When Germany announced a program to attract jobless young adults from Southern Europe, they had no idea how high demand would be. Funding has temporarily run out for travel, training and language learning subsidies.
From Martin Luther King to Erich Fromm, the universal – or unconditional – basic income (UBI) has always had its supporters. The idea is not new. But the economic crisis has brought it back to the forefront “as a solution” to the most pressing issues facing the EU today.
Today, the idea of popular democracy seems more fairytale than fact. It feels more like government of the rich people, by the rich people, for the rich people. But a study of 1,779 policy outcomes over two decades has come to a stark conclusion: it’s official – the collective opinion of ordinary citizens doesn’t matter. […]
In the wake of last week’s job report, there has been a flurry of new debate about what precisely is keeping job creation in the United States so anemic. The pivotal issue is whether the challenges facing the job market are cyclical or structural. The cyclical hypothesis is that we...
Source: Another Angry Voice | Original Post Date: October 13, 2013 - Universal Basic Income (sometimes called Unconditional Basic Income, Citizens Income or just Basic Income) is a proposed economic system in which all adults within the economy receive a guaranteed basic income irrespective of whether they have a job or not. It is a very interesting proposal which finds support …
When I heard BI had bipartisan support, I was suspicious. Why would a racist like Charles Murray support an idea that seeks to take from those who sig...
Khannea Suntzu's insight:
When I heard BI had bipartisan support, I was suspicious. Why would a racist like Charles Murray support an idea that seeks to take from those who sign his paychecks? Well, because he doesn't.
Usually, you'll hear it pitched as a negative income tax. Basically, they want to cut all welfare spending and give it back in the form of a $10,000 tax break. Right off the bat, we might note that this makes the tax system that much more regressive, reducing the relative burden for the rich. Second, it pays for that by cutting essential welfare services such as food stamps and section 8 housing.
If you believe that SNAP and state run mental health services spend too much in administration and that money would be better delivered as cash payments, fine. Go ahead and make that argument. But, don't believe people who say that the only thing to do with that savings is reduce the tax burden of everyone, rich or poor. The net result of that is pretty obvious: less money for poor people.
If we extend this evil-goatee version of BI to it's natural conclusion, it demands we cut all services -- roads, police, public schools -- and return their costs as a tax break. Or, to set that intestinal rendering of a well known philosophy straight, we're just talking about minarchism. Now does the air-quotes support BI gets from libertarian godfather Milton Friedman make a little sense? They don't care about ending poverty -- in the purest distillations of the school, it doesn't matter simply because other people's suffering ain't your fucking problem -- they care about destroying the state for having the audacity to cost them money.
It's an extremely schizophrenic situation, this excitement about BI, where one faction wants to crush poverty with a proposal simple and effective as a sledgehammer, and the other just wants to get the rich a little richer at the expense of the poorest among us. So, when a frothing-the-mouth conservative comes endorsing a socialist idea like basic income, I'm just asking you to keep your eyes open around them, they're the only people I've ever seen who get a thrill out of robbing poor people for sport
The super rich are richer than ever, but we – and likely, they – don’t even know how rich that is. Much of that money is stashed away in quasi-legal offshore tax havens which make it nearly impossible to properly account for. Tax havens are nothing new, of course. The rich have been using them […]
In an interview given after the conference on the “Unconditional Basic Income” (UBI) organised in the European Economic and Social Committee, Phillippe Van Parijs argued that the EU should put in place such a basic income for all of its citizens, to help it escape the crisis, and to show that it is a community that “cares” for all its members.
It seems that the entire argument against Basic Income relies on this statement being true — but all of the empirical evidence that has been gathered on Basic Income since the 1970's shows that people would still work. I would urge you to research the following case studies:
EspañolIn a world enamored with the idea of “social justice,”’ it’s a wonder why things haven’t really gotten better, except in those places where evil capitalism has been put to work. For all of the emotional rhetoric associated with the cause of the poor, the only system that appears to have ever actually brought people …
In the early 1980s the picture started to change for the average American worker. There were still a lot of jobs available, but they started to pay less well. Median household income became decoupled from the other three stats and grew more slowly than they did. By the time of the 2001 recession, median income was lagging behind pretty badly. If we’re going to stick with Gallic labeling, the years between 1982 and 2001 were the vingt troublantes: