Topic: Basic income guarantee - opinions&criticism welcome - page 5. (Read 14403 times)

Miln40 is not.

He just explained above that he won't buy shares because it would not allow him to live without working.  So to him it is everything or nothing.

When someone enters the stock market, he usually does NOT intend to become filthy rich by doing so.  Most of the time it just gives some nice complement to other incomes.

No one does...we're talking about scraps from the dinner table.

Of course I don't...stealing is not ethically acceptable to me, but I do know that after exhausting all attempts of bartering, he will either steal it, murder him or starve to death. I can't think of any other alternatives myself, can you or anyone else?

Do you think it's more morally outrageous for a person to starve to death or starve to steal? I'm going to assume we both think starving to murder is the absolute worst one.

It's always fascinated me how some people think they deserve things from other people for doing nothing.

So you're basically talking about food stamps.  Like in war time.  I don't know what to answer.   It's just too odd for me.

I don't know.  I guess you think he should just steal it.  Or ask the government to steal it for him.

That's not the problem its trying to address. Tell me this:

How does a man earn $1 from a wealthy person who wants nothing from him?

Thank you for the well-illustrated example. This indeed proves another problem with the system. Now I know you'll hate to read this because it smells of socialism, but since BIG is supposed to cover amenities, this can be achieved with a system, similar to the coupon one. You have essentially two currencies, with one covering basic amenities (food, shelter) and the other which we all know and love and which can buy vacations, nice cars, coke and women. Then you can be certain that the income from the state would go only towards amenities and what you earn extra goes to the pleasures in life.

So if I invested these 50 EUR, I would get 1 per year. Let's scale that. If I invested 50 EUR today, and don't touch it, I will get 134 EUR in 50 years. If I keep investing 50 EUR every year, after 50 years I'll have 4591 EUR. And in 50 years inflation would have diminished that value significantly. I much prefer giving the money for a cause I believe in.
My point is that to live off a seed capital, you need a significant amount to start with. I'm happy for you that you have that, but many people don't and never will, since they have to pay bills while working on a minimum-wage job. I can have shares, but that's not going to help me if I don't inherit a decent amount of money in the first place. Since I am not lucky enough to have rich parents, I will have to work for my living, which is OK, because I definitely won't make minimum wage with my qualifications. So to summarize, a life in which I can live off interest from my savings is not a possibility, no matter if I give some money to a party or not.

«
- Mr Smith!  Good afternoon!  I'm so glad you could come visit me.  Please sit down and tell me:  how did it go?
- Well, it went fine.  I went to the town hall, I signed a few papers, they took a DNA sample, my fingerprints and a photograph.  Did not take long, and when it was finished I was kind of happy.   That's great, I'm now assured that I will receive 100 bucks every month, no matter what happens.  This new basic income law is really wonderful.  I can't wait to receive my first payment: it will help for our project of holidays with the kids in a few weeks.
- Mr Smith, what if I told you that you do not have to wait?  That you can go on holidays with your kids right now, and with an even better budget that what you were planning?
- What do you mean?
- How old are you Mr Smith?
- 54, why?
- Let me check my computer...  Ok, what if I told you that you can leave this room with precisely 23,134 new bucks on your account?
- Twenty thousand bucks?  You're kidding?
- Not at all.  That's several years of basic income.  And you won't even have to pay us anything, since we'll just transfer automatically the amount every month.  You'll have nothing to worry about, just enjoy your holidays with your kids.  You'll be able to do this several years without spending a penny.
- Yes, but when it run out, I won't receive anything more.
- Well, you do have a job, and it gives you your real income, right?  I'll help you with that:  we'll make some investments and soon enough you'll receive pretty much as much money as if you were still entitled to basic income.  Plus, when your 23,134 bucks do run out, statistically, you'll be dead.   You know Mr Smith, we live in a great time, but humans are still mortals.    I am too and actually statistically I should die before you do.  So you see I don't tell you this to scare you or anything  
- Well, I guess this makes sense.  And twenty thousand bucks is a nice amount of money.
- Isn't it?  So let's do that, shall we?  Here is the document.  Please sign here.
- Ok.  Done.  When is it that we'll talk about those investments to replace my basic income?
- We'll have plenty of time to do that.  Right now my schedule is quite busy.  You see, we now have a lot of cash entries coming from the state.  Next month for instance, we'll receive your first payment and we'll use it with others to buy other basic income from other people.  Mathematically, it's complicated, but it works.  Just do not worry and enjoy your holidays with your kids.  It will be the first of a long series, and the State pays it all!
- That's great indeed.  Thanks so much.  I'm so glad I have such a good banking adviser.
»

That was not my point.  If your system is like today, then people will be able to sell their BIS.  They would basically endebt for life.  They would not care much since it's the State that would repay this debt.  I'm pretty sure bankers will be very happy with your system.

Yeah, great.  Vote like majority, obey or get the fuck out.  Wonderful.

Well, you could have spent those 50 EUR to buy a share and you would have received about 1 EUR a year by doing nothing.  That would have been much more of a actual step towards your project of basic income.


It very much depend on your lifestyle.  Also, I do not only live on dividends.  I have other financial assets.  That's not the issue anyway.

Thing is, the way I see it, share and stock markets are the only thing that could fulfill the function you are promoting.  It is basically designed for that:  allowing people to share the excess of wealth produced by companies.  The only feature that does not fit your concept, is that shares and stocks are not evenly distributed.  So most people can not live on dividends because they just do not own enough shares.  And yet, globally if the wealth is somewhere, it is there.

So what's the way to make this distribution more even?  Do you have to steal to people who have some, in order to give to people who do not have any?   It won't work:  you're a living proof of that.  If you don't have shares, it's not because you can't, it's because you don't want to.  You prefer giving money to political organizations.

Instead of using force and stealing people to give shares to people who do not even want to own shares, you should promote the idea of owning shares.  Eventually, if more people get convinced that it's ok to invest and receive money from doing nothing, the distribution of shares will be more even.

Interesting argument. I can't deny the possibility, but then things are not so different from nowadays, where people apply for a credit and then pay it back almost eternally, relative to their lifespan (30-years to repay your education loans, anyone?) So that's one way the system won't change at all
So, again like today, I guess. Sorry my system is not perfect

You will be completely free to vote against any proposals for tax increase, campaign against them on blogs, and if you still run against a majority, then emigrate. Not so different than nowadays.


LOL, I am the OP, and I've spent 50 EUR to pay my yearly membership fee. That's as much as I can give them.

I didn't mean to morally judge you, just wanted to mention the existence of the argument against stocks. I do understand that the stock market provides a useful service (with the exception of high-frequency traders, them I do hold to be parasites on a system)
 
Still, to live on dividends, you do need a significant capital. What would 10 USD invested in stock bring your yearly as a ROI? A cent? ten, maybe? To survive on dividends you do need a substantial capital. I'm not going to ask you how much yours is, but you do agree with me that it must be at least a 5 digit figure with today's dividend rates. Such a sum would be unachievable for a lower-middle class person, even with hard work.

I think it will always be possible to sell your BIS, even if it's not supported by the state.  I can always sign a contract saying "from now on I swear I'll give all my BIR to XXXX".   It's basically a eternal debt contract, but your proposal makes this idea not so ridiculous.

"Worthwhile" is very relative.  It all depends on your time preference regarding consumption.

Some people might prefer having 100 BIR right now rather than waiting 100 months.  So they might accept to sell their BIS against 100 BIR.

More generally, some people might be more "carpe diem" oriented, so they'll just sell their BIS to people who think they'll live two hundred years (I'm exaggerating).

Private contracts do exist.  And even if courts decided not to defend them, reality would, as screwed people would get angry and would use violence.


Ok, that's one thing.  But can I be exempted from tax then?

You can buy stocks with no more than a few dollars.  That's a start.  Maybe the OP has spent much more in contributions to the pirate party.  Which to me is ironic.

Money makes more money indeed, but your system does not change that.  People could buy BIS, and with the money they get from these BIS, they'd buy even more BIS.


I do not trade.  I receive only dividends indeed.

Some guy indeed at some point had a company grow.  He made it florish and he produced some wealth.  I now own the shares he used to own.   So according to you he's a good guy and I'm a parasit, right?

Well, consider this:  I did not steal those shares from this guy.  I bought them.  So in a sense, I rewarded him for the good work he's been doing.  Without people like me, his job would have had much more difficulty to find a correct price in the market.  I hope you can understand that.

Are you going to tell me that receiving money from doing nothing is fine as long as you don't pay to do that, but if you do it without stealing anyone, by investing wisely, it becomes morally wrong?

States generally make money only through taxation, with the exception of some nationalized industries.
You won't be able to share your BIR. Of course, you will be able to give the money to someone if you want to. Why you'd do that without something worthwhile in exchange is beyond me. I don't see how you'd end up with people getting other people's money outside of criminal coercion, which can be defended by the courts.

I know there's a lot of opposition to the idea of identifying yourself, and personally I can't understand it. Even now you willingly take a nickname on this forums to identify yourself, therefore branding your online persona in some way. Would it be better if we let you choose the code that would be on your eartag? I'm joking, of course, but a public database holding your fingerprints and your name on record is hardly a large breach of privacy. And I guess if you want to opt out, then you should be able to, but no state support would be given then.


Now, stocks and shares are quite an interesting animal. First of all, to buy them, you have to have some capital. Money makes more money. If you don't have the starting capital and your living expenses keep eating up your minimum-wage job earnings, you'll never make it to the stockmarket. And not for lack of trying.
Second, I believe an argument can be made that relying on income from stocks is an unproductive life. You are not helping the community in an way, you are not producing something, your are not providing a service. The only thing you are doing is moving money from one place to another, and making more money in the process. A counter-argument is that you provide starter capital for companies that could better society if given a chance... but do you? Or do you just buy low, sell high with random stocks, or even worse, survive on dividents from the already established companies?
Some things to think about

I'd like to go back to my question about whether or not people could buy or sell this thing.

Let's call Basic Income Share (BIS) one entry in the database.  It's basically the name of one person, some bitcoin address or something, along with some proof that this person does exist and a way to identify him (with biometrics).

Let's give a different name to the amount one person actually receives each month.  Let's call it BIR (Basic Income Right).

Ok so one person "owns" a BIS and that allows him to receive one BIR each month.

Question:  do I have the right to sell my BIS?

I mean, can we allow people to give an order such as:  "I'm the owner of BIS n°XXXXX.  Here is cryptographic proof of this assertion.  From now on, all my BIR will go to the owner of BIS n°YYYYY"  ?

I don't see why it should not be allowed.  If people have the right to own things, they should have the right to give them away (and in particular, to sell them).   Plus, if you forbid this, a black market will probably emerge.

So assuming I do have the right to sell my BIS, I also have the right to buy some.  In effect, it is just as if the State was turned into an anonymous society (not sure of the english term.  Corporation maybe).

Some people would have a lot of BIS, some people would have very few.   So we'll be very far away from your initial project.

Your system would look like capitalism, but it would be much worse.  Because this "big state" would be a giant company whose income does not come from free trade, but taxation.   This should be a nightmare to everyone.

I wish I could just answer you "well, I don't want to be part of this system", but I guess I can't, can I?

I mean, let's assume your basic income system is based on some consumption tax.

Can I be exempted from this tax if I decide not to be included in the national database and not to receive your basic income?

That's not what I meant when I talked about cattle.  This biometrics thing makes me think of cattle tagging.



That's what I meant.  Maybe it's irrational, but yeah, the whole idea stinks.

That's a big "if".  An even worse is "if not".

If your 2% taxation is NOT enough to fund basic income, what will happen?  People will complain and ask for more.  So it will be 3%.

So basically since your "big state" can raise this level as high as it wants, it will always make sure that the rate is high enough to finance your basic income, even if it does not make economic sense.  In other words, even if it will crash the economy.  That does very much look like an elaborate, quantified version of communism.

Basic income is implemented in the current system with shares and stock market.  Why don't you guys just buy shares?  You would get some part of the excess of production you are talking about.

But no, you want your share of the cake, without putting any fucking effort about it, not even spending a penny.  Seriously, this is despicable.

Don't you find this idea a bit repulsing?   Can't you see it basically consist in treating humans as cattle?

Yes, encryption and open system could help, but I don't see the solution.  Until there is a secure implementation, there isn't one yet  

This is indeed related to the bitcoin system.  However, Proof-of-work, or one CPU one income, works because you can prove you did some hashing.  However proving you are a human I have a feeling will be a trickier one and will wind up as a game of whack-a-mole as Gavin would say. 

The idea of a "national database" would of course have to be replaced by something public like a block chain data structure so to avoid regulatory capture phenomenon and the blatant security hole of letting some folks change the database at will.  I have no idea how an "OP_ADD_HUMAN" transaction would be verified.  It might need to wait for some kind of universally trusted AI to come along and welcome us all to the human polity    

IMHO other economic arguments for or against are rendered moot if there is no secure implementation with which to implement the system.   

 

If a country can produce enough resources without taxing anyone - sure, but just to distribute wealth through taxation - no way.

That is of course an interesting problem to solve. It would require keeping a national database with biometric data (actually the EU kind of has one - most of the passports nowadays are biometric). Of course, hackers could pose a problem, but with sufficiently strong encryption and a transparent mechanism open for public auditing, I think it should be ok. Just think the bitcoin system, which is relatively immune to tampering attempts because of its open source structure.