CNN cuts the foreplay, goes straight to calling for communism

[Balog]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/wheeler-minimum-income/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

It's a wonder that so many people can be so theoretically smart, but so very dumb at the same time.

[brimic]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/wheeler-minimum-income/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

It's a wonder that so many people can be so theoretically smart, but so very dumb at the same time.

The problem is that they think they are smart and don't understand the fundamental underpinning of all economics- unlimited needs competing for limited resources.

[Scout26]

That is the most stupid and ignorant piece of twaddle I ever read. 

(Ahhh, journalism professor, meaning he's too stupid to even be a journalist.)

[makattak]

I will need to defend this idea, because, as stupid as an idea as it is, if offered as an alternative to our current safety net, it may be cheaper and better.

The key is to completely do away with all unemployment, disability, food stamps, and every other form of welfare.

Just simply send a check to every man and woman (maybe child) in the country some amount a month.

This could be a better system because:

1) It does not discourage work. If you currently get welfare benefits, when you start to work, you make no or minimal gains over your previous position on welfare, creating a massive disincentive to work. (Why work to make $300 a week when I can do nothing and get $250?)

2) It cuts the bureaucracy. Rather than all the different agencies administering these programs, all you need is one that sends out monthly checks. You will still have to deal with fraud, but you don't have 20 different agencies that are being defrauded.

3) Although fraud would exist, the opportunities would be decreased. You can create fake people, but that currently exists with many of the agencies. Under the new system of monthly checks, no longer are "disabled" people carrying couches up to their house, people on food stamps driving around in new Cadillacs, etc... Everyone gets the same amount.



Now, of course, these are the case ONLY if we did away with the current welfare system. Which is why it would never happen because:

1) It does not discourage work. If the government gives the money out no matter what you do, people are more likely to work and start wondering why the government is taking so much of their money.

2) It cuts the bureaucracy. Rather than all the different agencies administering these programs, all you need is on that sends out monthly checks. The Federal employees will scream about their gravy train disappearing.

3) Although fraud would exist, the opportunities would be decreased. How can a government dole out special favors if everyone gets the same check?




So, YES, this is a bad idea. It may be better than what we have now. (Which is why, as the article notes, even Milton Friedman gave grudging support to the idea.)

Also note, the author of this piece mentions none of these.

[Balog]

What Milton Friedman supported is nothing like what the article proposes. You ignore the effects of inflation, as well as the question of where the money will come from (welfare is waht, $668 billion or so? This would be $3.6 Trillion.)

And at the end of the day, welfare is a societal issue. People who currently blow their welfare money on smokes and scratcher tickets would still do so. If we (societal we here) aren't willing to let them zomg die in the streets under the current welfare state, why would we be willing to do that when the form of welfare changes?

[brimic]

What Milton Friedman supported is nothing like what the article proposes. You ignore the effects of inflation, as well as the question of where the money will come from (welfare is waht, $668 billion or so? This would be $3.6 Trillion.)

And at the end of the day, welfare is a societal issue. People who currently blow their welfare money on smokes and scratcher tickets would still do so. If we (societal we here) aren't willing to let them zomg die in the streets under the current welfare state, why would we be willing to do that when the form of welfare changes?

They'll idex the payouts to inflation- hyperinflationary hilliarity will ensue.  

The problem with liberal programs is that they aren't actual plans, they're all extensions of the underpants gnome meme:
Step 1: Steal underpants
Step 2: ??
Step 3: Profit.

[makattak]

What Milton Friedman supported is nothing like what the article proposes. You ignore the effects of inflation, as well as the question of where the money will come from (welfare is waht, $668 billion or so? This would be $3.6 Trillion.)

And at the end of the day, welfare is a societal issue. People who currently blow their welfare money on smokes and scratcher tickets would still do so. If we (societal we here) aren't willing to let them zomg die in the streets under the current welfare state, why would we be willing to do that when the form of welfare changes?

Milton Friedman did support a minimum income, as an alternative to our current system. I laid out the reasoning that led to his support.

Where are you getting the $3.6T number? I don't find it anywhere in the article. Further, it replaces more than just welfare.

Lastly,

And at the end of the day, welfare is a societal issue. People who currently blow their welfare money on smokes and scratcher tickets would still do so. If we (societal we here) aren't willing to let them zomg die in the streets under the current welfare state, why would we be willing to do that when the form of welfare changes?

That's my point about there is no way this would ever be accepted to replace the current welfare system.

It's like the national sales tax. I'd support it if it also repealed the 16th amendment. Since that's never happening, I don't support a national sales tax. I also don't support this for the same reason.

[Balog]

Milton Friedman did support a minimum income, as an alternative to our current system. I laid out the reasoning that led to his support.

Where are you getting the $3.6T number? I don't find it anywhere in the article. Further, it replaces more than just welfare.

Lastly,
That's my point about there is no way this would ever be accepted to replace the current welfare system.

It's like the national sales tax. I'd support it if it also repealed the 16th amendment. Since that's never happening, I don't support a national sales tax. I also don't support this for the same reason.

1. What Friedman supported is materially different than the plan in the article.
2. Regardless of who's name gets dropped, this is poncy academic circle-jerking.

$3.6T is an estimate based on only the adult population (roughly 180M) getting a reasonably modest stipend ($20K/year).

[Tallpine]

Since we have already become the United Slaves of America, I for one welcome my new benevolent overlords 

$20K/yr is just about what we need these days.

[makattak]

1. What Friedman supported is materially different than the plan in the article.
2. Regardless of who's name gets dropped, this is poncy academic circle-jerking.

$3.6T is an estimate based on only the adult population (roughly 180M) getting a reasonably modest stipend ($20K/year).

I re-read the article, so please don't think I'm trying to be adversarial here- I'm just confused. What plan? As far as I can tell here's the "plan" in the article:

A monthly cash payment to every American, no questions asked, would solve several of our most daunting challenges. It's called a basic income, and it's cheaper and much more effective than our current malfunctioning safety net, which costs nearly $1 trillion per year.

I don't see how there can be argument over whether this is like what Friedman supported, when the details are so very limited.

And, going by the numbers, it sounds like he's suggesting some amount like $500 a month to come in under $1T.

And, yes, this isn't going to happen. Neither is the fair tax. Is it useless to discuss more efficient alternatives to the current system?

[Balog]

I re-read the article, so please don't think I'm trying to be adversarial here- I'm just confused. What plan? As far as I can tell here's the "plan" in the article:

I don't see how there can be argument over whether this is like what Friedman supported, when the details are so very limited.

And, going by the numbers, it sounds like he's suggesting some amount like $500 a month to come in under $1T.

And, yes, this isn't going to happen. Neither is the fair tax. Is it useless to discuss more efficient alternatives to the current system?

It wouldn't be more efficient, and it wouldn't be $500 a month. It's actively dangerous to entertain these sorts of silly fictions for a number or reasons, moral hazard of thinking the feds owe everyone basics of life, inflation, not solving the underlying problems etc. It's the start down a slippery slope, and even acquiescing to the first step is too much.

[brimic]

And, going by the numbers, it sounds like he's suggesting some amount like $500 a month to come in under $1T.

I'm betting he was suggesting a figure closer to what Balog suggested, but the author was about as good with math as he was with economics.

[makattak]

It wouldn't be more efficient, and it wouldn't be $500 a month. It's actively dangerous to entertain these sorts of silly fictions for a number or reasons, moral hazard of thinking the feds owe everyone basics of life, inflation, not solving the underlying problems etc. It's the start down a slippery slope, and even acquiescing to the first step is too much.

In the author's case, I do not doubt that he believes that the government owes people the basics of life and is the solution to all of life's problems.

However, people like myself and Milton Friedman (as an aside, I'm enjoying the hubris of placing myself in a category with Milton Friedman) are recognizing that IF we cannot get a government that properly leaves people to succeed or fail on their own and leave charity to the private sector as it should be, a system which does not penalize work is a better one than a system that actively discourages it.

I wish the government wouldn't be involved in welfare. It is not a constitutionally prescribed power, it is inefficient, and it is destructive to the culture and country. But it is involved and I don't think we will ever get it out of welfare before a total collapse. So, if we can find a less destructive means of government assistance (note that this implies it is still destructive to the country), I'd like to move to that system.

Just like if we could get a less disruptive tax system, we'd be better off. Since we're not likely to get rid of the 16th amendment, it's useful to search for a better means of taxation. Hence the fair and flat tax movements. (Which, in my opinion, have an even less chance of happening than "basic income")

[griz]

This could be a better system because:

1) It does not discourage work. If you currently get welfare benefits, when you start to work, you make no or minimal gains over your previous position on welfare, creating a massive disincentive to work. (Why work to make $300 a week when I can do nothing and get $250?)
 ........

How would the new system differ?  My understanding is if you have a job now that pays 22K a year, you would have the choice of getting 20K a year and not working, or getting 20K a year and working all year for an extra 2K.

Since the .Gov is running the program, I suspect if you opted for working for the extra two thousand, there would be a three thousand dollar paper work fee your employer would have to pay.

[makattak]

How would the new system differ?  My understanding is if you have a job now that pays 22K a year, you would have the choice of getting 20K a year and not working, or getting 20K a year and working all year for an extra 2K.

Since the .Gov is running the program, I suspect if you opted for working for the extra two thousand, there would be a three thousand dollar paper work fee your employer would have to pay.

Well, as I am going from Friedman because I know his thoughts more than the author, it's not a "you get $20K OR you can work for 21K". (Or 10K or $5600 or...)

It's "you get $20K. Anything you earn is over and above that." So if you work and earn $21K, you'd get that and the 20K payment for $41K. (Or +10K or +5.6K...)

So, no matter how much or how little you work, you get the payment. Homeless guy peddling for cash or Bill Gates- you get the payment. So, no reason not to go get a job.

Also cuts income fraud.

[brimic]

Well, as I am going from Friedman because I know his thoughts more than the author, it's not a "you get $20K OR you can work for 21K". (Or 10K or $5600 or...)

It's "you get $20K. Anything you earn is over and above that." So if you work and earn $21K, you'd get that and the 20K payment for $41K. (Or +10K or +5.6K...)

So, no matter how much or how little you work, you get the payment. Homeless guy peddling for cash or Bill Gates- you get the payment. So, no reason not to go get a job.

Also cuts income fraud.

I don't know if you understand the absurdity of what you just said or are intentionally ignoring the fact that someone has to pay for all of these payments. IE a 20K payment does me no good if I have to pay an extra $60K in taxes to pay for 3 others that have no marketable skills and who will never contribute to society.

[Tallpine]

I don't know if you understand the absurdity of what you just said or are intentionally ignoring the fact that someone has to pay for all of these payments. IE a 20K payment does me no good if I have to pay an extra $60K in taxes to pay for 3 others that have no marketable skills and who will never contribute to society.

How is that a problem?  The .gov can just borrow and/or print more money.   

[makattak]

I don't know if you understand the absurdity of what you just said or are intentionally ignoring the fact that someone has to pay for all of these payments. IE a 20K payment does me no good if I have to pay an extra $60K in taxes to pay for 3 others that have no marketable skills and who will never contribute to society.

Someone is already paying for the outlays in the welfare system. (i.e. You and me.) The point of this would be to spend LESS than the current system. (Which is why $20K wouldn't work, as I noted.)

[griz]

You beat me to it Brimic.  It's a monetary perpetual motion machine.  Everybody gets more money, and it's paid for by the 75 percent of the receipients who are working.  YEAH!  Free Money!

[brimic]

Someone is already paying for the outlays in the welfare system. (i.e. You and me.) The point of this would be to spend LESS than the current system. (Which is why $20K wouldn't work, as I noted.)

Ah, and there is the point- no matter what amount is used it won't work- for those on the lower rungs of society and the left, it will always be too little, for those paying the bill, it will always bee too much.

[MillCreek]

Ah, and there is the point- no matter what amount is used it won't work- for those on the lower rungs of society and the left, it will always be too little, for those paying the bill, it will always bee too much.

I think this is a very insightful comment that applies to far more than just the basic income proposal here.

[MillCreek]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/libertarian-charles-murray-the-welfare-state-has-denuded-our-civic-culture/

I had read this article by Charles Murray the other day and thought it would be relevant to this conversation.

[brimic]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/libertarian-charles-murray-the-welfare-state-has-denuded-our-civic-culture/

I had read this article by Charles Murray the other day and thought it would be relevant to this conversation.

Just skimmed through it....

A LOL-worthy right upfront:  "Perhaps most outspoken among them is libertarian economist Charles Murray, who argues that a guaranteed income administered by the government would take the government out of people’s lives."

Once again the underpants gnome way of thinking where nothing beyond the firstg step is considered to be a factor....

The whole purpose of the war on poverty and the 'great society' was never about poverty, it was about politics.
Where do these harvard morons think our country will go when the government has very intimate control over everyone's basic income?

The question that I like to ask is "What is money and where does it derive its value?"

[SADShooter]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/libertarian-charles-murray-the-welfare-state-has-denuded-our-civic-culture/

I had read this article by Charles Murray the other day and thought it would be relevant to this conversation.

Interesting read. Thanks.

Actually, brimic, part of his argument, agree or disagree, is that a direct pass-through be conditioned on less excuse for government regulation/intervention.

[Balog]

In the author's case, I do not doubt that he believes that the government owes people the basics of life and is the solution to all of life's problems.

However, people like myself and Milton Friedman (as an aside, I'm enjoying the hubris of placing myself in a category with Milton Friedman) are recognizing that IF we cannot get a government that properly leaves people to succeed or fail on their own and leave charity to the private sector as it should be, a system which does not penalize work is a better one than a system that actively discourages it.

I wish the government wouldn't be involved in welfare. It is not a constitutionally prescribed power, it is inefficient, and it is destructive to the culture and country. But it is involved and I don't think we will ever get it out of welfare before a total collapse. So, if we can find a less destructive means of government assistance (note that this implies it is still destructive to the country), I'd like to move to that system.

Just like if we could get a less disruptive tax system, we'd be better off. Since we're not likely to get rid of the 16th amendment, it's useful to search for a better means of taxation. Hence the fair and flat tax movements. (Which, in my opinion, have an even less chance of happening than "basic income")

Help me out here. We have welfare because society has decided (or our masters have decided and we let them) that it is the .gov's job to prevent people from being homeless/starving/without medical care etc etc etc.

So in what utopian fantasy land will we remove ALL of those programs, and substitute a flat payment that is totally insufficient to cover basic living expenses, which goes to everyone including those who have no need of it? How is that any more difficult than just dismantling the welfare state entirely? "People will never vote for a program to stop giving food/shelter/medical care to the poor, but they will go for a program that substitutes a laughably small stipend for everyone."