This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

http://funding.basicincome2013.eu/

by luckyisgood • 13 years ago

43 95 13 years ago

funding.basicincome2013.eu

luckyisgood2• 13 years ago

The goal has been set at 15,000 EUR and the duration of the campaign at only 14 days. There are still 12 days left in this campaign and the donations keep coming in.

SanderMak2• 13 years ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but if they want to gather signatures - why not add a link to the petition so people can actually sign?

luckyisgood2• 13 years ago

Because you need to be focused on one goal only. This campaign's goal is to reach 15,000 EUR. The target audience for this particular campaign are people who already signed the initiative and who are mostly informed about the Initiative.

SanderMak2• 13 years ago

Hence you post it to HN, who have all obviously signed the initiative? Sorry, but that seems like a missed opportunity.

Spone• 13 years ago

Here is the link: http://sign.basicincome2013.eu

sz4kerto2• 13 years ago

"Unconditional basic income is a new form of total social security for all citizens. It’s an unconditional monthly sum, paid out to by the government to every citizen - rich or poor, old or young, employed or unemployed."

Well, they should have written

"Unconditional basic income is a new form of total social security for all citizens. It’s an unconditional monthly sum, taken from taxpayers and paid out to every citizen - rich or poor, old or young, employed or unemployed. "

jaibot3• 13 years ago

Combined with some progressive taxation this works out to be massively more efficient and helpful than most other forms of welfare. Replace foodstamps/subsidized housing/unemployment-insurance/myriad-of-other-safety-net-programs with a basic guaranteed income and everyone is better off. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income .

KiwiCoder3• 13 years ago

Guaranteed minimum income is based on need, basic income is based on citizenship.

sz4kerto2• 13 years ago

I might agree. However, most people will want basic income as an extra, not as a replacement. I would bet a significant amount on that (i.e. basic income being popular only until poor people figure out what are they going to lose).

The masses don't like taking care of themselves. Not even if they get 'free' money for that.

jiggy20115• 13 years ago

The problem is that not everybody's costs are the same. A disabled person may have much higher living costs due to needing additional care and special equipment to help them, they also have less chance of gaining employment in order to increase that income.

Also consider costs of living/housing etc. For example an unemployed programmer might be better off staying somewhere like SF where costs are higher because they are more likely to get a job there.

The risk would be that you ended up with low cost of living slum areas where the unemployed would congregate , separate from the productive economy.

SEMW2• 13 years ago

Correct link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income. GMI is different.

berrypicker• 13 years ago

For those interested, a good way to implement this was proposed by Milton Friedman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

which indeed works out to be better than government sponsored programs.

Progressive taxation has nothing to do with it though, it's not required at all.

benihana• 13 years ago

Combined with some progressive taxation this works out to be massively more efficient and helpful than most other forms of welfare.

Is this empirically proven somewhere? Or is that what its proponents are saying? Forgive me if I'm a little cynical when someone tells me an idea they support is a much better form of welfare than what we currently have but doesn't back it up with proof.

JackFr6• 13 years ago

Combined with some progressive taxation this works out to be massively more efficient and helpful than most other forms of welfare.

That seems to be a conclusion without any premises, woefully short on data and implicit but imprecise definitions of 'efficient', 'helpful' and 'welfare'.

RivieraKid5• 13 years ago

That's equivalent, everyone knows government gets its money from taxpayers.

anoncowherd5• 13 years ago

That's exactly what he wanted to emphasize.

People think government has some magical, limitless supply of money available to them, when in reality, it's mostly just money that's forcefully confiscated from everyone.

In other words, basic income is a zero-sum game, but not without its consequences. It's alright not to go into printing or loaning money here, both of those lead to ruin too.

How high would tax rates have to be, to collect enough money for basic income? How many businesses would just shut down or get the fuck out, leaving that much fewer businesses in the country to shoulder the burden? That's a feedback loop right there. The remaining businesses would be just that much more likely to get out too, and then the next remaining, and so on.

The idea of basic income is not rooted in reality, but entitlement and the need for "security", no matter how illusory it might be.

a3n• 13 years ago

A healthy and minimally secure citizenry can be a public good just as much as roads and armies, which are also paid by taxes.

I want this.

dragonwriter6• 13 years ago

A healthy and minimally secure citizenry can be a public good just as much as roads and armies, which are also paid by taxes.

As a very narrow and specific (and not necessarily the most important) example of this, in any nation which may rely on conscription and/or mobilization of volunteer citizen militias in time of need, a healthy and minimally secure citizenry is, among other public goods, directly related to military capacity.

weddpros7• 13 years ago

There's a logic problem with Basic Income.

They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI)

But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time.

Instead they should think either : 1- it won't change a thing 2- it won't change a thing (so why do it?)

1- it will help me earn more 2- I will earn less so others can earn more

BI advocates say it is an important change. So they advocate for a tax raise, but they "forget" to say it.

AnthonyMouse9• 13 years ago

Basic income doesn't inherently require taxes to increase, especially if you measure it as taxes paid less government benefits received. You're thinking of things in class warfare terms -- someone else gets more money from the government therefore I get less or pay more. Any program that works on that principle is just redistribution of wealth, or naked corruption.

The benefit of a basic income is that it changes incentives. In the existing system you lose government benefits if you take a job, so if the only job you can get pays low wages you have a significantly reduced incentive to seek employment. Higher unemployment means lower tax revenues, lower economic growth, etc. Fighting that is why a basic income is superior to means tested government assistance.

makomk• 13 years ago

You're assuming that all that matters is the amount someone earns. If people care about more than just their on-paper income, then they can think:

1: it won't change my income now, but will save me from having to jump through ridiculous, demeaning and counter-productive requirements added to the current welfare program in an attempt to punish "undeserving" receipients.

2: it won't change my income now, but will provide a nice safety net in case I become unemployed for any reason.

dragonwriter6• 13 years ago

There's a logic problem with Basic Income.

No, there's not. At least, if there is, its not the one you claim.

They want people to think either: 1- it will help me earn more (because I make less than the BI) 2- it won't change anything for me (because I already make more than the BI)

Who is "they"?

But obviously, these two assertions can't be true at the same time.

They can both be true if the benefits plus (reduced) admin costs from BI come strictly from the benefits plus (higher) admin costs of the welfare programs it is replacing. (There are people who make less, in the short term, in that scheme, but its only some subset of the people who are making money from the admin costs of the replaced programs.)

They can't if you set BI at a level that requires more money than that, or if you do it without replacing any existing programs, but neither of those is inherent in the concept of BI (and the latter, at least, I've never seen proposed.)

transfire2• 13 years ago

The point isn't about money being "taken from taxpayers". They are already doing that regardless!

The point is would you rather have that money fed through an expensive, heavily bureaucratic and often corrupt means-tested welfare system, or would you rather just have it all distributed to everyone equally with nearly zero overhead and no means left for abuse or misuse.

I think the answer is obvious.

ck2• 13 years ago

Nice to see but what is with the mountain climber image which reminds me of someone who would have plenty of free time and cash for such a hobby.

Is the idea to be "upwardly mobile" ? I mean I have to grasp for that idea.

grimtrigger2• 13 years ago

No one likes looking at poor people.

kfk2• 13 years ago

I will never support this idea. This is kind of thinking is extremely nationalistic: I am entitled to free money because I was born in XYZ.

On top of this, this idea has very weak economics fundamentals, there is no prove that growth comes from redistributing wealth. There is plenty of prove growth comes from innovation and innovation comes from people actually working.

We are in denial. The whole Europe is in denial. We don't realize the only way out of this mess is working more and cutting public spending. Instead we propose the exact opposite.

dllthomas3• 13 years ago

"this idea has very weak economics fundamentals"

I'll take Milton Friedman's word on that over yours.

RivieraKid5• 13 years ago

This is kind of thinking is extremely nationalistic: I am entitled to free money because I was born in XYZ.

It's just a technical change in the way we redistribute wealth. Do you think that wealth redistribution is wrong? There are many arguments suggesting that zero wealth redistribution is not the optimum.

there is no prove that growth comes from redistributing wealth

I'm convinced that wealth redistribution leads to higher aggregate utility. Whether it leads to higher nominal growth, I don't know.

Instead we propose the exact opposite.

Basic income would make public spending more effective.

anoncowherd5• 13 years ago

Good to see someone thinking for himself here.

kfk2• 13 years ago

If I were thinking for myself I would support this idea and then go on basic income for life, I can live with very little, so why not?

dclowd9901• 13 years ago

It does seem strange, like we've given up trying to bring people along on the unstoppable train of progress, and are now content with simply funding people to be alive, while those who were lucky enough to be taught drive and determination real the most massive benefits of this world.

True wealth is discipline and knowledge. We should be figuring out how to teach people to reach for their dreams and also figure out how to sustain themselves (and others who share those dreams) through their work. Because truly outstanding things in this world are almost always rewarded.

sharemywin3• 13 years ago

Why is economic growth the goal over exploitation. You say it's nationalistic but why should what family I'm born into give me any more freedom/advantage. Completely changes society. Automation happens alot faster in this scenario. Fast food dispears why would someone wait on another if tehy can survive without being someones servant?

KiwiCoder3• 13 years ago

I'd not heard of the basic income concept until now so my reaction might be naive, but what benefit could possibly justify the collection and redistribution of a fixed amount of cash to everyone, regardless of their situation?

For example, if 1 person in 10 is thirsty, what benefit derives from giving water to all 10 versus the 1 - isn't that simply a wasteful distribution of resources?

Even in the extreme case where a blind distribution of resource would save a life I cannot see it being superior to a distribution based on actual need.

SEMW2• 13 years ago

Distribution based on need (means-testing) seems to scale poorly. You need a system to determine means, which at governmental scales is inevitably bureaucratic, resource-intensive, and prone to cheating.

Point is, it is always possible to take a means-tested system and turn it into a universal system without changing the final distribution.

Take your thirst example. Say nine people have 100 units of water and the tenth has 0. A means-tested welfare system might involve taking 5 units from each of the 9 people and giving it to the tenth, leaving the nine with 95 and the tenth with 45. Now, instead, we increase the 'tax' from 5% to 50%, and give everyone 45 units. The resultant distribution is the same (the nine have 95, the tenth has 45), but this way involves no means-testing.

OK, so the numbers here are a bit unrealistic, but the point is, given any means-tested system you can always make it universal and just make the tax system more progressive to cancel out the benefits paid to the non-needy.

jrkatz• 13 years ago

To construct a trivial example, say we give every citizen $2000 a month in post-tax basic income. Of course, most citizens have jobs and other sources of income. To make math easier, assume this government has a flat income tax of 20% If you earn $0, you are pay $0 in tax and get $2000 in basic income. If you earn $9000, you pay $1800 in taxes and get $2000 in basic income, netting you $200. Basic income washes at $10,000, and after that serves only to defray your tax costs until it is hardly noticeable.

I can't speak to what levels of taxation and basic income might be useful -- these ones have been selected for convenient math -- but that's the general idea of it.

Or, in terms of your water metaphor, if one person in ten is thirsty, we give water to all ten, but we also take from the nine, so they actually see a small loss. The water didn't come from nowhere.

KiwiCoder3• 13 years ago

This is the answer that made most sense to me - I'll attempt to paraphrase;

The net benefit of basic income for an individual tends to zero (percent) as the individual's income rises.

transfire2• 13 years ago

FYI, for the States at least, $2000/mo is too high. It always strikes me... I don't think people who make good money often understand just how poor most people really are. The lower 50% of U.S. tax payers only average around $15,000/yr. If I were to guess, approx. 50% of the poverty level would make a good peg. I also think parent should get additional allowances for no more than two children.

That said, the system has a tendency to balance itself (the marvels of free-market capitalism when allowed to work properly) so no mater how much was granted per month, the system could self-adjust. Unfortunately there are so many entrenched interest gumming up the works these days, I'm not sure anything about the markets are really working "freely" as they should.

Kliment• 13 years ago

Basically, it's super-expensive to check actual need, and by removing the administrative expense related to it you end up getting a much more efficient system. There's also the side effects of making part-time employment easier and speculative/entrepreneurial projects safer. To match your analogy, if it costs 11 units of water to determine who is thirsty, then giving water to all ten costs 10 units, and giving water to just the one costs 12.

JanezStupar4• 13 years ago

In quite a lot of Europe we have social support schemes that are supposed the same net effect.

Except if you are unemployed for more than X. Or if you have more than a minimal wage on your bank account. Or.. Or.. Or..

All these exceptions are meant to cut social support from people who are not entitled to it. While in reality they usually hurt people who have no means to be really productive.

Quite a lot of resources are spent on edge cases, which decreases efficiency and transparency. Thus making these schemes ineffective for what they were designed to do.

I think that basic income is an awesome idea and should be at least tried so we can see if it works out in practice. Especially because we can afford it.

JackFr6• 13 years ago

Especially because we can afford it.

You mean you can afford it. How do you know if I can afford it? By necessity, to implement this, you've got to take money from people and give it to other people.

Your assumption is that by rights any one in the category of those losing money, is making so much that they lack any moral claim to it.

maxerickson• 13 years ago

I think the hope is that it is sort of like digging a well.

kabdib• 13 years ago

People voting themselves bread. I'm sure this will turn out well.

grimtrigger2• 13 years ago

I have no idea how this is going to turn out if it gets passed, but I hope it does. I'd much rather Europe be the guinea pig.

agilebyte• 13 years ago

Are people not allowed to do that? In democratic regimes?

JanezStupar4• 13 years ago

Technology and automatization of production is changing everything, the more we raise productivity the less people can satisfy our needs for products.

Do you propose we just start shooting people who are below the skill level required for sustaining the economy?

I for one would like to avoid living in a Logan's run type of universe. Thank you very much...

w_t_payne2• 13 years ago

With little administrative overhead, this should be a more effective way of stimulating demand than QE.

JackFr6• 13 years ago

Even if I assume your premise, why would you assume that this is a more effective way of stimulating demand? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing its just not obvious to me that one mechanism is better than the other.)

w_t_payne2• 13 years ago

As I understand it, the QE strategy is for the central bank to buy bonds. Bonds become overbought, so investors shift to stocks and shares, lifting the stock market. Investors benefit, as do companies seeking to raise funds through share issues, but uninvested consumers do not. As a result, the stock market goes up, and borrowing costs for companies go down, but the "Real" economy stagnates. Companies can borrow easily to fund expansion, but have no real market to sell into, because the stock market is disconnected from the underlying "main street" economy. Basic income provides another mechanism for Keynesian reflation, but targets the "real" economy rather than the stock market, so stimulates actual demand, rather than pumping up the bubble. Of course, inflation is a massive risk with both of these strategies ... and may happen more directly and more quickly with the basic income strategy rather than with QE ... so on second thoughts ... it might not be too great an idea.

RivieraKid5• 13 years ago

One important advantage of BI would be that it would allow the labor market to be more liberal (especially in Europe, I don't know about the situation in the US). Employees wouldn't need to be protected that much, because they would be less scared of being fired.

achy2• 13 years ago

The problem I envision with a basic income model is that it could have an inflationary effect - shifting the baseline. The only way this doesn't happen is if our basic income economies exploit non basic income economies - and even this wouldn't prevent housing, energy, and (non artificially) scarce items from inflation.

AnthonyMouse9• 13 years ago

Why do you expect inflation? Inflation only occurs if the source of the money comes from creating currency. If it comes from taxation then you're not increasing aggregate demand at all, you're just eliminating the large disincentive to seeking employment created by the discontinuation of government benefits if you succeed.

achy2• 13 years ago

sorry, price inflation. Supply and demand.

stanjourdan• 13 years ago

If you are EU citizen, don't forget to sign the petition: http://sign.basicincome2013.eu

This basic income crowdfunding campaign reached its goal in less than 48 hours

Related Stories