EverCurious
Gold Member
Dutch city of Utrecht to experiment with a universal unconditional basic income - Europe - World - The Independent
"The Dutch city of Utrecht will start an experiment which hopes to determine whether society works effectively with universal, unconditional income
introduced.
The city has paired up with the local university to establish whether the concept of 'basic income' can work in real life, and plans to begin the experiment at the end of the summer holidays.
Basic income is a universal, unconditional form of payment to individuals, which covers their living costs. The concept is to allow people to choose to work more flexible hours in a less regimented society, allowing more time for care, volunteering and study."
I wonder how it'll work out, turns out Canada had tried a similar experiment from 1974 to 1979, but a final report was never issued as the program was pretty much dumped by new politicians moving in ~ cdc.gov/
The above reported that "similar projects in America" so I went hunting, but all I can find reference to is the State of Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend, which frankly I don't believe even compares to a basic income, the highest annual payment /ever/ was $2,069, which included a $1,200 one time resource rebate, second highest $1,964/y. The FPD program is essentially a payment (largely from the state government's oil tax collection) to "compensate" Alaska's future generations for the oil that was lost - its a savings fund because the Alaska constitution includes a number of provisions; including one that decree the land belongs to us (aka if the state wants the mineral rights we must be compensated,) as well as a specific amendment that at least 25% of oil revenue belongs to Alaskans, etc.
In any event, an analysis of the Mincome project was apparently done in 2009 (a bit too long after the program to be taken as valid unfortunately) and released in 2011 ~ http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea (2).pdf
As a personal project, I'd like to gather some data to see if it's feasible to institute some kind of mincome for the US (even though it could be argued we already do though welfare programs) and see, if needed, how much /more/ we'd have to put into such a program to make it feasible (perhaps some expense tradeoff from military spending or something like that.)
However, I'd like to get some feedback on a few things for my project, and I figure this board would have the most extreme viewpoints from either side of the fence. So;
1. Any argument for or against attempting to end poverty through this method, rather than the basically failed welfare system we currently employ.
If we were to attempt such a thing:
2. would we limit the basic income only to those in poverty, or should we extend it to the entire /legal/ population? (I dislike that I feel it necessary to clarify that legal point, but given the manner at which folks seem to be handing out shares of our existing welfare program's dollars to non-citizen's I think it would be required.)
3. what areas of government spending, if any, do you think would be off limits to reallocate into such a program?
4. along that same vein, what additional areas of government revenue, if any, should be applied to such a program?
5. should we theoretically presume the basic wage would be equivalent to $15/h (which I personally feel is too high and might simply continue the existing "encouragement" of merely relying on government assistance for all income.) Or would it be reasonable/acceptable to set the basic income wage at a percentage of the federal poverty guideline?
5b. what percent of the poverty line do you think would be fair for what would amount to a free supplemental income? 5%, 10%, etc.? ~ note that the poverty lines are here 2015 Poverty Guidelines
5c. if we went with such a poverty line percentage, should family size effect the number, or should we do a simple /flat/ amount to alleviate any concern, valid or not, that having babies equals more money?
5d. along the same vein, would we want to account for higher cost of living, or is it fair to presume that because this is meant to be a supplemental income to prevent poverty, rather than a cost of living supplement, a flat rate is better?
6. If we implemented such a program, would it be acceptable to drop minimum wage should be a "living wage" for a more business friendly "not slavery wage" rate? (My hope being that we could entice company's back to America)
I think I'll start with that as an overall gauge of reaction and participation here.
"The Dutch city of Utrecht will start an experiment which hopes to determine whether society works effectively with universal, unconditional income
introduced.The city has paired up with the local university to establish whether the concept of 'basic income' can work
in real life, and plans to begin the experiment at the end of the summer holidays.Basic income is a universal, unconditional form of payment to individuals, which covers their living costs. The concept is to allow people to choose to work more flexible hours in a less regimented society, allowing more time for care, volunteering and study."
I wonder how it'll work out, turns out Canada had tried a similar experiment from 1974 to 1979, but a final report was never issued as the program was pretty much dumped by new politicians moving in ~ cdc.gov/
The above reported that "similar projects in America" so I went hunting, but all I can find reference to is the State of Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend, which frankly I don't believe even compares to a basic income, the highest annual payment /ever/ was $2,069, which included a $1,200 one time resource rebate, second highest $1,964/y. The FPD program is essentially a payment (largely from the state government's oil tax collection) to "compensate" Alaska's future generations for the oil that was lost - its a savings fund because the Alaska constitution includes a number of provisions; including one that decree the land belongs to us (aka if the state wants the mineral rights we must be compensated,) as well as a specific amendment that at least 25% of oil revenue belongs to Alaskans, etc.
In any event, an analysis of the Mincome project was apparently done in 2009 (a bit too long after the program to be taken as valid unfortunately) and released in 2011 ~ http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea (2).pdf
As a personal project, I'd like to gather some data to see if it's feasible to institute some kind of mincome for the US (even though it could be argued we already do though welfare programs) and see, if needed, how much /more/ we'd have to put into such a program to make it feasible (perhaps some expense tradeoff from military spending or something like that.)
However, I'd like to get some feedback on a few things for my project, and I figure this board would have the most extreme viewpoints from either side of the fence. So;
1. Any argument for or against attempting to end poverty through this method, rather than the basically failed welfare system we currently employ.
If we were to attempt such a thing:
2. would we limit the basic income only to those in poverty, or should we extend it to the entire /legal/ population? (I dislike that I feel it necessary to clarify that legal point, but given the manner at which folks seem to be handing out shares of our existing welfare program's dollars to non-citizen's I think it would be required.)
3. what areas of government spending, if any, do you think would be off limits to reallocate into such a program?
4. along that same vein, what additional areas of government revenue, if any, should be applied to such a program?
5. should we theoretically presume the basic wage would be equivalent to $15/h (which I personally feel is too high and might simply continue the existing "encouragement" of merely relying on government assistance for all income.) Or would it be reasonable/acceptable to set the basic income wage at a percentage of the federal poverty guideline?
5b. what percent of the poverty line do you think would be fair for what would amount to a free supplemental income? 5%, 10%, etc.? ~ note that the poverty lines are here 2015 Poverty Guidelines
5c. if we went with such a poverty line percentage, should family size effect the number, or should we do a simple /flat/ amount to alleviate any concern, valid or not, that having babies equals more money?
5d. along the same vein, would we want to account for higher cost of living, or is it fair to presume that because this is meant to be a supplemental income to prevent poverty, rather than a cost of living supplement, a flat rate is better?
6. If we implemented such a program, would it be acceptable to drop minimum wage should be a "living wage" for a more business friendly "not slavery wage" rate? (My hope being that we could entice company's back to America)
I think I'll start with that as an overall gauge of reaction and participation here.
