A standard income for all citizens?

Eddie Dane

Philosopher
Eddie Dane
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
6,681
I first heard about this idea when I was a kid in the seventies.

What if the government gives a standard income to all citizens?
People who work get paid a salary on top of the standard, government-provided income.

Apparently the idea is being floated in Switzerland. (there is a petition to have it discussed in parliament)

What would be the effect of such a measure, and is it really so different from giving unemployment benefits to the jobless?

Some say our economic system needs to be revised as there might be less jobs available in the future due to globalisation and automation. Is this the way to go?

I read in Reddit that Norway has such a system. i realise thet Norway is unique in many ways, but still I wonder how it worked out there.

I have no opinion on this idea at this time. I'm interested whet JREF members with a background in economics think of it.
 
How much of an income are we talking about? Is it enough to live on? Does it cover basics? Wouldn't it just be better to provide everyone with free basic preventative medical, pregnancy and dental care?
 
My worry would be that prices would merely rise so the standard income would not provide any kind of lifestyle.
 
The Don said:
My worry would be that prices would merely rise so the standard income would not provide any kind of lifestyle.
Click to expand...


Not if that income led to an increase in productivity. That's why I would support free preventative health care, including free prescriptions of at least certain sorts. The increased wellness of the population would lead to increased time to work (years or decades more for some people). This would offset the cost of the program.

Free residential electric and water would also probably pay for themselves, as that money would go towards discretionary spending or, even better, investment that would boost the economy.


ETA: I'm assuming an economy with room for infinite expansion.
 
Last edited:
We give people SNAP/Food Stamps, because if we gave them cash, some of them wouldn't spend it on food and their children would starve.
We give people Rent Subsidies, because if we gave them cash, some of them wouldn't spend it on rent and their children would be homeless.
We give people Utility Subsidies, because if we gave them cash, some of them wouldn't spend it on their utilities and their children would be out in the cold.
We give people Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP/ObamaInsurance subsidies, because if we gave them cash, some of them wouldn't spend it on medical insurance or medical care and their children would be sick.
We give people Obamaphones, because if we gave them cash, some of them wouldn't spend it on their phone bills and their children would be out of touch.
Ditto for every other subsidy for the so-called poor ... it's all for the chiiiiiiildrens.
 
We do give them cash, actually. EBT cards usually have a cash amount that can be withdrawn from an ATM each month. There have been media reports of cash being withdrawn with EBT cards in odd places.
 
The Don said:
My worry would be that prices would merely rise so the standard income would not provide any kind of lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Yet, presumably it's ok with you that central banks are already doing the same thing, except that the only prices that are rising so far are the prices of exclusive Manhattan condos and other assets traded exclusively among the super-rich.
 
Eddie Dane said:
I first heard about this idea when I was a kid in the seventies.

What if the government gives a standard income to all citizens?
People who work get paid a salary on top of the standard, government-provided income.

Apparently the idea is being floated in Switzerland. (there is a petition to have it discussed in parliament)

What would be the effect of such a measure, and is it really so different from giving unemployment benefits to the jobless?

Some say our economic system needs to be revised as there might be less jobs available in the future due to globalisation and automation. Is this the way to go?

I read in Reddit that Norway has such a system. i realise thet Norway is unique in many ways, but still I wonder how it worked out there.

I have no opinion on this idea at this time. I'm interested whet JREF members with a background in economics think of it.
Click to expand...

Google "social dividend". This concept has been around at least as long as socialism has. I suppose if you're going to put up with the evils of socialism, and having all of the means of production run by bureaucrats, the least they could do is throw the general population a bone by paying them a dividend. Of course, there will be nothing really stopping them from paying themselves more than everyone else.
 
It’s a pretty simple idea that has big implications. You just give everyone free money.

You can still have a merit based economy on top of this however. If someone is getting $1k a month from the government, he can still make more money by getting a job. If he gets the $1k a month regardless, he might be more inclined to take risks and start up a business.

If everyone is getting a minimum income, you can also reduce or eliminate other portions of the safety net like minimum wage, food stamps, social security, etc. If everyone has a livable floor level income regardless, these programs become superfluous.

It’s a potential way out of the declining value of labor trap. The current "work/make money/trade money for food and shelter" system simply will not work once the financial value of of a day's labor drops below the value of a day's worth of food and shelter.
 
Technically, if you're naming them for the guy who was President when they started having them, they should be called Bushphones.
 
Random said:
It’s a pretty simple idea that has big implications. You just give everyone free money.

You can still have a merit based economy on top of this however. If someone is getting $1k a month from the government, he can still make more money by getting a job. If he gets the $1k a month regardless, he might be more inclined to take risks and start up a business.

If everyone is getting a minimum income, you can also reduce or eliminate other portions of the safety net like minimum wage, food stamps, social security, etc. If everyone has a livable floor level income regardless, these programs become superfluous.

It’s a potential way out of the declining value of labor trap. The current "work/make money/trade money for food and shelter" system simply will not work once the financial value of of a day's labor drops below the value of a day's worth of food and shelter.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting idea. However, I think a prerequisite is a very large surplus of production capacity that is not labor-intensive.

The problem is what if too many people decide that it's just too much hassle to work for a living, so why bother?
 
gnome said:
Technically, if you're naming them for the guy who was President when they started having them, they should be called Bushphones.
Click to expand...

Ah, found it:

Free phone distribution in Detroit continues despite federal government shutdown

Correction: This story was updated to report the phone giveaway program was started under President George H. W. Bush. "Obama phones" is a common nickname given to the program, but President Barack Obama did not create and does not run the program.

DETROIT, MI — Beneath a pop-up tent and a banner reading, "Free phone, free talk or text," a steady stream of low-income residents waited for free phones in Detroit Friday.

They show their Bridge or Medicaid cards, ID and receive a free cell phone.

The reason the program is unaffected by the shutdown is that much of its funding comes from the telecommunication companies themselves and it is not administered by a federal agency.

The Lifeline program, as it is named, is administered by the FCC.

"Lifeline gives telecommunications providers a subsidy to offset the cost of phone service for customers with low income," Politico reported in April. "The program ensures everyone has access to emergency services and jobs."

Some call the phones "Obamaphones," but the nickname is misleading since the free phone program began under President George Bush.
Click to expand...

(The original headline, still visible in the URL, said "Obamaphones.") :rolleyes:
 
Eddie Dane said:
I first heard about this idea when I was a kid in the seventies.

What if the government gives a standard income to all citizens?
People who work get paid a salary on top of the standard, government-provided income.

Apparently the idea is being floated in Switzerland. (there is a petition to have it discussed in parliament)

What would be the effect of such a measure, and is it really so different from giving unemployment benefits to the jobless?

Some say our economic system needs to be revised as there might be less jobs available in the future due to globalisation and automation. Is this the way to go?

I read in Reddit that Norway has such a system. i realise thet Norway is unique in many ways, but still I wonder how it worked out there.

I have no opinion on this idea at this time. I'm interested whet JREF members with a background in economics think of it.
Click to expand...

I don't see this being realistic until robots are doing all the **** jobs for us. Can you imagine what the toilets of the world would be like!!
 
NewtonTrino said:
I'd like to see how it turns out. Our current system is overly complex anyway.
Click to expand...

That appears to be win for the alternative.
It greatly simplifies the system of handing out financial help.

It might greatly increase immigration, though.
I think Friedman said: you can have a welfare state or open borders. Pick one.
 
Smackety said:
I don't see this being realistic until robots are doing all the **** jobs for us. Can you imagine what the toilets of the world would be like!!
Click to expand...

I imagine that basic income will not be enough to buy nice things.
Having a small amount of money is OK, until the TV breaks.

So, people might still be motivated to do **** jobs. And employers might have to pay a bit more to those people.
 
It seems like a fairly sensible measure. Classical economists should like it, since it is basically the same as current subsidies and benefits except in a single lump sum, which would normally be considered more efficient. However that assumes that people can most efficiently spend their own money, and with poor people especially I am not convinced of this. Specifically subsidizing those things people really need has its merits. On the other hand, this measure avoids the poverty trap, which is good, and it simplifies matters, which is also good. On the other other hand, if people are stupid and spend all their basic income on alcohol and such, hospitals will still take them in and treat them for free, so effectively the rest of the country would pay for them twice.

On the other other other hand, it could be noted that this measure could be seen as regressive, since rich people would now receive the same funding as poor people, and since money has to come from somewhere, this would effectively make poor people poorer (all things being equal).

It seems an interesting measure and I wonder how it will play out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom