Base Incomes?steemCreated with Sketch.

in #politics7 years ago

A base income is something that’s being discussed and I find really interesting. In a simple way it is far from being a libertarian idea which I know many on this site favor, but when it is broken down, I find it to be something a large portion of the libertarian community can back. Though not strongly and I am open to change, I support a base income (for my home state of Massachusetts but for most places I think this could work) because it provides a safety net to all human beings which they deserve, ensures the right to life and arguably the pursuit of happiness, is non-discriminatory, allows all people to choose what is best for themselves, and works like welfare without discouraging people from working.

Primarily, base incomes come from the idea that everyone deserves the materials necessary for life. Many institutions have attempted to solve this through welfare and through charities that provide the needy with food and shelter. This is good except for two things: everyone has different needs that they know best, and welfare discourages people from having jobs. A base income, unlike welfare, doesn’t care how much you make; you don’t lose it when you get a job.

Base incomes are non-discriminatory. Everyone gets them (provided they are a resident) regardless of any factors which solves the issue of a bias in the welfare system. Additionally base incomes should be paid out to everyone regardless of dependency status. Base incomes shouldn’t be paid out per family, but per person. A family with multiple children receive more because they are supporting more lives. While the income is technically being paid to babies and children, it can be given to their parents until they reach a mature enough level to claim it on their own.

These incomes can be the steps necessary for people struggling to build a better lives and to be a more productive part of society. If every paycheck they earn is not being used to eat, that money can be saved and provide them with a safety net to allow them to strive bigger.

A common opposition is that taxpayers are afraid that the people currently benefitting from government programs wouldn’t use their base income well, and waste it on bad habits (gambling, drugs, etc.). However, people in need are not one-size-fits all. No one knows what each person needs better than themselves. It is not our job as society to intervene in people’s lives and tell them how to live and spend their money. Of course people make bad decisions but that is their own fault. It is societies job to present people with the materials necessary for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If those people waste them, society has no obligation to help. They had a chance and they wasted it.

It may seem like such a program would require an increase in taxes, but it can be paid for by cutting the government programs this income can replace. Yes, most of these programs only help a portion of the population and base income would be paid to everyone. However, as we all know, the government sucks at everything. Whenever the government gets involved in things like education or housing or healthcare, prices for those things skyrocket. Their programs to help the poor would be more efficient and less expensive if done by private businesses.

Base incomes could hopefully remove the need for social security and healthcare programs and even minimum wage. Making poor people less dependent on employers could give them more bargaining power, healthcare prices would drop without government forcing people to buy it, and base income would just replace social security and welfare.

In reality, a base income is somewhat of a centrist idea. It combines a good part of socialism (yes they exist) keeping the poor well fed and safe, with the upsides of libertarianism, giving citizens the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, it seems that neither major party in America would be willing to get behind such and idea because they both love micromanaging citizens lives. However, if someone in government could push this, I think it would be largely beneficial to Massachusetts as well as most other places willing to enact such a thing. Additionally removing minimum wage would hopefully drive industry to prosper in the area because wages would become the proper amount dictated by the free market.

As always, I encourage anyone who either opposes or agrees to share there thoughts on the subject. I still have a lot to learn on this and anything is helpful. Thank you.

  • ə
Sort:  

Are you speaking about Universal Basic Income. If so I have a couple concerns with it.

  1. There is no FREE so, how is it funded. Is it just another socialist program that exists by stealing from citizens or putting them into debt.
  2. Anytime something has been guaranteed by the government it tends to cause prices to go up and go nuts. I suspect a UBI would simply effectively become the new zero, and just like minimum wage they would have to keep increasing it and it'd be a cycle of problems followed by a very short period where people think "wow" until things adjust then the problems continue.

I do think something like a UBI could be done with a blockchain, but I do think as long as the government is calling the shots it would be a negative thing. I wrote a post on optimistic look at the future a couple of months ago where I defined something that "might" work, but I can't guarantee it. As with any experiment it needs to be tried and then make decisions based upon whether it succeeds or fails. This is something governments don't do. They don't tend to learn from failures. They just keep pushing the failures as they are more concerned about their "legacy" and they do not like to relinquish power once they have it.

The Future: An Optimistic Look

I cover more than an UBI in that post, but it is the closest to a UBI you'll ever see me write.

If governments push for it today I am against that. That will just be socialist program controlled by the government and it WILL fail.

Yet, there are ways to do it without a government. :)

If prices prices would go up making the UBI the new zero, which it easily could, is it possible for governments to ensure a social minimum?

The governments are just other people getting to force more people to behave the way those considered "Authority" want them to behave. I don't advocate for the government doing it. They suck at it.

Congratulations @schwa! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of upvotes received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by schwa from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

Do you mind if I use bits of your content in a response post? I'm not sure how IP claims are handled on this lawless site. There's probably a bot for that.