Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Basic Income

Fez909 said:
You saying a woman can't own a business? :mad: :p

I don't get what you mean by generalised profit and others being compelled to put in. Could you explain, please?
Click to expand...

What I mean is that if someone is propped up by a basic income then there is no need for their business to be profitable at all, or even cover costs. In an environment where profit is unnecessary, everyone will take more 'pleasant' work up until the point where it becomes materially prohibitive (that possibly often being the point at which the deficits cut significantly into their basic income. Thus there is never any incentive to take work that has a positive economic output where more pleasant work is available, and before long there is no one actually doing the work that pays for the 'basic income'.
 
8ball said:
What I mean is that if someone is propped up by a basic income then there is no need for their business to be profitable at all, or even cover costs. In an environment where profit is unnecessary, everyone will take more 'pleasant' work up until the point where it becomes materially prohibitive (that possibly often being the point at which the deficits cut significantly into their basic income. Thus there is never any incentive to take work that has a positive economic output where more pleasant work is available, and before long there is no one actually doing the work that pays for the 'basic income'.
Click to expand...

I don't think this scenario is likely. Firstly, how are they supporting themselves if their business doesn't cover costs? The basic income is enough to live on, not enough to support a failing business. Then even assuming this were possible, why would anyone choose to work when it costs them money if they could sit at home and watch TV and be better off? It doesn't make sense. You'd literally be better off doing nothing. And doing something, anything, else would put you at a massive advantage.

What's the rationale in setting up/maintaining a failing business in this environment?
 
Fez909 said:
I don't think this scenario is likely. Firstly, how are they supporting themselves if their business doesn't cover costs?
Click to expand...

Basic income - clue is in the thread title. A business needs to support its own costs, the day to day needs of everyone involved, plus taxes in order to be viable. The taxes pay for the basic income of others.

Fez909 said:
Then even assuming this were possible, why would anyone choose to work when it costs them money if they could sit at home and watch TV and be better off?
Click to expand...

Many people enjoy having hobbies that bring in a little money. And they bring in more doing so than those people sat on the sofa - who is paying for them?
 
8ball said:
Basic income - clue is in the thread title. A business needs to support its own costs, the day to day needs of everyone involved, plus taxes in order to be viable. The taxes pay for the basic income of others.
Click to expand...

But a basic income isn't enough to plug the income gap from running a business. I don't know where you've got this idea. If you've got a business which loses money, then your business is going to go down. You can't top it up from your basic income because you need that to pay this week's gas bill and rent.

It's a strange situation you're proposing here.
 
Fez909 said:
But a basic income isn't enough to plug the income gap from running a business. I don't know where you've got this idea. If you've got a business which loses money, then your business is going to go down. You can't top it up from your basic income because you need that to pay this week's gas bill and rent.

It's a strange situation you're proposing here.
Click to expand...

It's not at all. People's income is what they gain from taking part in positive economic activity, they use this to fund the things they do that are nice, but not economically profitable (the 'holy grail' being things that are nice AND economically profitable). What happens when you inject an artifical source of income while someone is 'working' is that it allows nonprofitable activities to be sustained by other profitable ventures.

Non profitable activites may be fantastic, obv, but need to be justified on something other than economic grounds.
 
8ball said:
It's not at all. People's income is what they gain from taking part in positive economic activity, they use this to fund the things they do that are nice, but not economically profitable (the 'holy grail' being things that are nice AND economically profitable). What happens when you inject an artifical source of income while someone is 'working' is that it allows nonprofitable activities to be sustained by other profitable ventures.

Non profitable activites may be fantastic, obv, but need to be justified on something other than economic grounds.
Click to expand...

But you're missing the main point I'm trying to make: a basic income is not enough to prop up a failing business.
 
Fez909 said:
But you're missing the main point I'm trying to make: a basic income is not enough to prop up a failing business.
Click to expand...

That is not my point - it is enough to support a life's work of no economic value, though.
Of course, economic value is not the only kind of value, but it is the kind of value that pays for the basic income.
 
8ball said:
That is not my point - it is enough to support a life's work of no economic value, though.
Of course, economic value is not the only kind of value, but it is the kind of value that pays for the basic income.
Click to expand...

So you think the entire country is going to be happy living on a basic income and working 40 hours a week doing a hobby project? You'd have no spending money, you'd have to go to work every day just to break even. If you lose any money, then it's coming out of your basic income, so you could be fucked in other areas of your life.

Why? Why would anyone do this to themselves? I don't get it.

Let's assume they would, though. The business has costs, right? They buy products, use other businesses and suppliers. Those other business and suppliers are likely to be profit making businesses. They're going to be selling their cake mixtures to gullible 40-hour a week hobby worker and extracting profit from the transaction. They'll be taking home more than their basic income each week and paying into the tax system to fund this experiment. As long as everyone doesn't turn into this work for nothing person you've invented, what's the harm?
 
Fez909 said:
So you think the entire country is going to be happy living on a basic income and working 40 hours a week doing a hobby project?
Click to expand...

Where did I say they would spend 40 hours a week on it? Could be 6, could be 106..
 
8ball said:
Where did I say they would spend 40 hours a week on it? Could be 6, could be 106..
Click to expand...

But either way, they're doing no harm. And they're working for nothing. They'd be as skint as someone sat at home watching TV - perhaps more so, due the risks of losing money and having to balance the books from your BI.

You must admit that this is going to be a minute fraction of the population? It's not even worth thinking about, IMO.
 
Fez909 said:
But either way, they're doing no harm. And they're working for nothing. They'd be as skint as someone sat at home watching TV - perhaps more so, due the risks of losing money and having to balance the books from your BI.
Click to expand...

You seem to have this ass-backwards - people at home watching TC are contributing nothing (the reason for the existence of the TV is to provide an audience to advertisers - without them spending all day at work earning money to either spend on advertised goods or a taxed broadcasting system the TV ceases to exist). The people I am talking about are contributing something where arguably there are kinds of value generated that our economic system does not recognise. But they would still be dependent on mainstream economic value creation to sustain their basic income. Without ANY value creation everyone starves and the argument is moot.
 
8ball said:
You seem to have this ass-backwards - people at home watching TC are contributing nothing (the reason for the existence of the TV is to provide an audience to advertisers - without them spending all day at work earning money to either spend on advertised goods or a taxed broadcasting system the TV ceases to exist). The people I am talking about are contributing something where arguably there are kinds of value generated that our economic system does not recognise. But they would still be dependent on mainstream economic value creation to sustain their basic income. Without ANY value creation everyone starves and the argument is moot.
Click to expand...

I don't think I do have it backwards. I think you have got this idea into your head and for some reason want to run with it.

There are currently 30 million people in employment in the UK. Do you think a significant proportion of those 30m are going to give up their jobs to pursue a hobby business which leaves them with no disposable income as well as exposing them to the risk of not having enough money to pay the bills? If you don't, then there isn't any problem. They will continue to go to work and pay into the tax system and "value creation" can continue. If you do, can you explain what would motivate someone to do this? And not just one person; enough to bring the economy crashing down...

And btw, the TV thing was just to illustrate the futility of working when you're worse off than others who are economically inactive. It could have been playing in the park, whittling sticks or reading a book. The point still stands.
 
8ball said:
Why would people continue to go into work and pay into the tax system?
Click to expand...

Many people like working, especially if they are in jobs that they have pride in and/or create a sense of purpose. You talk abot hobbie jobs, many people's hobbies are only hobbies because under the current climate and attitudes they can't make a viable living out of them.
 
8ball said:
Why would people continue to go into work and pay into the tax system?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

It means the difference between existing and enjoying life. Basic income isn't going to mean a life of luxury. It's enough to pay the bills and that's it. There'd be no eating out, theme parks, holidays, camping trips, barbecues, home improvement, gadgets, etc., etc.

But if you worked a few days a week, you'd have so much more. The basic income is still there, you could still have shit loads of time off, but now you've got cash to do the things you want to do to enrich your life. Then there would be workaholics who will work whatever hours are available, no matter how much money they've got. And there would be people who enjoy work. And people who don't particular enjoy it, but are used to it. And those who just want the money; more than part-time can provide, but not working every hour God sends.

It's a no brainer.
 
Yes, this was my point about what is missing from Fez's analysis.
Click to expand...

LOL, don't use me to get at him! :D

He may not have spelt it out in the way I did above but I was assuming this was obvious. If people have some sense of basic security to live/get by, they are much freer to pursue jobs that are more meaningful to them. Attitudes would change in the way we 'value' different professions etc hopefully, that way people wouldn't be forced to do jobs that ultimately they hate but have to do because they see no other choice.
 
8ball said:
:D

I'm not trying to 'get at' anyone. If anything I'm on side with you. I'm just chucking out the first objections that I see being chucked out at me if I was to suggest such an idea when down the pub.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, was just a turn of phrase, not a real accusation at all. :)
 
Fez909 said:
Fair enough :D
Click to expand...

I'm trying to take my ideas and bash them against the wall a bit to see if they stand up. I'm not an economis but I'm trying to employ what little knowledge of economics that I do understand to this idea. Because the 'universal income' idea is very close to the 'something for nothing idea', at least on a cursory appraisal, and usually the 'something for nothing' ideas involve someone* getting fucked over at some point.

* - if it's Michael Gove I'm still in
 
Rutita1 said:
He may not have spelt it out in the way I did above but I was assuming this was obvious. If people have some sense of basic security to live/get by, they are much freer to pursue jobs that are more meaningful to them. Attitudes would change in the way we 'value' different professions etc hopefully, that way people wouldn't be forced to do jobs that ultimately they hate but have to do because they see no other choice.
Click to expand...

Sorry to quote myself but further to this...

Has the impact of barter/exchange been discussed or explored in this discussion? I'm too tired to review the whole thread so sorry if it has.:oops:
 
Rutita1 said:
Sorry to quote myself but further to this...

Has the impact of barter/exchange been discussed or explored in this discussion? I'm too tired to review the whole thread so sorry if it has.:oops:
Click to expand...

No, not as far as I'm aware. How do you think it would be relevant?
 
With BI, more people have more time to pursue hobbies/interests/use skills etc which may or may not progress to monetary income and/or produce things that can be bartered/exchanged. This kind of trade/trading would surely have an impact?

ETA. I personally think it would have a positive impact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimW
Short-lived Canadian experiment in guaranteed minimum income
Replies
0
Views
658
JimW
JimW
Idris2002
Marx and rising working class share of income in the 19th century
Replies
8
Views
1K
revol68
revol68
stuff_it
'Middle Class' it's basically just a construct isn't it...
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
654
Views
28K
JimW
JimW
ItWillNeverWork
Epistemological Holism and The Incompleteness Theorem
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
littlebabyjesus
littlebabyjesus
I
Are we all basically the same?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Blagsta
Blagsta
Back
Top Bottom