Removing social security, medicare, and most other government social welfare programs should remove a giant chunk of the federal budget. I think if you re-do these numbers that will appear a lot more affordable.
Proponents of BI say it can't exclude anyone. That is silly. Things we consider the most basic fundamental rights: voting, free speech, are restricted for large groups such as convicted felons. It would be reasonable that anyone who fails to conform with government rules of accepted social behavior should also be excluded from BI.
The more serious problem with BI is how the dollars flow toward prices. If you make a blanket distribution of money to a large group of money the end result may just be price inflation in the goods that exist in a limited quantity, most specifically real estate.
I think BI is a fairly poor idea. But, being realistic I am trying to imagine what it would look like in use. All I see is a tool for governments to control large segments of lower middle class citizens. That may well be the goal.
> If you make a blanket distribution of money to a large group of money the end result may just be price inflation in the goods that exist in a limited quantity, most specifically real estate.
Land may exist in reasonably fixed quality, but real estate in the relevant sense (e.g., housing units) do not exist "in fixed quantity", and more money chasing them around causes more of them to be available, just like most goods. You'd expect some increase in market clearing price, sure, but also an increase in units of housing "sold" in the market (including rentals). Which is rather the point.
You imply that they shouldn't get BI. Perhaps, though, the incentive for criminality would be less with BI? Especially if good drugs (particularly pot) are legal and cheap.
There are many effective ways to limit real estate speculation and thus price inflation. Land taxes, un-restrictive planning regimes, capital gains taxes on real estate sales, strong tenant protection laws, loan to value and loan to disposable income ratios, margin calls on mortgages for investment properties.
Society has to make a fundamental choice about whether they want shelter to be primarily shelter or primarily an asset for speculation.
Actually rather than dock prisoners' basic income, confiscate it as part of their sentencing to fund their internment. That makes prisons a lot more self-sufficieny.
People under 18, 25%
Felons/criminals, probably 3%
Removing social security, medicare, and most other government social welfare programs should remove a giant chunk of the federal budget. I think if you re-do these numbers that will appear a lot more affordable.
Proponents of BI say it can't exclude anyone. That is silly. Things we consider the most basic fundamental rights: voting, free speech, are restricted for large groups such as convicted felons. It would be reasonable that anyone who fails to conform with government rules of accepted social behavior should also be excluded from BI.
The more serious problem with BI is how the dollars flow toward prices. If you make a blanket distribution of money to a large group of money the end result may just be price inflation in the goods that exist in a limited quantity, most specifically real estate.
I think BI is a fairly poor idea. But, being realistic I am trying to imagine what it would look like in use. All I see is a tool for governments to control large segments of lower middle class citizens. That may well be the goal.