This is a good topic to discuss, but terrible article. They are planning on running a test on some basic income schemes[1]. Finland is going through austerity measures and I don't think basic income fits in to current political landscape.
Ok, we added "testing". "Considering testing giving" is terrible English but amusingly reflective of the contortions headline writers subject stories to.
Just to clarify, Finland is NOT going to give every citizen €800 per month. It is NOT going to implementing basic income.
People read what they want to read, if it fits their political narrative.
A tiny administrative section in Finland is trialling it, but it's only being pushed by a minority left-wing, and it has no chance of being implemented in reality.
This story can be filed along with the "Sweden implements 6-hour working day", which was also arrant nonsense.
Your statements in the 3rd paragraph are incorrect.
There is no ongoing trial, just a plan to have a trial start in about a year. The parameters (e.g. location, the monetary sums, exactly which existing social security mechanisms it replaces) are still undecided. But it seems very unlikely that they'd run the test in just a single location like you're suggesting.
It is also not being pushed by a left-wing minority, but by the most conservative government Finland has had in decades (consisting of the conservative party, the centre party and the nationalist party). At least right now the idea appears to have very broad support in the polls, though that could of course change once there's a concrete proposal.
I like the idea of a basic income. It gets rid of the poverty trap and the negative effects seen in the studies so far don't look too bad. I look forward to seing the results of these experiment.
If you make a change like this though, I think a lot of other adjustments logically follow. Adjusting the previous benefits and tax system is a no-brainer. The cost has to be funded somehow. Beyond that though, there are a lot of other regulations and laws that would need to be reconsidered. There doesn't seem any sense having a minimum wage for example if you already have a basic income. It would also seem reasonable to relax some job protection legislation to create a more flexible labour market. In the UK if you quit your job you are not entitled to unemployment benefits, but that disadvantage would be gone. It would be easier for workers to go on strike because they'd still get the basic income. I think it would be reasonable in exchange to reduce the costs to employers making redundancies.
With a guaranteed income to fall back on, it would be much easier for jobs to rely on market forces for wage-setting, and not need a minimum wage. After all, potential employees would have a better choice.
In principal I like the idea of a basic income as well, but I too wonder about what services/assistance it will replace. For example SNAPS/food stamps would seem to be a prime candidate.
But I wonder (and this is an honest question) are we, as a society, really (practically, politically, and philosophically) going to take a hard line with someone that lost their check at the local casino - and tell them "tough luck, sounds like a hungry few weeks ahead"?
If you make a change like this though, I think a lot of other adjustments logically follow.
Yes, that's the tricky part.
I seem to be politically moderate on this issue, in that I am in favour of some form of social security safety net for the essentials, but I also think any government aid beyond that needs to be limited so those who do more also see more benefit in return. A guaranteed basic income seems like an interesting idea that could work as part of a wider reform of our social security framework.
Perhaps it could be combined with some form of public service requirement for those who want to claim it, so it would be more like a guaranteed job available to as many people as need it than a hand-out. This could be used to support useful activities that aren't run commercially, such as looking after local neighbourhood amenities, or helping at your kid's school if you have useful skills to share, or even going abroad to help with aid work after a natural disaster. Instead of the state social security apparatus concentrating on who qualifies or doesn't qualify for which benefits, with sometimes controversial or unfair results, maybe it could concentrate on recognising valuable activities and helping those otherwise without a job to contribute to them.
Next you have the issue of private and public sector employment. Maybe set a statutory minimum wage for employing someone full-time that is a modest but noticeable amount above the basic income level? Tax any form of income above that level, adjust in some reasonable way for people who are working part-time, and adjust in reasonable ways to support those who have other genuine responsibilities or disabilities, and this seems like the basis for a system where work does pay but if you're ever the unlucky one for a while then you aren't getting punched when you're down. Maybe it could even support a different kind of lifestyle for the type of person who likes contributing to their community in practical ways and doesn't much value material things or financial wealth.
I also wonder whether, given the shifting population patterns and increasing debt particularly among the young that we have in the West today, we should place a lot more emphasis on social housing, even if that just means a modest dorm-style room and some basic communal facilities so everyone can have somewhere to eat, sleep and wash. It seems to me that this would be a natural fit with the idea of giving everyone a basic safety net and an opportunity to move up to enjoy things beyond the essentials in exchange for taking on better paid work.
There is a key component missing from this proposal: what benefits will be cut? As written in the article: "this national basic income would replace all other benefit payments"
There are many cases where unequal benefits payments are considered politically, morally and ethically acceptable by the majority of society. E.g. the blind, the handicapped, war veterans, orphans, victims of crime, volunteers...
For example in the US, the blind may deduct expenses from their income before taxes that others may not. This is an unequal benefit that we collectively accept.
In Finland's proposal, what will happen to benefits for special cases?
Note there's no marginal disincentive to work. Marginal. You get the money no matter what, so you're not faced with the take-this-job-or-stay-on-benefits problem that often comes with modern welfare systems.
Yeah, that's the main change here, and I think probably a positive. The Nordic countries already have close to a universalist welfare system, where you're more or less guaranteed an income sufficient to live on. So the change here isn't about whether you should be able to live without working: that's basically already true, and has been for decades. The change is about whether to pay out a basic income unconditionally rather than via the traditional welfare system, which excludes employed people, people with assets, etc.
I'm less familiar with the specifics of Finland's system, but in Denmark, if you run out of savings and eligibility for other sources of support (unemployment benefits, etc.), you fall back on a last-line "cash assistance" (kontanthjælp) which is something like $1500/mo, and can be received indefinitely. But you lose it if you get a job, so it can provide a disincentive to work in some cases, especially if your only job options are low-paying ones. Just paying out a basic income unconditionally wouldn't have the same issue, since any employment income would be in addition to the basic income, vs. the current scheme where your job income replaces the cash assistance.
Leftist politicians have blocked this at several points, alas, although it is probably the most humane and effective method of delivering help to the poor. It also has the advantage of getting more people to, you know, actually file tax returns.
> Leftist politicians have blocked this at several points
That's at best misleading and at worst flat-out false; a pure NIT has rarely reached the point of even a serious proposal, both left and right groups have proposed kinda-sorta-NITs, some of which have passed, some of which haven't, and the failures have been sometimes resulted from opposition from the right, sometimes to opposition from the left, and sometimes from opposition that is neither purely left or right (and sometimes to extraneous political reasons not directly and specifically tied to the NIT-related proposal itself.)
It's worth noting that very close to the same time Friedman started promoting the idea, so did scholars from the liberal Brookings Institute.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out because it sounds like the current "welfare" in Finland is similar to that in the states, where getting a job equates to taking a paycut (because you no longer qualify) so why work (which is a constant argument).
I like the idea of a system that still has incentives for people to work but doesn't leave them hanging if they can't find a job.
I think consumerism is the incentive to work, even with a basic income. If your state provides you with enough for food, shelter, clothing, and a little discretionary cash, it'll show. The friends who work and can afford nicer houses, tastier food, and newer clothing will notice. So will the people you take on dates.
Ultimately, I think people will want to work. It gives them something to do and the money to afford things they want but don't need. If everyone followed Keynes, we would be happy with working ten hours a week to maintain a 1930s standard of living.
I will try to comment in E-prime, the sliced bread of HN today :D.
In Finland, a welfare state indeed, you can quite easily slack off on the social benefits already. If you take up unemployment insurance, you can basically get 18 months of 70% of your salary after you get fired or quit. The insurance (or union membership) costs around 100 EUR a year. A lot of people I know count on this, or already take advantage of it. I see that as a quite big thing, it must drain a lot of money from somewhere if you think about big companies letting people go by big numbers, plus people in 20s or 30s going for one-year backpacking trips.
The 800 EUR probably just makes it more simple for the social system to distribute the benefits. Plus some innovation karma for Finland, yay!
edit: I fogot my main point: even though it feels somehow discouraging to pass money to slackers, I still don't mind paying the high taxes - I haven't found any other reason that makes Finland so nice place to live!
Finland has been in a depression for a while. Their GDP is still 6pc below its previous peak. [1]
If this is a last desperate ploy to prevent secular stagnation one has to wonder how effective this will be, and how "temporary" - for now this is sold as temporary but the moment it is withdrawn their economy would truly crater.
Thanks for the link. I had read another rendition of this, but it was heavily flavored with hysteria wusing terms like "helicopter money."
This looks more like a work-around attempt to correct their economy after major commodities slump, Nokia problems, etc. Being in the Euro camp, they are unable to devalue their currency, as a country might normally choose to do...
What about people who already have a significant income per month?
Doesn't it seem wasteful to give them more money each month, rather than say, working on the homeless problem directly with this money, or increasing the amount given, but reducing the scope of people it is given to?
If someone has a very high marginal tax rate, then it would have a very small impact on their income and on govt spending?
If it isn't received above some income level, but is received entirely below that income level, then there would be a disincentive of that given amount against going a little bit above that income level. And, maybe that's fine? But if it is why not just incorporate that into taxes?
If there is a sharp threshold, it seems like trying to make that threshold as low as possible would be dangerous, because it might cause a personally significant disincentive against working, or getting a job that pays more. But if it was significantly higher than the apparent lowest possible safe value, that would seem unfair for the same reason? So, if instead of a sharp cut-off, there could be a gradual cutoff?
That seems pretty similar to the basic income or negative income tax ideas though. But not necessarily identical, just of the same form.
ok so if f(x) is the amount of taxes minus the amount of govt income that one must pay (so, negative numbers would be net receiving money from the government) , and x is other income, then,
f(0)<0, uh...
I forget where I was going with that. d/dx (x-f(x)) > 0 seems reasonable to expect? I suppose it could be <0 at a small area where it wouldn't have much impact, (or have a discontinuity, but same thing basically. ) but I'm not sure what the advantages of having that would be.
Certainly is refreshing to see a significant reduction in bureaucracy in an EU state. If the public generally supports this, then I guess we'll just have to see how it turns out.
I don't think there's much else to say but good luck.
how about Finland pays people to work instead of this? If you can't find a job, Finland pays you 800 a month to get to work on infrastructure projects.
In early Colonial America everyone had to help out in some way, or else they were denied food. I don't know why we never extended that idea.
I don't think returning to state indentured slavery is in any way a good thing.
If the state wants to build a road, it should pay qualified people the market rate to build a road, not use a pool of people hard on their luck.
Basic Income allows people to manage their own life in a more cost effective way than the welfare and other social programs we already provide, plus it provides incentive and opportunity to better their position through work/school.
Because big employers are against it. Because it gives more leverage to labour, diminishes labour competition and raises the overall cost of labour, i.e. wages. And of course big employers have lots of political power.
What big employers rather prefer is EITC which is a rather blatant way of getting the tax payer to subsidize their cost of labour.
And these days governments are forbidden from doing anything in house. They are forced to contract everything to the lowest bidder in the private sector because the logic goes that it's cheaper that way.
>In early Colonial America everyone had to help out in some way, or else they were denied food. I don't know why we never extended that idea.
I will believe that you believe in your argument when you volunteer to give up all of your assets and live on whatever work you can get. I imagine you might find yourself forming arguments about it limiting your own efficiency and output.
I would imagine back then a lot of work was unspecialised, and anyone could do it. If you're building a wooden bridge across a stream, even dummies who aren't carpenters can help carry logs.
These days you have engineers and cranes using special materials.
The institution of a basic income was a primary factor in the downfall of the Roman Empire. Once people grew accustomed to it, they supported any politician who increased it, regardless of any other factors.
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses."
-Juvenal
On top of that being an irresponsibly reductionist approach to the downfall of an enormous pre-industrial empire that not only had to defend vast borders but also deal with the economic crippling of having its olive groves in North Africa torched (which take 5 years to bear fruit and were among the biggest sources of Roman revenue), your comment seems to ignore the nature of technology in society today. Advances like self-driving cars could ultimately put entire human industries like trucking and the many towns that support them out of business, even if it makes things much cheaper. Ditto for, say, 3D printing. Would all those unemployed truck drivers and factory workers (not to mention their hairdressers, store clerks, prostitutes, etc.) cause no disruption to society? It is sometimes cheaper to placate people than to let them suffer.
First you need to ask the question: "why was a basic income instituted?"
It was instituted to buy votes, of course. But why were people's votes for sale so cheaply?
During Rome's ascendancy, the citizen-soldier institution sent hundreds of thousands of Roman men out into the world on military campaigns. As their successes grew, so did their terms of military service.
In turn, this lead to the collapse of the farms that these men used to work in order to provide for themselves and their family. These farms were purchased by the patrician class, and worked by slaves.
Within a few generations, wealth inequality in Rome was so bad that most of the households that had previously been small landholders were reduced to urban poverty.
Some Roman politicians did attempt to address this stifling inequality (such as the Gracchi brothers). After the Senate repeatedly murdered such "class traitors", the compromise of bread and circuses became the Senatorial (and later, Imperial) solution to the problems that the Senatorial classes had themselves caused.
Universal income in Rome was a symptom of a completely dysfunctional society. Rome collapsed because its working classes ceased to work, but its working classes ceased to work because its ruling classes ceased to rule for the benefit of the many. Rome was brought down by its wealthy elite.
If modern Western societies really are analogous to Rome (which they probably aren't), then universal income may herald the collapse. However, if it does, then this collapse will have been ultimately precipitated by the aggregation of power in the hands of the wealthy.
In any case, pointing the finger at the Roman poor is a historical trend that was conjured by Rome's ruling classes to justify their own positions (think of all the howling about the "welfare poor" by the well-off in North American society today) and later by conservative British historians to justify the lopsided distribution of wealth and power in their own society. Rome's poor built the Roman Empire.
It would probably be politically untenable to have your voting rights tied to if you are taking the money or not. A modern version of land owners getting to vote and no others.
"Because this time, incentives won't play out the way they have every time variations on this experiment have been tried throughout history"
or
"Let's make earning a living optional, and funded by the productive members of society, and see how that pans out".
I'll grant you it'll be easier and cheaper to implement than other versions of a taxpayer funded welfare state, but I imagine the outcomes will be the same, and the (im)morality is no different.
[+] [-] ollifi|10 years ago|reply
[1]http://blogi.kansanelakelaitos.fi/arkisto/2842
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pc86|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PlzSnow|10 years ago|reply
People read what they want to read, if it fits their political narrative.
A tiny administrative section in Finland is trialling it, but it's only being pushed by a minority left-wing, and it has no chance of being implemented in reality.
This story can be filed along with the "Sweden implements 6-hour working day", which was also arrant nonsense.
[+] [-] jsnell|10 years ago|reply
There is no ongoing trial, just a plan to have a trial start in about a year. The parameters (e.g. location, the monetary sums, exactly which existing social security mechanisms it replaces) are still undecided. But it seems very unlikely that they'd run the test in just a single location like you're suggesting.
It is also not being pushed by a left-wing minority, but by the most conservative government Finland has had in decades (consisting of the conservative party, the centre party and the nationalist party). At least right now the idea appears to have very broad support in the polls, though that could of course change once there's a concrete proposal.
[+] [-] csvan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonh|10 years ago|reply
If you make a change like this though, I think a lot of other adjustments logically follow. Adjusting the previous benefits and tax system is a no-brainer. The cost has to be funded somehow. Beyond that though, there are a lot of other regulations and laws that would need to be reconsidered. There doesn't seem any sense having a minimum wage for example if you already have a basic income. It would also seem reasonable to relax some job protection legislation to create a more flexible labour market. In the UK if you quit your job you are not entitled to unemployment benefits, but that disadvantage would be gone. It would be easier for workers to go on strike because they'd still get the basic income. I think it would be reasonable in exchange to reduce the costs to employers making redundancies.
[+] [-] beat|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbcgerard|10 years ago|reply
But I wonder (and this is an honest question) are we, as a society, really (practically, politically, and philosophically) going to take a hard line with someone that lost their check at the local casino - and tell them "tough luck, sounds like a hungry few weeks ahead"?
[+] [-] gotchange|10 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10522880
[+] [-] Silhouette|10 years ago|reply
Yes, that's the tricky part.
I seem to be politically moderate on this issue, in that I am in favour of some form of social security safety net for the essentials, but I also think any government aid beyond that needs to be limited so those who do more also see more benefit in return. A guaranteed basic income seems like an interesting idea that could work as part of a wider reform of our social security framework.
Perhaps it could be combined with some form of public service requirement for those who want to claim it, so it would be more like a guaranteed job available to as many people as need it than a hand-out. This could be used to support useful activities that aren't run commercially, such as looking after local neighbourhood amenities, or helping at your kid's school if you have useful skills to share, or even going abroad to help with aid work after a natural disaster. Instead of the state social security apparatus concentrating on who qualifies or doesn't qualify for which benefits, with sometimes controversial or unfair results, maybe it could concentrate on recognising valuable activities and helping those otherwise without a job to contribute to them.
Next you have the issue of private and public sector employment. Maybe set a statutory minimum wage for employing someone full-time that is a modest but noticeable amount above the basic income level? Tax any form of income above that level, adjust in some reasonable way for people who are working part-time, and adjust in reasonable ways to support those who have other genuine responsibilities or disabilities, and this seems like the basis for a system where work does pay but if you're ever the unlucky one for a while then you aren't getting punched when you're down. Maybe it could even support a different kind of lifestyle for the type of person who likes contributing to their community in practical ways and doesn't much value material things or financial wealth.
I also wonder whether, given the shifting population patterns and increasing debt particularly among the young that we have in the West today, we should place a lot more emphasis on social housing, even if that just means a modest dorm-style room and some basic communal facilities so everyone can have somewhere to eat, sleep and wash. It seems to me that this would be a natural fit with the idea of giving everyone a basic safety net and an opportunity to move up to enjoy things beyond the essentials in exchange for taking on better paid work.
[+] [-] eanzenberg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhulla|10 years ago|reply
There are many cases where unequal benefits payments are considered politically, morally and ethically acceptable by the majority of society. E.g. the blind, the handicapped, war veterans, orphans, victims of crime, volunteers...
For example in the US, the blind may deduct expenses from their income before taxes that others may not. This is an unequal benefit that we collectively accept.
In Finland's proposal, what will happen to benefits for special cases?
[+] [-] lordnacho|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|10 years ago|reply
I'm less familiar with the specifics of Finland's system, but in Denmark, if you run out of savings and eligibility for other sources of support (unemployment benefits, etc.), you fall back on a last-line "cash assistance" (kontanthjælp) which is something like $1500/mo, and can be received indefinitely. But you lose it if you get a job, so it can provide a disincentive to work in some cases, especially if your only job options are low-paying ones. Just paying out a basic income unconditionally wouldn't have the same issue, since any employment income would be in addition to the basic income, vs. the current scheme where your job income replaces the cash assistance.
[+] [-] malchow|10 years ago|reply
Leftist politicians have blocked this at several points, alas, although it is probably the most humane and effective method of delivering help to the poor. It also has the advantage of getting more people to, you know, actually file tax returns.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
That's at best misleading and at worst flat-out false; a pure NIT has rarely reached the point of even a serious proposal, both left and right groups have proposed kinda-sorta-NITs, some of which have passed, some of which haven't, and the failures have been sometimes resulted from opposition from the right, sometimes to opposition from the left, and sometimes from opposition that is neither purely left or right (and sometimes to extraneous political reasons not directly and specifically tied to the NIT-related proposal itself.)
It's worth noting that very close to the same time Friedman started promoting the idea, so did scholars from the liberal Brookings Institute.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html
[+] [-] protomyth|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|10 years ago|reply
What was the rationale? It seems like a leftist issue to me.
[+] [-] bargl|10 years ago|reply
I like the idea of a system that still has incentives for people to work but doesn't leave them hanging if they can't find a job.
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|10 years ago|reply
Ultimately, I think people will want to work. It gives them something to do and the money to afford things they want but don't need. If everyone followed Keynes, we would be happy with working ten hours a week to maintain a 1930s standard of living.
[+] [-] oakhaven|10 years ago|reply
In Finland, a welfare state indeed, you can quite easily slack off on the social benefits already. If you take up unemployment insurance, you can basically get 18 months of 70% of your salary after you get fired or quit. The insurance (or union membership) costs around 100 EUR a year. A lot of people I know count on this, or already take advantage of it. I see that as a quite big thing, it must drain a lot of money from somewhere if you think about big companies letting people go by big numbers, plus people in 20s or 30s going for one-year backpacking trips.
The 800 EUR probably just makes it more simple for the social system to distribute the benefits. Plus some innovation karma for Finland, yay!
edit: I fogot my main point: even though it feels somehow discouraging to pass money to slackers, I still don't mind paying the high taxes - I haven't found any other reason that makes Finland so nice place to live!
[+] [-] randomname2|10 years ago|reply
If this is a last desperate ploy to prevent secular stagnation one has to wonder how effective this will be, and how "temporary" - for now this is sold as temporary but the moment it is withdrawn their economy would truly crater.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/12001895/Finlands-depress...
[+] [-] raintrees|10 years ago|reply
This looks more like a work-around attempt to correct their economy after major commodities slump, Nokia problems, etc. Being in the Euro camp, they are unable to devalue their currency, as a country might normally choose to do...
[+] [-] Tiktaalik|10 years ago|reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME
[+] [-] joshschreuder|10 years ago|reply
Doesn't it seem wasteful to give them more money each month, rather than say, working on the homeless problem directly with this money, or increasing the amount given, but reducing the scope of people it is given to?
Can someone explain the logic here?
[+] [-] drdeca|10 years ago|reply
If someone has a very high marginal tax rate, then it would have a very small impact on their income and on govt spending?
If it isn't received above some income level, but is received entirely below that income level, then there would be a disincentive of that given amount against going a little bit above that income level. And, maybe that's fine? But if it is why not just incorporate that into taxes?
If there is a sharp threshold, it seems like trying to make that threshold as low as possible would be dangerous, because it might cause a personally significant disincentive against working, or getting a job that pays more. But if it was significantly higher than the apparent lowest possible safe value, that would seem unfair for the same reason? So, if instead of a sharp cut-off, there could be a gradual cutoff?
That seems pretty similar to the basic income or negative income tax ideas though. But not necessarily identical, just of the same form.
ok so if f(x) is the amount of taxes minus the amount of govt income that one must pay (so, negative numbers would be net receiving money from the government) , and x is other income, then,
f(0)<0, uh...
I forget where I was going with that. d/dx (x-f(x)) > 0 seems reasonable to expect? I suppose it could be <0 at a small area where it wouldn't have much impact, (or have a discontinuity, but same thing basically. ) but I'm not sure what the advantages of having that would be.
[+] [-] microcolonel|10 years ago|reply
I don't think there's much else to say but good luck.
[+] [-] dev1n|10 years ago|reply
In early Colonial America everyone had to help out in some way, or else they were denied food. I don't know why we never extended that idea.
[+] [-] run4yourlives2|10 years ago|reply
If the state wants to build a road, it should pay qualified people the market rate to build a road, not use a pool of people hard on their luck.
Basic Income allows people to manage their own life in a more cost effective way than the welfare and other social programs we already provide, plus it provides incentive and opportunity to better their position through work/school.
[+] [-] lumberjack|10 years ago|reply
What big employers rather prefer is EITC which is a rather blatant way of getting the tax payer to subsidize their cost of labour.
And these days governments are forbidden from doing anything in house. They are forced to contract everything to the lowest bidder in the private sector because the logic goes that it's cheaper that way.
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|10 years ago|reply
I will believe that you believe in your argument when you volunteer to give up all of your assets and live on whatever work you can get. I imagine you might find yourself forming arguments about it limiting your own efficiency and output.
[+] [-] spatulan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordnacho|10 years ago|reply
These days you have engineers and cranes using special materials.
[+] [-] tosseraccount|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masterponomo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DHJSH|10 years ago|reply
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=U.S.+Population+%2F+U.S...
This means that every American who doesn't pay at least $4,000 in Federal Income Taxes is receiving money from the Government.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pjlegato|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses." -Juvenal
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dibujante|10 years ago|reply
First you need to ask the question: "why was a basic income instituted?"
It was instituted to buy votes, of course. But why were people's votes for sale so cheaply?
During Rome's ascendancy, the citizen-soldier institution sent hundreds of thousands of Roman men out into the world on military campaigns. As their successes grew, so did their terms of military service.
In turn, this lead to the collapse of the farms that these men used to work in order to provide for themselves and their family. These farms were purchased by the patrician class, and worked by slaves.
Within a few generations, wealth inequality in Rome was so bad that most of the households that had previously been small landholders were reduced to urban poverty.
Some Roman politicians did attempt to address this stifling inequality (such as the Gracchi brothers). After the Senate repeatedly murdered such "class traitors", the compromise of bread and circuses became the Senatorial (and later, Imperial) solution to the problems that the Senatorial classes had themselves caused.
Universal income in Rome was a symptom of a completely dysfunctional society. Rome collapsed because its working classes ceased to work, but its working classes ceased to work because its ruling classes ceased to rule for the benefit of the many. Rome was brought down by its wealthy elite.
If modern Western societies really are analogous to Rome (which they probably aren't), then universal income may herald the collapse. However, if it does, then this collapse will have been ultimately precipitated by the aggregation of power in the hands of the wealthy.
In any case, pointing the finger at the Roman poor is a historical trend that was conjured by Rome's ruling classes to justify their own positions (think of all the howling about the "welfare poor" by the well-off in North American society today) and later by conservative British historians to justify the lopsided distribution of wealth and power in their own society. Rome's poor built the Roman Empire.
[+] [-] protomyth|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duncan_bayne|10 years ago|reply
or
"Let's make earning a living optional, and funded by the productive members of society, and see how that pans out".
I'll grant you it'll be easier and cheaper to implement than other versions of a taxpayer funded welfare state, but I imagine the outcomes will be the same, and the (im)morality is no different.