oloren

" Without a basic income a small group of people uses the power of the legal system to take control of all the Earth's resources."

OK, Karl. You've stated the fundamental problem, but how do you address the fact that this "monied elite" has control over the entire economic system, so that corruption rules, democracy is simply a media show, and no significant change is allowed? You imply that the tax system can equalize things, paying back the propertyless for their loss of "public" resources, but the tax system we have is nothing but corruption, with a thin layer of "progressive" benefits atop a mass of special-interest theft of public resources. In short, how can a basic income ever accomplish the "payback" you talk about without reforming the tax system?

Thanks for your response, Karl, for it gives me an opportunity to clarify how my strategy for implementing uBIG may differ from yours. "Economically feasible", yes, but "politically feasible", as you seem to think, emphatically no, except by one very specific solution.

The example you give reveals your reliance on the "illusion of democracy", that if enough people want something, they'll get it. 30 million people could never assemble in the streets of the USA to demand change: Occupy Wall Street proved that, and Ferguson was just a reminder that combat ready troops will stop any movement on the streets, and their media will make it all seem entirely reasonable. In other words, we have no "street power" to make a "massive movement". But this turns out to be a good thing, because there is little doubt in my mind that any serious movement to "take up arms" to change things will be engineered to create greater repression.

What we do have in our favor, though, is a clause in Article 5 of the US Constitution empowering the citizens to change the government without taking to the streets, by amending the constitution through a Constitutional Convention, whose decision the Congress is obliged by law to implement into law. This is why I say that our only hope lies in crafting the 28th Amendment to Constitution to implement the correct uBIG, eliminate the corrupt US TaxCode and replace it with a single-bracket system in which every citizen pays exactly the same flat tax-rate on income alone (without any further reporting of how one spends their income, since no deductions are possible), and fix the economy by returning to the Treasury the prerogative of controlling the issue of money (which means requiring banks to hold 100% deposits on all loans they make, and disempowering the Federal Reserve, making it a desk within the Treasury department), so that the Treasury can act like a Bureau of Weights and Measures for Money and maintain stable prices from century to century.

Of course there are lots of details to be worked out, but I just wanted to suggest that the critical thing at this point in the uBIG movement is not getting people to entertain the notion, but to get the specific plan for its implementation right.

Good question, and this is why I'm doubtful that a forum discussion like this can do anything but make people aware of the issue. The solution to the economic problems which can result from unconditional Basic Income Guarantee (uBIG) can only come about if it is done right. It seems to me this is like having hundreds of people all trying to decide how to construct an internal combustion engine and fit it into a vehicle. Its really a question of engineering, and we should really be scrutinizing the different blueprints, not everybody shouting out what the want (i.e., fighting for their own unfair advantage).

Of course Social Security must be completely eliminated once uBIG is implemented, but the level of uBIG must be set at a near median income-level, so all most all current SS beneficiaries will be far better off. The level must clearly be high enough so that current government employees will have a reasonable income during their transition to marketplace employment when their unnecessary govt agencies and jobs are eliminated. And the level must be high enough so that children do not receive uBIG benefits, only adults, who will then easily be able to afford taking care of their children (and not have incentive to have more children to increase their take from the government).

Can uBIG work at such a high level. Absolutely, if it is implemented through a constitutional amendment (#28) that abolishes the US TaxCode and replaces it with a single bracket system in which every citizen gets exactly the same uBIG, and pays exactly the same flat tax-rate on their income alone (with no further reporting to the govt how you spend your money). If we demand fairness from the government, which means that the government must treat every citizen the same, we can implement the right uBIG, end corruption, end poverty and live happily ever after. But hey, its more fun to fight than be fair, if everything you hear or see in the media is any indication.

The issue of including children is crucial, and I must strongly disagree with Karl here. If the universal Basic Income Guarantee (uBIG) does not eliminate corruption there is really no point to it. Giving income to chlldren is a most blatant form of corruption, because it is really giving money to the parents and pretending it goes to the children, with no way to verify this without increasing the bureaucracies and their power to snoop and interfere in citizens' lives. And most outrageously, it then gives people incentive to have more children to raise their income! The reason for an UNCONDITIONAL basic income is that it gets rid of government interference -- thus ending corruption -- but still solves the problem of poverty. Add giving money to children, you undo this and open the door to more corruption and government monitoring of citizens. By making the level of the uBIG high enough, and giving it only to adults, children are easily taken care of by their parents.

In short, I totally disagree with the belief that any form of basic income is an improvement. We need to implement uBIG in the right way, or not at all.

That's the problem with obsession, there's always some unrecognized error in the logic. This objection was addressed by Milton Friedman, who pointed out that "there is no such thing as free lunch". It is simple physics (3rd Law of Thermodynamics, I believe) that says you can transform matter into energy and vice versa, but you cannot create something out of nothing, and get perpetual motion in the bargain. Somebody always pays for the lunch, you just need to be thorough enough in your investigation to see what's really going on. Of course, most people don't have the time to bother with attention to details, so its easier to obsess on some idea you have fixed in your mind, even if you don't even have a clue to what it really means. But to cut to the chase, universal Basic Income Guarantee (uBIG) is not a "free lunch", it is a redistribution of income, which is why the critical question focuses on the fairness of how and why it is done. Interesting investigations for some, and Karl Widerquist has made significant contributions in this endeavor, but for others just an irritating challenge to their faith (in unexamined obsessive ideas).