because basic need swould already be met. It would give you the benefit of socialism (allowing workers to have a say in their economic & political life) while keeping useful market mechanisms in place.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

13. What about those of us who fell out of the middle class?

Lots of people I know have excellent educations, no arrests or convictions, no substance abuse problems, college degrees, including master's or doctorate degrees, and CANNOT find work. WE CANNOT even get an interview, let alone get a job.

I looked for a job in my field which supposedly can't be outsourced (LAW) and got ONE interview in over a year of looking. And I have a doctorate.

I suspect age discrimination (big huge sin to get old, over 40, in this society) and glut of lawyers.

[BayCityProgressive]

14. all the more

reason for BIG single-payer and universal ed. i know many in your position. have degrees and cant get jobs.

[pitohui]

22. this is ageism, it's real, and all the more reason for a dole

this is one of the most powerful arguments for a guaranteed annual income, i know too many people who are educated, who don't use drugs, who don't have arrests/convictions, but who are quite simply from a poorer class or were single moms or for whatever reason by the time they finished their education they were simply perceived to be "too old" to be eligible to be hired for any job offering health insurance

if you don't have $$$ in the family to start with, it just takes so much longer to get the advanced education needed to be hired in today's "good" jobs -- and god help you if you've got to balance raising a child on top of trying to get the education AND put some ramen on the table -- so the poorer you are and the more challenges you have, the later a start you get, you're screwed from the very beginning at any chance of having a long career

it's a sin to be over 40 because you've entered the hysterectomy years if you're a woman and if you're a man you've already entered the possible cardiovascular disease years so whatever you are, you're a risk they don't care to take

it stinks!

I think universal health care, not tied to a job, would help with some of this, but prejudice against the old is always going to exist in a youth/beauty obsessed society and we should not be asked to throw up our hands and rob banks for a living between the ages of 40 and when we're finally eligible for social security/medicare

[The2ndWheel]

17. Just what we need

More complicated large scale solutions to problems caused by complicated large scale solutions to problems.

Then when this idea no longer works, we'll have to come up with something even bigger, and even more complex. All that of course means that fewer people will have any control over it, since to just get such a project going, you can't have too many idiots offering up their ideas(too many cooks in the kitchen). So then we lose even more of our individual identity to corporations and states. Obviously more control will be required over our lives as well.

I'm not saying the current set up we have is any better. But as long as we want to have even bigger and more complex problems as we go, this is a good idea.

[pitohui]

20. er, what are you talking about? do you even know?

there is no way that a basic dole available to all is complicated, esp. compared to the current system where people under medicare age may have to go years in litigation with help of a specialized social security disability lawyer, meanwhile being homeless or destroying their elderly parents or other family members financially, before they can receive any disability

single men as a rule can never get "welfare" in this country, this is why we have thrown away so many veterans and encounter them every day begging on our city streets but in my posts upthread i gave two examples of single women in the same situation, where it took years for them to be able to receive any income, even tho it was impossible for them to work

there is nothing complicated about a flat basic guaranteed annual income compared to what we have now, which is a bureaucracy designed to give most of the welfare $$$ to social workers from the look of it, too little of it ever gets to the people in need

believe me, no one thinks hey i'll pretend to be a schizophrenic for 20 freakin years because it sure beats workin for a livin

i hope i read your post wrong and in case i did i apologize in advance, to me it's a little vague

[The2ndWheel]

23. It may start out basic

But as it grows, it will get more complicated. We can't stop it from growing either, since that would require more complication.

Just think of a human being, or what we know as America, or a star in the sky; they start out basic, as they grow they become more and more complicated, and then they eventually die.

People in need need the fixing of the system, even if it's just short term. But just like most of everything else we do, we're pushing the problem into the future, which will have to be dealt with. If we can keep this up, just making everything bigger every time, that'll be great. However, if we still live in a world of limits, then it won't be as easy.

[pitohui]

24. so we should just give up and die

that's defeatist on the face of it, we're in hell now, what do we have to lose by trying?

[The2ndWheel]

26. I didn't say that

What I'm saying is that we never solve anything, we just push the problems off into the future. Or we'll solve something that was never an actual problem(as an example, the ability for humans to fly), which then create new problems(a couple hundred people now being able to fall to their death from a couple miles in the air).

True, we can fly great distances as in addition to that. But it didn't really solve anything.

But anyway, until we cure death, we're going to die at some point. I'm not saying don't try it. I wouldn't want the power to be able to implement or not implement such a project. All I'm saying is that at some point we'll have even bigger and more complex problems to deal with(until we reach some perfect state where we no longer have to worry about anything). If we can continue to push the problems into the future for as long as we can dream, then that'll be great for everyone. If on the other hand, we happen to stumble and must deal with the problems that we made bigger and more complex, that's going to suck for everyone.

[geardaddy]

25. I think it's potentially a great idea, but I have some questions

How does it get implemented? What constitutes "living wage"? How much does each person get? Would families get more than single people?

[Xithras]

28. This has nothing to do with living wages. It's $8k a year.

The idea of a GMI is simply to guarantee everyone the bare minimum required to purchase food and a dirt cheap roof over their heads. No telephones, no tv's, no cars, etc. It's a last ditch buffer against homelessness. As the linked article says, the commonly proposed amount is 20% of the per capita GDP. Since the per capita GDP in the United States is about $40,000, that would result in a GMI of about $8,000 per year, per person. Certainly not enough to let anyone quit their jobs and live the bohemian lifestyle, but enough to seriously assist someone who is facing homelessness and destitution.

[Ian_rd]

32. Yes - if it existed, it needs to be kept low.

And with a strong living wage, the benefits of working would be great enough to keep able people from choosing to live off of B.I.G.

[geardaddy]

33. Thanks for clarifying this. n/t

[Ian_rd]

31. The more I think about it, the more I support it

Since it would be paid to everyone at all times, it would eliminate the need (and costs to maintain the massive bureaucracy for) unemployment benefits, welfare, and social security. But there is still the aspect that working people would be paying for non-workers' bills, including the people who don't ever want to work. But if EVERYONE is getting it, then it wouldn't be such a big deal. That's how the very socialist system social security has survived, because everyone gets it - not just people in need. When Bush proposed "fixing" social security by making it available only to those who need it, it was nothing more than a calculated effort (oblivious to him of course) to take the first step to killing it completely, as after such a change would be made people would start attacking the lazy "social security queens" as Paul Krugman predicted.

But then you get into the details. Would a single person with no kids get the same B.I.G. as a single mom with 10 kids? And two of them have diseases? And would someone who worked all their life find their retirement-age B.I.G. to be no greater than a person who NEVER worked? Is that fair? Doesn't seem like it. And so on and so forth.

[Lasher]

34. Great way to torpedo the Democratic party

I do believe this train wreck is the worst proposal I have ever seen set forth at DU.

Edit: Changed 'clusterfuck' to 'train wreck' because as a show of respect for those who are offended by such foul language. Sorry, I'm trying to do better in this respect.

[OneBlueSky]

39. well, in a culture that values entertainers so much more than teachers . . .

social workers, and others who actually contribute to the betterment of society, I certainly wouldn't oppose some kind of system that results in a downward redistribution of wealth . . . when 16-year-old skateboarders are making millions while teachers have to fight for cost of living increases, there's something very wrong with how we value what people do and how they are compensated . . .