Basic Income & Soylent


#61

[quote=“Dias, post:59, topic:27058, full:true”]
I doubt it would be many. Very few people commit crimes out of necessity.
[/quote]" persons living in poor
households at or below the Federal Poverty Level
(FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the
rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income
households (16.9 per 1,000)"

A few other sources give me about 40 people in every 1000 would not commit crimes if they had money.
Given you can give 3 people UBI instead of putting 1 in jail.
= 12% of UBI would be paid for by reduced crime rate. Not including the benefits to the victims, so i’ll call it 15%

Poor people also have more diabetes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/

16% for poor, 8% for rich, and a cost of $8,000 a year per person.
= 5% of UBI. Though i’m sure there are a host of other medical problems with being poor as well, so i’ll call it 10%.

There’s a host of other costs that would be reduced with UBI as well, like administrative overhead (you can fire all the welfare workers), reduced police force (less crime, less police), less bankruptcy, ect.

Overall I would say UBI pays for about 50% of itself with direct cost reductions elsewhere. The rest is just going to have to be increased taxes on the rich.


#62

This is all also stuff that would be solved by a non-universal basic income that would also have less initial costs. That comes with its own host of problems but could be feasible.


#63

[quote=“GenesisFoodSolutions, post:62, topic:27058, full:true”]This is all also stuff that would be solved by a non-universal basic income that would also have less initial costs. That comes with its own host of problems but could be feasible.[/quote]You mean food stamps, housing assistance, and the like?

Yea, those also reduce many of a lot of the same issues, but they come with overhead. You’re paying people to watch other people.

People know their situation better than the government could, and can make better decisions on how to spend that money for themselves. Many people used UBI to buy cows and chickens, which is more efficient that buying eggs, or to get transportation, which let them get a job, or buy a sewing machine to repair close and not buy new ones, or numerous other things that the government wouldn’t be able to track.

Sure, there will be a few people who can’t handle money themselves, but we don’t have a government agency watching how actors spend their money just because a few do drugs. We just send those few to rehab centers.


#64

No no, not like those, I meant a basic income (of cash) but not universal purely in the sense it isn’t given to those who have above a certain income already, e.g. topping up every citizens income to $10000, with the poorest being given the most cash (e.g. $0 —> $10000), with those less badly off receiving some but not as much (e.g. $7000 —> $10000), and those already earning say $100000 not receiving anything.

The cutoff point of $10000 is just an example, and this obviously has issues as those already earning just above whatever cutoff you choose will feel hard done by, but in theory this should be cheaper than a universal basic income of the same amount.


#65

[quote=“GenesisFoodSolutions, post:64, topic:27058”]No no, not like those, I meant a basic income (of cash) but not universal purely in the sense it isn’t given to those who have above a certain income already.[/quote]Ah, yea. 50% of the money is going to have to be paid for by rich people one way or another.

Though, weather it’s more efficient to tax rich, and give them a check back, or just implement a negative income tax is hard to say. Or maybe something done at the business level, like a robot tax. Though I think there’s something to be said for knowing you will receive money each month or even daily, rather than one lump sum each year. Maybe a mixture would be best, but then that could add overhead…

You do want to avoid any sudden cliffs though, where if you make $9,999 you qualify, but $10,000 and you suddenly don’t.


#66

Yeah, I think monthly is better than daily, simply because having more money available to spend on a shop allows you to get stuff for better value by buying in larger sizes. Weekly may work too for that.

Yeah, you don’t want to completely screw people over for getting a particular wage, which is why I thought pushing everyone’s income up to a fixed point could do the job (as opposed to everyone under a certain income getting a certain amount, and no one above that amount getting any). The problem then is it kind of incentivises employers to pay their employees a low amount as it’ll just get topped up by the basic income.


#67

[quote=“GenesisFoodSolutions, post:66, topic:27058”]
Yeah, I think monthly is better than daily, simply because having more money available to spend on a shop allows you to get stuff for better value by buying in larger sizes. Weekly may work too for that.[/quote]I do agree the bigger amounts will promote bigger and longer term investments. Like someone buying solar panels. Tricking cash in and it tends to trickle out small short term things, like a nice meal.

The issue with yearly is what happens if you have a sudden income shock. Like if you suddenly lose your job, or get into an accident, and have no savings, you’re in trouble. Knowing you have at least at least a little bit coming can help. As is, people need to borrow money, which just makes their situation worse. But perhaps there can be a different option for that.

It’s a tough choice.


#68

Yeah I know what you mean, it is really tricky. Maybe once every 2-3 months could be ideal, but it’s something that would have to be worked out by people more knowledgable of economics than I am.


#69

[quote=“inquirerer, post:60, topic:27058”]
What is the reason that poor people commit more crime then?

I was assuming the most likely explanation was financial circumstances.
[/quote]Again, does A cause B or does B cause A?
Maybe poor impulse-control or sheer stupidity is the reason behind committing more crimes & also explains poor spending/saving habits.

So they were the victim more often than the rich? That doesn’t contradict what I’ve said.


#70

[quote=“Dias, post:69, topic:27058”]Maybe poor impulse-control or sheer stupidity is the reason behind committing more crimes & also explains poor spending/saving habits.[/quote]It’s goes both ways in a negative feed back loop. You can’t plan for tomorrow if you don’t survive today, and you stay poor because you don’t plan for tomorrow.

Fortunately, all evidence shows self control can be taught.

Same for stupidity, lead in the water supply or from old paint dust is well known to cause stupidity, as does lack of proper nutrition. Though unfortunately, brain damage is permanent.


#71

On the subject of crime and poverty, I think it doesn’t really matter what the primary cause of crime is. What matters is that some crimes are committed because of poverty. Even if only, say, 5% of crimes are committed out of poverty – a 5% reduction in crime nationwide is huge.

Edit: These guys (published in “Drug and Alcohol Dependance”) claim crime causes about $15b in damages to victims in the US and $179b in gov. spending (prisons, etc) annually. 5% of that is nearly $10b, so the crime argument looks pretty promising :slight_smile:


#72

That’s assuming that even 5% of crime is caused by poverty, but even if it were true, basic income on that scale would cost significantly more. You’d be taking money from innocent people to fend-off theft without any scientific proof that it’d actually work. The idea is offensively dumb.


#73

In that case I guess it comes down to a matter of values. Whether the redistribution of wealth from the rich is justified by the benefit to the poor. It sounds like you see the redistribution almost as theft itself (that’s valid, i’m not knocking that, you’ve got a point).

In my view, taxing the rich has a small negative impact on quality of life for a small number of people. Comparatively, giving to the poor has a very large positive impact on a large number of people. That’s why i’m more in favor of taxation than most.

The crime thing was just a matter of whether we’d save money from the reduced crime resulting from UBI. You’re right that it might not be much, and it’s possible that UBI might not reduce crime at all. But it could have a large impact, and that’s worth factoring in.


#74

[quote=“codemaker, post:73, topic:27058”]Whether the redistribution of wealth from the rich is justified by the benefit to the poor.[/quote]That never works. You try to take from the rich, they’ll simply use the resources they have to find every way they can to legally & illegally avoid paying, or they will just fly to a different country. It never results in taking from the rich & giving to the poor. It’s just taking from the middle class & giving to the poor, making them both poor, while the rich remain relatively untouched.

Liberals try to use government to solve everyone’s problems, but they don’t understand that’s not what the government is designed to do, so it can’t.


#75

[quote=“Dias, post:74, topic:27058”]Liberals try to use government to solve everyone’s problems, but they don’t understand that’s not what the government is designed to do, so it can’t.[/quote]Then what’s your solution?

I hear a lot of complaints about the shortcomings of liberal plans, but I have yet to see a better alternative.


#76

That all depends on what exactly you think is wrong & what it is that needs to be fixed.


#77

[quote=“Dias, post:76, topic:27058, full:true”]That all depends on what exactly you think is wrong & what it is that needs to be fixed.[/quote]Too many people in jail, wasting both their time and my money.
Too much money wasted on preventable health care, wasting both their time and my money.
Not enough education to empower the future.
Lack of freedom due to lack of money. A lot of people have no choice but to take the job that’s offered, at the price that’s offered. They lack the resources to compete.


#78

I know the idea of just giving away free money so people don’t need to work for a living sounds great, but you have to operate under the assumption that people are absolute bastards & the few that game the system will end up ruining it for the good people.

[quote=“mellored, post:77, topic:27058”]Too many people in jail, wasting both their time and my money.[/quote]Agreed, but giving people money won’t reduce crime. The only real solution is to make law enforcement unprofitable & eliminate victimless crimes. I liked the idea of making criminals do some kind of community service instead of sitting around a cell, but that would simply replace making a profit with making people into slaves.

When cars were new there were no traffic lights. As roads got bigger, more complex & cars could go faster, they became necessary. There needed to be a way to tell people when to stop & when to go to prevent crashes. Then laws were created to make money off of it, prioritizing profitability over common sense. Now the system is more automated, but has gotten more expensive to maintain. In my county, you can be completely alone at an intersection with total visibility in every direction, but if you turn right while the light is still red, you’ll end up with a $180 ticket. Speaking as a relative of a county worker who worked on installing the red light cameras, they do deliberately shorten the length of the yellow light once installed, simply to trick people into blowing a red light.

[quote=“mellored, post:77, topic:27058”]Too much money wasted on preventable health care, wasting both their time and my money.[/quote]Free market in healthcare seems to be the only real solution. Reintroduce competition into business & basic health insurance would probably drop to around what car insurance costs, depending where you live. Hospitals would also be cheaper because they’re in bed with the insurance companies & the only reason hospital bills can get so comically high is to punish people for not having insurance & scare others into getting it despite the excessive cost.

[quote=“mellored, post:77, topic:27058”]Not enough education to empower the future.[/quote]Quality, not quantity.
Our educational system is largely an over-glorified daycare until highschool & many college degrees are worthless, yet kids go into colleges thinking that if they got a dipoma, they’re basically qualified for a job, when a women’s studies degree might get them a job teaching a women’s studies class. Schooling needs to take better advantage of technology, not having it’s price be reduced to the point where it’s essentially another level of mandatory education.

Last year I took a summer class for the hell of it after having been out of college for years & it was like pulling teeth. I could have learned everything that was taught in that semester in a week if I didn’t have to listen to a professor struggle to get the barely-awake class to participate at 8am. At least I didn’t waste my money on a textbook.

[quote=“mellored, post:77, topic:27058”]Lack of freedom due to lack of money. A lot of people have no choice but to take the job that’s offered, at the price that’s offered. They lack the resources to compete.[/quote]This, I’ll agree is an issue. People would have more money if we weren’t taxed so much. Companies would pay more if there wasn’t mountains of licenses, fees & regulations that make operating expensive. If it was simpler & easier for people to start a company without a bunch of red tape, there’d be more competitive prices.

I think it’s also important that people stop thinking in terms of employer-employee relationships. There’s only a customer-salesman relationship, the hand money goes from to the hand it goes into. If your customer(boss) doesn’t think they’re getting their money’s worth they’ll “shop” somewhere else.


#79

Everyone just wants free handouts… pathetic.

I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!


#80

While I completely disagree with everything you just said, I have to admit you are a very convincing writer. If I was completely ignorant of politics I would have been talked into believing each of these points.