The Unconditional Basic Income

[judge56988]

You shouldn't listen to propaganda at all. Make up your own mind based on your experiences. It helps to listen to all sides of the issue and apply your own life lessons.

Absolutely.

[Paul Nollen]

One of the findings was that a NIT gave rise to break up marriages.

This is actually a benefit. Being trapped in a marriage for purely economic reasons is a sort of chattledom. The reason the concept of a sanctioned divorce is basically as old as the concept of a sanctioned marriage is the recognition that not all marriages work out.

Another remark I often encounter, even here, is the "work incentive". Where I live, in Belgium, we have a very good social security (far to much administration in comparison with an basic income, but we are on the way ) and on top of that we have a whole lot of legislation and law enforcement in order to PREVENT people to work when they are receiving some kind of benefit. People don't stop working when receiving a social benefit, on the contrary, they are very inventive to supplement that income. There is also a study of lottery winners confirming this trend. People don't stop working when they have an income. Rich people do work also, and some of them very hard. Why should poor people stop doing anything when receiving a basic income? There is no evidence at all to support this view. There may be an influence on wages. When there is freedom to negotiate your wage (that is called “the right to say NOâ€

[jessekopelman]

There are also some reasonable people with Business Degrees in this discussion asking for caps on salary. Putting a cap on opportunity puts a cap on productivity, innovation, and progress.

Salary does not equal opportunity. Which is better: to work 80 hours a week and earn $160k/yr or to work 40 hours a week and earn 80k/yr? The answer will be different for different people. There are many people who would even choose to work fewer hours at a lower hourly rate, just to get more free time -- just as there are many people who would choose the reverse. This misunderstanding is preventing us from solving many of our current societal problems.

And the fact that we are free to do either is what makes this system great. But when you work to enrich others, do you not think that you would be less inclined to work those 80hrs?

No. Study after study has shown that beyond a certain income threshold (<< $100,000, BTW), how hard people work has almost nothing to do with monetary compensation. In most (all?) wealthy countries we already have progressive income tax. Somehow we have no shortage of people willing to work hard to earn lots of money, even with the full knowledge that doing so means incurring more taxes . . . Is there some tipping point where too high a tax rate would disincentivize hard work? Quite possibly, but we are far from it in the countries that produce the bulk of the world's wealth.

Why should I toil to help you when you do not toil to help even yourself?

In society, not everything is tit-for-tat. There is no guarantee that you will ever drive on a road that your taxes pave. However, the fact that roads in general will be paved has a great societal value. Keeping the masses "fat and happy", even if it means paying for them not to work, has merits as well. I am not necessarily saying it is the best solution, just that if you are going to argue against it use math and reason, not your personal concept of morality. All these arguments based on the premise that the only reason people work is to make money ignore all existing data on the subject, which argues exactly the opposite.

[jessekopelman]

[quote="Paul Nollen"]
Another remark I often encounter, even here, is the "work incentive". Where I live, in Belgium, we have a very good social security (far to much administration in comparison with an basic income, but we are on the way ) and on top of that we have a whole lot of legislation and law enforcement in order to PREVENT people to work when they are receiving some kind of benefit. People don't stop working when receiving a social benefit, on the contrary, they are very inventive to supplement that income. There is also a study of lottery winners confirming this trend. People don't stop working when they have an income. Rich people do work also, and some of them very hard. Why should poor people stop doing anything when receiving a basic income? There is no evidence at all to support this view. There may be an influence on wages. When there is freedom to negotiate your wage (that is called “the right to say NOâ€

[judge56988]

. . . Is there some tipping point where too high a tax rate would disincentivize hard work? Quite possibly, but we are far from it in the countries that produce the bulk of the world's wealth.

For me there is - I stop taking on work when my earnings reach the 40% tax threshold. I don't "need" the extra money and time at home with family has more value to me.

Much earlier in this thread I did point out several reasons why people work, other than for financial reward. It seems so long ago...

Seems to me that there are those that 'work to live' and those that 'live to work'. The latter type are more often the ones with broken marriages/failed relationships; their job is the most important thing in their lives.

[jessekopelman]

. . . Is there some tipping point where too high a tax rate would disincentivize hard work? Quite possibly, but we are far from it in the countries that produce the bulk of the world's wealth.

For me there is - I stop taking on work when my earnings reach the 40% tax threshold. I don't "need" the extra money and time at home with family has more value to me.

I fully understand and agree with the time at home being worth more than extra money, but I don't understand why taxation is your trigger point. Are you saying that if the tax brackets were raised, you'd work more hours? Even if there were no taxes there would still be the issue of a trade off between the need to earn money and the desire to spend time in other ways. The way you write it, it seems like you are more concerned with how much you pay in taxes than how much you take home, which seems spiteful.

[judge56988]

. . . Is there some tipping point where too high a tax rate would disincentivize hard work? Quite possibly, but we are far from it in the countries that produce the bulk of the world's wealth.

For me there is - I stop taking on work when my earnings reach the 40% tax threshold. I don't "need" the extra money and time at home with family has more value to me.

I fully understand and agree with the time at home being worth more than extra money, but I don't understand why taxation is your trigger point. Are you saying that if the tax brackets were raised, you'd work more hours? Even if there were no taxes there would still be the issue of a trade off between the need to earn money and the desire to spend time in other ways. The way you write it, it seems like you are more concerned with how much you pay in taxes than how much you take home, which seems spiteful.

I'm concerned with both things actually. I charge a day rate and when I work I'm always away from home, usually overseas, so if I'm paying 40% tax as opposed to 22% then for me to go away for that much less money in my pocket is not an attractive option. It's a balance between the two things. If there was no high tax rate then my wife and I might decide that if I did a couple of weeks extra work then we could go on holiday for instance; but if the tax man is going to take almost half my earnings then our view is that it's not worth it.
Perhaps I have a different viewpoint from the majority of people who get to go home every night. I spend 6 months a year living in hotels.

[jessekopelman]

If there was no high tax rate then my wife and I might decide that if I did a couple of weeks extra work then we could go on holiday for instance; but if the tax man is going to take almost half my earnings then our view is that it's not worth it.

Ok, I'm with you now. Your real issue is not taxation per se, but profit margin. Nothing spiteful about that. While I am sure there are many people in your situation, I'm not sure there are enough for it to be statistically relevant. Yes many many people work for an hourly rate, but relatively few have tight control over how many hours they work. I worked as a consultant for 4 years, billing by the hour, and was never able to accumulate as many billable hours in any of those years as I would have liked. The idea of turning down work just to manage my tax bracket was a luxury I did not have; yet I was still making what most would consider a decent living and had tons of free time.

[autoboy]

Most people will work to improve their lot in life. That is correct. And that is why in my example Paul was ok with working. If the government taxes them they are still taking home more money then they would have if they hadn't worked as hard. The reward just gets less and less as you move up the tax bracket. For some, that is enough to discurouge them to work, and for some, as long as they can sustain themselves they chose to be lazy like Jake.

How about another example of high taxation on the rich ruining the economy:

I run a small business that is privately funded. If my investors are taxed at a higher rate, then they have less money to give my company. If they give me less money, I have less money to operate on and I can't hire as many people.

If you tax someone with 10 million dollars at 50%, which is about their current tax rate depending on the state, then they have only 5 million left over. They may live on 500k a year, and so they invest the other money in stock, bonds, and if they are rich enough, private companies such as mine. After taxes they can only give me $4.5 million to run my company. If they are then taxed at 60% a year, then they have only 3.5 million to invest in me. The higher taxes don't hurt them because they are still living on their 500k a year which is substantial, but it hurts me as a startup and it hurts my ability to employ more people and to attract high quality employees with a good salary package. If each employee costs me $50K a year, then I just laid off 20 people, and it probably wasn't management. So, in this instance, by taxing the rich a higher rate, it is only hurting business and average employees.

[jessekopelman]

I run a small business that is privately funded. If my investors are taxed at a higher rate, then they have less money to give my company. If they give me less money, I have less money to operate on and I can't hire as many people.

But could your business survive without government provided services that are paid for by taxation? You live in CA. Large parts of that state would be uninhabited but not for government programs to dam rivers and build reservoirs to supply water to arid areas. Where would the state be without the Federal Highway Program? California is home to the heart of the Internet economy, but without a lot of public funding (much of it filtered through public universities) there'd be no Internet.

It's not so simple as less taxes mean more money for private investment. We live in a society. This means that things most be oriented towards the common good. This means lots of shared benefits at the cost of individual sacrifice. We can argue all day about how to strike the balance between the two, but he have to at least admit there must be a balance. Too much of the Randian nonsense that is going around lately seems to come from a place that believes that everything would be great if individuals were freed from societal obligations. I say if you really believe that, no one is forcing you to participate in this game. Go live in the woods and see how great it is to not have the plebeians dragging you down. This kind of thinking brings me back to Craig T Nelson's hysterical comments about how the government never helped him when he was on food stamps and welfare. The issue is not how much people are being taxed, but whether they are getting good value, in terms of services, for their money.

To go back to your original point: If by paying more taxes your investors will start receiving public services they were previously paying for out of pocket, they may actually end up with more disposable income -- money they could invest in your business. Or, perhaps more taxes means less services you have to provide to your employees -- allowing you to hire more people for less money. It is not so straight forward as to say more taxes == less spending power.

[judge56988]

We live in a society. This means that things most be oriented towards the common good. This means lots of shared benefits at the cost of individual sacrifice. We can argue all day about how to strike the balance between the two, but we have to at least admit there must be a balance.

It would be hard to argue against that.

It leads back to the topic of the thread in a way. What I object to in the UBI is the U word - unconditional. One of the great things about a "society" is the way in which people will come together to help and support those in need, probably because we all recognise that we might one day need that help ourselves; be it medical care, pension or whatever. Equally, society is just as quick to shun those that it considers to be taking advantage of the support system. It is a method that has evolved for protecting society.
Parasitic behaviour exists throughout nature, the number of parasites is strictly limited by the hosts ability to provide resources both for the parasites and itself. If the host dies, then so to do the parasites. Human nature has developed in such a way as to protect our societies from the people who want to take and give nothing back in return.
The most extreme form of parasitic behaviour is theft, robbery, extortion etc. and people who practice these activities are effectively removed from society. Others who practice a non-violent form of parasitic behaviour are quickly shunned when they are found out. As a day to day example, think about the reaction to the guy who never puts his hand in his pocket to buy a round of drinks, much barracking and abuse from his "mates" until he either contributes his share or is forced out of the group. Compare that to the reaction when a guy walks into the bar and has just lost his job - the mates rally round and will support him, only too happy to share their resources to buy his beers and keep him in the group. This altruism would however slowly ebb away if the guy who had lost his job appeared to be taking advantage of the generosity of his friends and was making no attempt to help himself out of his situation.

This is human nature as it has developed for good or bad, and the reason why, IMHO, something like the UBI will never be acceptable to the majority.

[Cov]

Oh dear ! ... judge ...

If you really believe in that what you just posted, then there is really no wonder for why we have so much misunderstandings.

You don't understand the concept of the UBI and you have not informed yourself about it, yet.

I do appreciate that you follow this discussion and by all means, please don't stop taking part in it.
But I have read so very much nonsense from people against the UBI idea, that I find it hard to cope sometimes.

[judge56988]

Oh dear ! ... judge ...

If you really believe in that what you just posted, then there is really no wonder for why we have so much misunderstandings.

You don't understand the concept of the UBI and you have not informed yourself about it, yet.

I do appreciate that you follow this discussion and by all means, please don't stop taking part in it.
But I have read so very much nonsense from people against the UBI idea, that I find it hard to cope sometimes.

I read this in your original post:

She applied for an unconditionally basic salary.

What that means is, that EVERY single citizen should get the basic right, by the grounds of basic law, to receive Euro 1.500.- per month. (£1376.- / $2.021.-)
And every child Euro 1.000.- per month (£918.- / $1.348.-)
That's WITHOUT any attachments, strings or commitments.
Meaning, whatever one decides to do, the basic income, will be secure, no matter what.

I also followed the link you posted but it's in German - I'm limited to vier bier bitte.

Is there more to understand than what you said? It's seems quite specific to me.

Surely you can tell from the amount of negative feedback the idea has received in this thread, that many people find the whole concept to be unworkable, naive and in fact laughable. All I've tried to do is rationalise it a bit to point out why I believe it could never work. In two words - human nature.

[Paul Nollen]

Oh dear ! ... judge ...

If you really believe in that what you just posted, then there is really no wonder for why we have so much misunderstandings.

You don't understand the concept of the UBI and you have not informed yourself about it, yet.

I do appreciate that you follow this discussion and by all means, please don't stop taking part in it.
But I have read so very much nonsense from people against the UBI idea, that I find it hard to cope sometimes.

I read this in your original post:

She applied for an unconditionally basic salary.

What that means is, that EVERY single citizen should get the basic right, by the grounds of basic law, to receive Euro 1.500.- per month. (£1376.- / $2.021.-)
And every child Euro 1.000.- per month (£918.- / $1.348.-)
That's WITHOUT any attachments, strings or commitments.
Meaning, whatever one decides to do, the basic income, will be secure, no matter what.

I also followed the link you posted but it's in German - I'm limited to vier bier bitte.

Is there more to understand than what you said? It's seems quite specific to me.

Surely you can tell from the amount of negative feedback the idea has received in this thread, that many people find the whole concept to be unworkable, naive and in fact laughable. All I've tried to do is rationalise it a bit to point out why I believe it could never work. In two words - human nature.

Hello Judge,

even most of the people who are in favour of the idea of a basic income agree that there will be an amount were advantages and disadvantages of a basic income will meet. But in the amounts already tried out (social experiments US and Canada in the 60ties, Alaska, Namibia pilot project) these limits are not reached.

And the "unconditional" is very limited. In most proposals it is limited to work and income. In every case I know you must be a legal resident. In Alaska it is taxable income on Federal level (Alaska has no income tax).
In the Namibia pilot project (Otjivero) Basic Income is 100 Namibian dollar a month.
Theoretical there is no amount mentioned in the proposals of basic income. Every state must look at is means and the needs to see what is possible. In some rich countries an amount around 1000 Euro a month seems to be possible without raising the total amount of taxes but it is not the amount what is important to start with. I know in Belgium we did the calculation last in 2006 and the amounts were
0-18 years 150 Euro (a month)
18- 25 years 4444 Euro
25 - 65 years 600 Euro
65 + 888 Euro
And this in the state budget like it was, with some alterations in the tax system (a shift from income tax to consumption tax but all within actual budgets)

Paul

[Paul Nollen]

18- 25 years 4444 Euro must be 18- 25 years 444 Euro
otherwise it would be out of budget

Paul

[jessekopelman]

The most extreme form of parasitic behaviour is theft, robbery, extortion etc. and people who practice these activities are effectively removed from society.

This is exactly the type of behavior that welfare is designed to eliminate. Once you start providing some sort of social safety net, you take away the "I had no choice, I need to feed my family" excuse for crime. Does that eliminate crime completely? Of course not. But it does streamline the issue quite a bit. I think most conservatives would agree that criminals are basically lazy. Given the high cost of using police and prisons to apprehend and punish the criminals, isn't it actually more cost effective to bribe them to stay home and watch TV?

One thing I'd like to make clear is that I'm not necessarily advocating the UBI. I think it is one of several potential solutions to some or our societal problems. The reason I keep posting in its defense is that it seems like people are only arguing against it on fairly personal moral grounds. I wish we could actually get some discussion of its economic pros and cons and comparison against alternatives like increased minimum wage and ancillary programs like mandatory government service. Every time there is discussion along those lines it quickly turns back into "I don't like paying taxes" or "I don't like paying people not to work." Those are perfectly valid in terms of feelings and morals, but they are not grounds for a reasoned discussion. It's not about what you like but what is actually better for society. Personally, I hate taxes and generally care little for the welfare of others! But, that doesn't mean I can't see the value to society and even to me personally in welfare.

[judge56988]

This is exactly the type of behavior that welfare is designed to eliminate. Once you start providing some sort of social safety net, you take away the "I had no choice, I need to feed my family" excuse for crime. Does that eliminate crime completely? Of course not. But it does streamline the issue quite a bit. I think most conservatives would agree that criminals are basically lazy. Given the high cost of using police and prisons to apprehend and punish the criminals, isn't it actually more cost effective to bribe them to stay home and watch TV?

I don't consider that the economic pros and cons are what is of greatest importance here. Peoples feelings are what matter because their feelings will inspire them to vote for one or other political party, to demonstrate or to riot, or even to bring down the government. People don't react to reasoned financial argument; they react to perceived fairness or unfairness and ultimately, to what's in it for them, either directly or indirectly.

I think that the biggest problem is the lack of ethics that the so called "underclass" have. A large chunk of society do not believe that it is actually wrong to routinely commit petty crime, to defraud the state (and ultimately the tax payer) by claiming benefits that they are not entitled to and to work in the black economy where they are paid in cash, pay no taxes and continue to claim benefits. I can't see any of this behaviour changing as a result of changing the label from welfare to UBI. These kind of people will always take as much as they can from others because they now believe that it is acceptable to do so. In those levels of society there is prestige attached to how much they can get away with. A consequence of this is that normally upright citizens see what is going on and react with either indignation or more usually - "Well if he's doing it and getting away with it, why shouldn't I?"
What is the cause of this? Is it the breakdown of the family unit? The virtual disappearance of discipline for children? The failure of schools and parents to teach right from wrong? The almost complete lack of influence of the church in the West? Probably a combination of all these factors and more.

There is something fundamentally wrong with Western Society that is allowing this problem to get worse year on year. The Islamic extremists even use the idea of the "depraved and immoral" western society to gain support from moderate Muslims.

Probably the work ethic became such an important part of peoples mindset because up until recent times, to not work meant starvation or at best, a miserable life begging and relying on the charity of others. As I tried to point out previously, feelings, morals, ethics - call them what you will - have evolved or developed over tens of thousands of years to provide a self protection method for societies. Until recently theses sets of "values" have been "enforced" in different ways: being shunned by society, by fear of retribution from the Gods or from the law.
Humans are, by nature, out for themselves and those closely genetically linked to themselves. People have found that being a part of a society offers many advantages and so were willing to abide by the rules. What is starting to happen now is that a whole section of society has discovered that for them there is a better strategy, which is to take without contributing. That strategy is only better because the downside that used to exist as a deterrent is no longer there. To use the same biological metaphor as in my previous post, the parasites are starting to kill the host. So at what point does the host start to fight back?

This is a real dilemma for modern society. In the same way that a true democracy lacks the tools to fight that which will ultimately destroy it, a true welfare state sows the seeds of it's own destruction. My prediction is that history students a thousand years from now will be asked to answer the exam question: "Compare and contrast the rise and fall of the Western Empire with that of the Roman Empire"

(It's a very complex issue and perhaps I don't have the required word skills, or time, to put down my thoughts that well. There is so much room for misinterpretation on forums such as this.)

[ame]

think that the biggest problem is the lack of ethics that the so called "underclass" have. A large chunk of society do not believe that it is actually wrong to routinely commit petty crime, to defraud the state (and ultimately the tax payer) by claiming benefits that they are not entitled to and to work in the black economy where they are paid in cash, pay no taxes and continue to claim benefits. I can't see any of this behaviour changing as a result of changing the label from welfare to UBI. These kind of people will always take as much as they can from others because they now believe that it is acceptable to do so. In those levels of society there is prestige attached to how much they can get away with. A consequence of this is that normally upright citizens see what is going on and react with either indignation or more usually - "Well if he's doing it and getting away with it, why shouldn't I?"
What is the cause of this? Is it the breakdown of the family unit? The virtual disappearance of discipline for children? The failure of schools and parents to teach right from wrong? The almost complete lack of influence of the church in the West? Probably a combination of all these factors and more.

There is something fundamentally wrong with Western Society that is allowing this problem to get worse year on year. The Islamic extremists even use the idea of the "depraved and immoral" western society to gain support from moderate Muslims.

I agree with you but must take note

I don't think Islamic Extremists refer to the west as 'immoral etc.' because of any of what you said. If you knew what goes on in most Islamic countries you would see this culture of 'take what you can' is the norm, mostly because a large percentage of the population is very poor. The reference to the west as Immoral is simply due to cultural and religious differences. According to some extremists the way we dress (our women), what we eat, and the simple fact we are not Muslim is enough for some to justify our destruction at whatever cost.

Not meaning to turn from the topic of this thread I will say that some very rich Arab countries do have a very supportive economy where you can basically get free healthcare, food, education on all levels, housing and so on. Crime rates are low due to very high punishment levels coupled with an unforgiving legal system making crime less cost effective. If you take a moment to consider who is paying for this 'good life'.... its the west with oil money.

This way of life is nothing any of us here should to aspire to or would want to really (please correct me if I am wrong by posting "yes I want to live in Kuwait ). The proposed 'free of charge life for all' or basic salary etc. is just the reason communism didn't work in USSR. The only renaming communist countries are not really communist but dectatorships with some few, if any communist principals.

[Paul Nollen]

The proposed 'free of charge life for all' or basic salary etc. is just the reason communism didn't work in USSR. The only renaming communist countries are not really communist but dectatorships with some few, if any communist principals.

I always wonder what communism has to do with basic income. Communism is "central planning" and basic income is about freedom and individual development . There could not be a greater diference.

Paul

[qviri]

And a similar experiment called the Soviet Union that basically proved that getting paid equally and for doing noting or anything just wont work.

To address this and several other communism references--

The concept of equal pay or basic income (even where it existed, as pointed out by Tzupy earlier on) was only one of very many reasons for economic failure of the Soviet Union.

Braindead central planning (including setting production standards ridiculously low so they could be exceeded three- or five-fold in a triumph of the working man), corruption so widespread and deep-rooted the region is still recovering from it, insane hiring/admissions policies, artificial sustainance of unprofitable industries in name of tradition (creating feelings of sacred-cow entitlement still echoing today), and, for much of the lifespan of the country, ideologically-motivated everything (in good times, if you didn't tow the Party line, your career would not go anywhere, ever; in bad times, you got to learn the LD50 of bullets to the head) and the resulting brain drain to the West all played a large role.

You would have an easier time claiming Soviet Union a casualty of single-party political system. Still a simplification, but claiming basic salary as "just the reason communism didn't work in USSR" is insane.

[ame]

You would have an easier time claiming Soviet Union a casualty of single-party political system. Still a simplification, but claiming basic salary as "just the reason communism didn't work in USSR" is insane.

Actually the single party political system is among the most common on earth still. While it is 'insane' to claim basic income is the only reason for the fall of the USSR, it was not my intention.

My point was communism, regardless if pure or tainted with corruption, just doesn't work in the long run. People just become lazy and unmotivated after the generation of founders is gone and ideology is washed down the drain with it. With no incentive there is no drive to excellence, leading people to lead grey lives.

It is the struggle to survive and excel that had created all the main advancements in human culture in the past. Take that away and you will eventually be growing 'vegetable people'

The fall of the communist society structure as evident in eastern Europe or in "Kibbutz" in Israel, which have both become completely capitalistic nowadays, show this point.

The proposed basic income is a noble idea when considered with regards to helping those who cant work or support them selfs. But, for example, if SPCR forum members were paid for doing nothing, I bet many of us would do just that. Luckily we still have jobs, we are still motivated to excel by our need for money to support our families, to survive and to support our materialistic cravings. By working, paying taxes, learning an teaching others, inventing and improving, we support our community rather that drain its resources.

So to sum it up I'm all for socialism (helping the needy) and totally against communism (equal pay for the lazy)

[Cov]

1 + 1 = 2

90% of the population disputes this calculation.
Why ? Because of the same reason for why we still have problems without solutions.

Try to describe colors to a blind person who has never been able to see in his life.
Reading all your postings here, reminds me on peolpe giving their opinion without having sufficient data.

Is this subject so unimportant ? If you don't feel important to yourself, what about our children ? Are they not important ?

Is there anything that means something to you except money & wealth ?
Why don't you live without oxygene, water or food for a while ?

Maybe then you start realizing that you can't eat your possessions.
Possibly then you might be able to understand how other people feel who don't have the privilege that we have.

20% of the richest people receive 82.7% of the world income.
80% receive 17.3% of the world income.

10% of the richest people in Germany own 47% of the entire national private wealth.
50% of the population share 4% of the entire national wealth.

The 500 biggest companies in the world own 52% of the Gross National Product (GNP)

Please, before any of you guys post another reply in this thread, switch on your brain first .. and then you may type.
If you can't focus on the topic, then take some time out and do some research.

I don't need another wanna-be-judge who reminds me on what I typed initially, if he can't come up with an alternative solution.
How many decades are we trying already ? And what have we accomplished ?

Of course you can't see the problem, because you are the problem.

[qviri]

My point was communism, regardless if pure or tainted with corruption, just doesn't work in the long run. People just become lazy and unmotivated after the generation of founders is gone and ideology is washed down the drain with it. With no incentive there is no drive to excellence, leading people to lead grey lives.

It is the struggle to survive and excel that had created all the main advancements in human culture in the past. Take that away and you will eventually be growing 'vegetable people'

The fall of the communist society structure as evident in eastern Europe or in "Kibbutz" in Israel, which have both become completely capitalistic nowadays, show this point.

But the fall of communist society in eastern Europe and Russia had preciously little to do with lack of motivation or vegetation of the population. There was plenty of struggle - it was just aimed against the system. The political unrest was not primarily aimed at people getting paid to sit around. It was aimed at totalitarian behaviour, at lack of freedom, and at economic failures caused by ideologically-driven and often just incompetent central planning. It was in support of labour unions of all things. It wasn't communism that failed - it was a totalitarian, botched attempt at implementing it that did.

[ame]

qviri wrote:

But the fall of communist society in eastern Europe and Russia had preciously little to do with lack of motivation or vegetation of the population. There was plenty of struggle - it was just aimed against the system. The political unrest was not primarily aimed at people getting paid to sit around. It was aimed at totalitarian behaviour, at lack of freedom, and at economic failures caused by ideologically-driven and often just incompetent central planning. It was in support of labour unions of all things. It wasn't communism that failed - it was a totalitarian, botched attempt at implementing it that did.

The struggle was aimed against a system that apart from banning basic freedoms also made it impossible to archive personal growth. This was a major cause for despair when a poor family knew it was doomed to stay poor - just giving them some more money wouldn't help, they need a purpose. Humans need to struggle in order to archive greatness. If the system wouldn't let you do that, you will struggle to eliminate that system. It was not a struggle against totalitarian government, it was a struggle for the individual ability to grow and prosper.

Totalitarian government system are still very much alive and kicking around the world, yet communism is all but extinct, unless you count the appearance or claim to communism by totalitarians as a system. Not to justify it in any way but totalitarian governments are manageable systems as long as they allow individual growth and some form of capitalism or market to manage certain aspects of a person's life.

[qviri]

It was not a struggle against totalitarian government, it was a struggle for the individual ability to grow and prosper.

[citation needed]

[jessekopelman]

So to sum it up I'm all for socialism (helping the needy) and totally against communism (equal pay for the lazy)

UBI has nothing to do with equal pay . . . It is more akin to a minimum wage than a salary cap. The idea is that you get a certain government subsidy, no matter what your job is, and any pay you earn from you job is added on top of this. It is not an either or thing. Under the UBI, some investment banker working at Goldman Sachs would still earn his $1M salary and bonus on top of his $30k/yr UBI. What happens with a UBI is not that people stop being investment bankers, but that they stop being bus boys.

I would argue that their version of UBI had nothing whatsoever to do with the failure of the Soviet Union. I've never heard of any evidence that would support such a theory in the slightest.

[jessekopelman]

I don't consider that the economic pros and cons are what is of greatest importance here. Peoples feelings are what matter because their feelings will inspire them to vote for one or other political party, to demonstrate or to riot, or even to bring down the government.

You don't think moral objections along the lines you make against the UBI were made against Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare (sorry for the US examples, but that's what I'm familiar with), and pretty much every single government program that has ever been executed since the introduction of taxation? Before it became common practice, you don't think people were up in arms about spending their Federal Tax dollars to build highways in cities and states in which they didn't live and may never visit? Saying that "the people" will never accept a certain program is a very weak argument, continuously disproved by history. The only programs that are politically untenable are those that require sacrifice by the elected officials themselves, not those that require sacrifice by the electorate.

What is the cause of this? Is it the breakdown of the family unit? The virtual disappearance of discipline for children? The failure of schools and parents to teach right from wrong? The almost complete lack of influence of the church in the West? Probably a combination of all these factors and more.

Unfortunately for you, the time you want to return to is the historical aberration, not our current time. Every once in a while there is a rise of puritanical ethics, but it usually doesn't last that long and things return to normal. If you recall, the Puritans were kicked out of Europe for being too damn annoying

My prediction is that history students a thousand years from now will be asked to answer the exam question: "Compare and contrast the rise and fall of the Western Empire with that of the Roman Empire"

This would hardly support your case, as history tells us that Rome was generally the most successful when morals took a back seat to expediency. The rise of Rome happened when they were ruthless barbarians victimizing the more civilized nations around them. Their fall came when new barbarians played the same trick on them. The rise of Western Civilization came on the back of lovely things like Slavery, Colonialism, and wars on a scale the world had never seen. If we actually are in decline now, it is clearly because we slacked off on the killing and exploitation. It certainly has nothing to do with loss of work ethic. Modern workers work hours that would astound people of the 19th century. I'm not sure even indentured servants were expected to work 80 hour weeks -- hard to do given that people routinely slept 12 hours a day back then. Also, prior to the current recession, employment was at by far its highest rate since the Industrial Revolution (not counting special wartime efforts). Now one can argue that we need to work smarter (and I do), but we can hardly work harder.

(It's a very complex issue and perhaps I don't have the required word skills, or time, to put down my thoughts that well.

I don't mean this as an insult, but I think you assume your personal morals to be a lot more mainstream than they actually are, especially in a historical context. A large percentage of the populace feels and has always felt like you, but rarely have they actually been in the majority.

[judge56988]

What is the cause of this? Is it the breakdown of the family unit? The virtual disappearance of discipline for children? The failure of schools and parents to teach right from wrong? The almost complete lack of influence of the church in the West? Probably a combination of all these factors and more.

Unfortunately for you, the time you want to return to is the historical aberration, not our current time. Every once in a while there is a rise of puritanical ethics, but it usually doesn't last that long and things return to normal. If you recall, the Puritans were kicked out of Europe for being too damn annoying

Now that I don't like: you don't have the slightest idea what I want. They are the just the kind of questions that many people are asking. There is also a considerable difference between what we could call "decent values" and Puritanism. Or is that leap just your way of making a point? Not a lawyer or a politician are you?
FYI I'm an athiest, ex hippy, half socialist, half conservative pot head who just happens to think that the liberal thinking that began in the 60's might not have been such a good idea, sadly. All very well in theory, but has it worked?
My arguments against UBI are that it will be deviscive; based on what I've seen of human nature and financially unsustainable.
Now where did those damn Puritans go... Oh yeah - America.

[judge56988]

Modern workers work hours that would astound people of the 19th century. I'm not sure even indentured servants were expected to work 80 hour weeks -- hard to do given that people routinely slept 12 hours a day back then.

Where on earth do you get that idea from? You really don't know much about what life was like for the working classes in Britain during the industrial revolution.

Currently, the average number of hours worked per week is 44 in the UK compared to 40 in the rest of the EU. France recently introduced a 35 hour working week.

[jessekopelman]

There is also a considerable difference between what we could call "decent values" and Puritanism.

I don't know about that. There is certainly a commonality in terms of the ideas that there is something sacred about working for ones daily bread and that modern society has somehow fallen away from the proper path and become too corrupt. I'm not claiming you're a Calvanist, or anything, just a sort of Secular Puritan.

FYI I'm an athiest, ex hippy, half socialist, half conservative pot head who just happens to think that the liberal thinking that began in the 60's might not have been such a good idea, sadly.

But it didn't being in the 60s, it is as old as society itself -- just like your views. This is my issue with you. You argue like your beliefs are somehow older and more pure than others, but there is no historical evidence to support such a contention.

Now where did those damn Puritans go... Oh yeah - America.

Exactly, and we never recovered