Citizen's Income

[Arta]

Sorry

Well, like I said, I'm still on the fence really. I haven't decided. I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, however:

1) First off, it assumes that most people (> 95%?) will keep working -- this is a very risky assumption.  Regardless of what heuristically pleasing argument you may come up with for why people would still work, what if they didn't?  What if this were implemented and a quarter of the population decided just to be completely lazy?  What then? I don't think the chances of this happening are so negligable that it shouldn't be considered, and if it did happen, a great deal of money would have been wasted in "testing" this.

The proposed amount for the CI is barely enough to scrape a very boring and meagre living. One could not, for example, afford to run a car, go on holiday, or purchase pretty much any luxuries. Think ramen noodles. I concede that some people might work less, but I think that practically no one would stop working all together. For the huge majority, work would still be necessary to meet their financial obligations.

Nonetheless, I suppose the 'what if' argument should still be addressed. I don't really know the answer to that point. We need an economist

Should those earning lower wages ... be giving a considerable amount of their earnings away to people who don't need the money at all?

Well, that depends on your definition of need. I think a a proponent of wealth distribution would say that the benefit of a CI is primarily to society, rather than to the individual. As detailed here, it could solve several very difficult problems.

Similarly, if a woman's husband dies, and she has 12 kids to look after and is also pregnant, should she be given the same allowance as a wealthy retired business owner?  Obviously not, even if the ridiculous stipend would cover her expenses.

Well, the 12 kids would also qualify for a CI (albeit, a smaller one). So, the larger family would get more.

I'm leaning towards the 'bad idea' camp, but I'm still undecided, really. I haven't found anyone to converse who thinks it's a good idea, yet

[Rule]

Sorry

Well, like I said, I'm still on the fence really. I haven't decided. I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, however:

1) First off, it assumes that most people (> 95%?) will keep working -- this is a very risky assumption.  Regardless of what heuristically pleasing argument you may come up with for why people would still work, what if they didn't?  What if this were implemented and a quarter of the population decided just to be completely lazy?  What then? I don't think the chances of this happening are so negligable that it shouldn't be considered, and if it did happen, a great deal of money would have been wasted in "testing" this.

The proposed amount for the CI is barely enough to scrape a very boring and meagre living. One could not, for example, afford to run a car, go on holiday, or purchase pretty much any luxuries. Think ramen noodles. I concede that some people might work less, but I think that practically no one would stop working all together. For the huge majority, work would still be necessary to meet their financial obligations.

Yes, I know all of this.  I agree, most people would probably continue working, but some wouldn't for sure.  And I don' t think either of us are qualified to make a good estimate of how many people would start working or work less; however, if many did stop working, the risk might be too high to give it a try: e.g. think of a game where 10 people invest in $20000, and 1 out of the ten loses it all.  That money is distributed to the remaining 9 people (lets say $10000 is kept for profit from the organizer).  So there is a 90% chance of winning ~$1111 if you play.  So chances are you will win on an individual play, but if you play "an infinite" number of times, your net loss will be ~$10000.  Hence, playing is still a risk.  This is called Rule's game, and it is going to make me rich  .  What was I talking about again?  Oh yes , while the chances of success may be high and playing may look like a good idea the consequences of failure may be dire.

This rambling example flows quite well into my next point: what if people abused the system  ?  Who am I kidding, knowing people, if there's a way to dishonestly coast through life, they'll jump on the opportunity by the masses.

You provide quite an excellent example of how this could be done:
(you fell into my trap )

Well, the 12 kids would also qualify for a CI (albeit, a smaller one). So, the larger family would get more.

Hmm.....  I'm sure if someone had 12 children they could pool their CIs and have quite a comfortable living arrangement.         (1)

In considering examples like this of how the system could be abused, dangers to society beyond laziness emerge --
1) People could become more abusive (in example 1, a parent may be more inclined to let his children live off cat food)
2) In example (1), the entire dynamics of our society could change (there could be population problems, and a disproportionatly large "lower class"?)

Well, that depends on your definition of need. I think a a proponent of wealth distribution would say that the benefit of a CI is primarily to society, rather than to the individual.

Interesting point.  I suppose I don't see how society benefits more from having everyone receiving some allowance (even retired millionaires), than more money going to groups directly in need.


I've only had 2 hours of sleep, which might explain the lovely assortment of emoticons scattered throughout my post.