Will a baseline income change who you are?

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
If you can earn a little bit more what's wrong with it, then you can have a hobby or go and see somewhere on Planet Earth. Money is a good thing surely? It makes life easier and the food is better.

My main premise is that people sent needed anymore so we mine as well "mine" boredom for cultural and technological advancements.

Couch potato land does need sorting out at least here in the UK. Given the time it would be amazing to sit in a library all day and read about the things you'd like to discover and see th eplaces you'd like to see before too old and frail but the money lmits us.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I'm not concerned with lazy people.

In concerned with full utilization of the minds who have he ability to change our world.

You know the ones being wasted right now at 711 totally disenfranchised by such a #ty useless world.

People aren't willing to invest in human intelligence it's asinine.

a reply to: onequestion

Right..... Get you now I think. Not the lazy types, it's the folk who just scrape enough to get by but have nothing left to further their dreams/ideas/education?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: RAY1990

One of the reasons why I asked another poster what his hobbies were was because I assume with more time to devote to his hobbies he may master one of them after enough time.

That mastery may lead to invention.

Imagine a world where people are more inclined to master their art and it leads to invention?

That's in a perfect world but I could really put some time into my hobbies and create something amazing.

People invent things all the time and I personally know a couple of people who profit from their hobbies financially, I guess a problem could be finances depending on the hobby. Again I am from the UK and here the system is set up so you get financial assistance in between work, if your disabled, elderly or youth and if your on a low income.

This happens by a few ways such as paying for housing if you have an income under a certain threshold or on benefits, a top-up benefit for those working under 16 hours or earning under a certain threshold. Basically to put it short the government has a set amount of money a person needs to live week by week, it's depending by age and it's between £40-£90 per week.

That's basically the method of things in the UK, it's a failing system but it keeps people alive.

Now personally what I would do with this nation is this.

Everyone earning less than £16,000 a year gets a basic living supplement from the government, this will be the equivalent to what the government says a human needs to live off, that is about £2,500-£5000 at a guesstimate today. minimum wage in the UK is £7.20 for a 25 year old and a 25 year old needs £73.10 a week to liveUK benefit link so someone working a 40 hour week would still get the top up, this means all on low income will feel a huge benefit.

At the same time I would build basic housing for everyone, nothing special just something like a miners cottage type construction and to live in these would cost nothing. Eventually social housing will be strong enough to house everyone saving a fortune that currently goes to private landlords because atm their is not enough social houses available.

This would justify the shoddy wages we have in the UK and justify social housing... Because it's become a diabolical sink-hole, not to mention the inflated housing market in general. How would I pay for this (if I had that power) is simple, tax the hell out of giant corporations and/or recuperate lost taxes that are rightfully owed.

I know the US is a lot different, socialism is communism and anything of the like is fought with everything including the kitchen sink. But everyone has a right to live, that's the ethos of humanity today and I guess it boils down to ideology and what people believe their taxes should be spent on. Disparity amongst the classes is a horrible thing and the only ones gaining in this economic climate in general are the upper classes. Something has to give eventually.

Do I believe people should be payed for their hobbies?

No, that would open a nasty can of worms.

Do I believe everyone has a right to the basic fundamental needs of life?

Basically, yes. I believe universal human rights are just that, rights. They are not ideals and wouldn't be if money wasn't the issue or should I say greed?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I'm not concerned with lazy people.

In concerned with full utilization of the minds who have he ability to change our world.

You know the ones being wasted right now at 711 totally disenfranchised by such a #ty useless world.

People aren't willing to invest in human intelligence it's asinine.

Don't despair

Brilliant minds are catapulting us into the future as we speak, you can't deny we are growing ever rapidly. Although the latest and greatest are usually at the likes of google.

Having everything you need to survive is said to be the reason mankind began, when he had time to do other things than hunt, eat and sleep he had time to use his mind to invent, socialise and do the things we now consider human.

If everyone was fed, housed and educated the world would be a different place and it's possible to do that. If these so called philanthropists of Earth stop clapping to each others amazing accomplishments and focused on the real issues at hand such as the worlds pathetic excuse of aid it would be done already.

I guess what I'm saying is we need a new world order

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: uncommitted

Well why would you tax it that makes no sense?

I'm assuming this is not a privately owned currency system like we have now.

How the currency is managed and controlled I don't know. I need someone else to jump in here and bring their knowledge into it.

I'm assuming not everyone is going to work as the point is not everyone needs to work.

Think about it for a second. With 100 million working age Americans out of the household people who want to work will. I'm also operating under the assumption that people don't a want to sit on the couch all day doing nothing for 20+ years people will eventually he off their ass and do something.

That wasn't my point. You suggested that having a baseline income would give you more time for hobbies, I asked why would it provide more time. I guess what you actually meant was it would give you money to spend on your hobby.

I don't know why you have limited this subject to America, but that is your choice. I'm assuming that out of those 100 million, at least a high proportion of those that are able to work in that would love to if they had a job to go to. To assume not everyone goes to work because not everyone needs to work is an.................. interesting perspective.

In the models I have read about, the income would be enough to cover adequately food, shelter and other necessities - in and of itself typically it wouldn't cover what some would call 'luxury' spending equivalent to earning much over a living wage standard. Two fairly obvious reasons for that - 1.) if you aren't working it gives you a disincentive to looking for a job and therefore are not contributing taxes that amongst other things are needed to actually pay for the baseline income and 2) if you are working and also receiving a (presumably tax free) second income again, no additional tax contribution (I appreciate for us workers that's good) and also creates all sorts of questions around pensionable income.

As you started the OP, what would you consider the baseline income to be as a reasonable amount, how does that compare to the equivalent minimum wage in America, and how would you propose the delta between the two would be met? Like you, I'm all for anything that puts more money in anyone's pockets as long as I understand all aspects of how it gets there and from where it comes.

Nice to see a thread from an American taking such a socialist theory with such enthusiasm by the way.

I'm sure there are some people who would benefit from it, but in reality, all that is going to happen is that the majority are going to piss it away and will still be complaining about not having enough money. In addition, it would spur inflation as well so the money would not go very far.

I have learned a lot of things studying Roman history. Like, for example, why we have the political systems we have today.

One huge lesson I have learned: You can't guarantee free bread for Romans. Because when it isn't there, the entire house comes crumbling down, and you can't guarantee it'll always be there every day.

For the good of the Republic and those it serves, free bread should be avoided.

a reply to: uncommitted

I addressed that issue of tax, the actual benefit equivalent to jobseekers etc would only be applicable to those earning under 16k at todays rate meaning someone working a 40 hour week would still get the benefit. Obviously it would need tweaking a bit so it is fair.

Taxes would pay for it, it's high time the world not just the UK started taxing more fairly, corporations cannot be seen to pay 0.2% income on taxes or other similar ridiculous number whilst the common man pays 34% tax or none because he is on a minimum income and tax isn't applicable in the case of the UK but near everything is taxed... My point is a the difference in percentage from lower class to higher class becomes more apparent in terms of taxes, even more so when it comes to corporations and companies.

That would be my best excuse for keeping the UK in the EU, the biggest excuse for not applying taxes to the extent I would like is companies would move abroad. With Europe we could apply the same tax law across the EU and I can guarantee companies would play ball rather than lose those markets. Imagine if the US applied something similar at the same time.

Universal taxes and universal prices for commodities is probably seen as a utopian or socialist pipe dream but it would be the fairest and it would be the quickest path to solving world hunger, diseases and all manner of things.

a reply to: RAY1990

Hi,

Baseline income is typically paid to all, not those that someone decides are most appropriate to receive it - that's based on various models you will find, sorry, the term 'baseline income' is not a universal one and I'm struggling to find the example I saw earlier in the year in an article. An example that I can find is in Canada, established in 1976, and it's based on the number of years you have been a resident in the area for which it's applicable (Alaska)..........

en.wikipedia.org...

It doesn't discriminate based on paid income or lack of it, it's for every individual within the boundaries stated and seems to be quite common.

You seem to be suggesting an upgrade on the living wage theory with some fairly strict conditions such as it only being applicable to those earning a certain amount and working certain weekly hours. That's not really what the intent has been with most models.

For the UK where we both reside, the Joseph Rowntree foundation put forward a paper on this last year - difference being they called it a citizens income - well worth a read if you find such things interesting.

www.jrf.org.uk...

a reply to: Vector99
I had to laugh.

I too have been there. For the first 3 years of my business, I didn't even draw a salary, but I made sure I was never late or short on my employees paychecks.

I have had 6 figured salaries, to no salary. I never changed. I have always been, and will always be your proverbial, big old Mama Bear.

I would be telling an out and out lie, if I told you that there were not times when I tried to be that other gal. I was young once, and went through my stage of stupid. It just didn't work for me. I don't find pleasure in dust collections, items that have to be secured under lock and key, or you just put on display for other people to look at.

I don't like furniture I can't put my feet on, or a home were my friends have to take off their shoes, or their children can't, run, jump, and spill stuff.

I am not into collecting for landfills or storage of units. So an increase or a decrease in my baseline income, would not change me much.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I have learned a lot of things studying Roman history. Like, for example, why we have the political systems we have today.

One huge lesson I have learned: You can't guarantee free bread for Romans. Because when it isn't there, the entire house comes crumbling down, and you can't guarantee it'll always be there every day.

For the good of the Republic and those it serves, free bread should be avoided.

Romans didn't have massive manufacturing facilities and robots.

During Roman times everyone had to work in order for everyone to survive we live in a totally different paradigm.

a reply to: uncommitted

I don't know what the baseline would be with such drastic changes in cost of living I don't know.

They can print as much money as they want.

The money is already print out of thin air and the currency value can be controlled at will.

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I have learned a lot of things studying Roman history. Like, for example, why we have the political systems we have today.

One huge lesson I have learned: You can't guarantee free bread for Romans. Because when it isn't there, the entire house comes crumbling down, and you can't guarantee it'll always be there every day.

For the good of the Republic and those it serves, free bread should be avoided.

Romans didn't have massive manufacturing facilities and robots.

During Roman times everyone had to work in order for everyone to survive we live in a totally different paradigm.

I disagree. We live in a similar paradigm, but with nifty new machines.

I mean, there is some validity to the notion that we are innovating ourselves out of a job. On the other hand, there is the notion that crafty and bright people will create new markets to monetize.

All of it aside: if we are working ourselves out of a need to work, then we can likely consider ourselves to not be in need of government in the sense that we are accustomed to.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: uncommitted

I don't know what the baseline would be with such drastic changes in cost of living I don't know.

They can print as much money as they want.

The money is already print out of thin air and the currency value can be controlled at will.

Yeah, thing is, the more money in circulation, the less the actual money is worth. I agree with the gist of what you are saying but the world only turns that way for so long. If we just kept on making money for the sake of it, no country in the world would be in debt, but at the same time nothing would have any value - how could it when you can just print off more notes?

Now very impressed with your socialist leanings, please don't take that as baiting as I absolutely mean it.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Metallicus
I simply don't understand the idea of getting money for nothing. How could this money possibly just appear? I don't see how this is even a possibility without taking more money from middle class families.

Seriously?

You never heard of the FEDeral reserve, or fiat currency?

Money isn't a zero sum game, where for one person to win another must lose.

Everyone can win.

Everyone is winning in Zimbabwe. They're all millionaires over there.

That's why you can't just print the money however you want.

a reply to: onequestion

Ummm, Romans did have massive manufacturing facilities although they did not have robots. However, Romans did have the next best thing - slave labor. A lot of Roman land was put into massive slave run enterprises so that common Romans could not work because they had no land and no job opportunities because the wealthy Roman patrician class owned all the massive slave run enterprises. Slaves were much cheaper to use than actual wage labor see.

So yes, there were paradigms and the Romans solved their problem with the public grain dole. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses." Roman pols had to pander for votes partially by keeping the masses happy by making sure there was always a steady supply of public grain for the poor classes and by paying for ever more and ever more massive games and the Roman Colosseum. After all, people who could not work needed to be kept entertained in their unemployed state.

Heck, the Roman elections were even rigged.

a reply to: onequestion

Well I can confirm one thing from my perspective... one year ago I was living off welfare ($620 a fortnight) and now I'm clearing $1160 a week and the only single difference in my life is I have something to do for 8 hours a day, can afford to smoke tailor made cigarettes and drink beer every night and also eat fast food, rather than living off instant noodles.

Earning more money won't change anything about your inner self... it won't make you more motivated to become an up standing citizen who contributes to their community, or any of that nonsense.

But having said that... Having money to burn is without a doubt far more (superficially) satisfying than not having a pot to piss in!

originally posted by: onequestion
So I'm listening to the last Joe Rogan podcast and this question came up weather directly in the conversation or indirectly because of the conversation I forget.

Would a baseline income change who you are?

For me the answer is simple. A baseline income would be a serious motivator where I could use my free time to attack an education as seriously as possible. First I would get a tutor and get caught up on all my basic remedial skills so I could clep all my math and language arts classes and get right into the programming phase. I'm very interested in AI and robotics and it's the future if you ask me. I would use all of my extra money getting tutored in order to stay up with class because I have a hard time focusing on a classroom setting but I excel unusually in 1 on 1.

The baseline income would not make me lazy and sit on the couch.

And honestly if that's what you chose to do with your baseline income I wouldn't care because eventually I think people would get up out of boredom and get into something.

And wow I just had a realization. We have an example of what baseline incomes can do to people in the Native American community.. Allow me to find a link.

source

What precisely did the income change? Ongoing interviews with both parents and children suggested one variable in particular. The money, which amounted to between one-third and one-quarter of poor families’ income at one point, seemed to improve parenting quality.

Wow! I didn't even think of that! What an amazing net gain for that culture that parents were able to devout more time to their children on such a paltry income!

Another analysis, meanwhile, found that more accidental deaths occurred during those months, once or twice a year, when the tribe disbursed supplements. The authors attributed that, in part, to increased drinking, as well as to buying cars and traveling more

So from what I can see giving people money will be just like giving someone alcohol... You get to see what's really going on inside.

I think it would be a great idea because I bet there are game changer people out there who could really do good with just a little help.

The people eating and drinking on the couch?

They don't matter I'm more worried about the game changers I'll sacrifice ten thousand couch eaters for 1 game changer.


- ps. Joe we know your watching and learning from us thanks for the podcast.

With a baseline income people would be able to pay for massages, chiropractors, dental work, spa items that help heal the body like home saunas or hot tubs, vitamins, probiotics, filtered water systems, Securely EMF shield an entire room in their house, buy a storage unit or build a garage and turn living quarters into an uncluttered sanctuary, paint and recover busy guady old furniture and replace carpeting amd flooring, enroll children in quality programs and school, buy items for art projects. The list goes on.

Most people are deprived of these things and are aware of the benefits. Some seek these things and find them at no charge from another, but it usually ends in a one sided cheap shot with one trying to have sex with the other.

I'm sure a base line income would change attitudes of those who are predators, victims or in isolation.

a reply to: WhiteWingedMonolith

I'm sure a base line income would change attitudes of those who are predators, victims or in isolation.

I get it now.

Having money to burn allows the real you to break through to the surface.

I think you may be right.