Open Thread, May 19 - 25, 2014

somnicule

Previous Open Thread

You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

Previous Open Thread

You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

If the government would give each person say 30 % of GDP per capita to each person (not a very high standard of living), then that would force them to raise 30 % of GDP in taxes to cover for that.

In 2002, total U.S. social welfare expenditure constitutes over 35% of GDP

I think that would be too high anyway. Since anyone who bothers to work can make more than that, and the reduction in labor supply would increase pay, and any money you save will last you longer, there's little reason to make it enough for people to be well off, as opposed to getting just enough to scrape by.

It's also worth noting that most people will get a significant portion of that money back. If you make below the mean income (which most people do, since it's positively skewed) you will end up getting all of it back.

It seems unfair to charge people the entire price to get slightly better goods. Thus, if you want to get slightly better goods, the government should still reimburse you for the price of the cheap goods. At this point, it's just unconditional basic income with the government selling cheap goods.

As a minor point, Soylent as it is now can't be considered no-frills food. If you buy it ready-made, it costs around $10 a day.

It seems unfair to charge people the entire price to get slightly better goods. Thus, if you want to get slightly better goods, the government should still reimburse you for the price of the cheap goods. At this point, it's just unconditional basic income with the government selling cheap goods.

What you do then is in effect (if I understand you correctly) to give them a "food voucher" (and similarly a "housing voucher", etc) worth a certain amount which they would be able to spend as they saw fit (but only on food/housing, what-not).... (read more)