Quote: (10-20-2014 06:36 AM)berserk Wrote:
You should be a little careful when people begin talking about basic income. Most of the time it's just marxists making the rounds again under a new name. I've looked into most of the organizations and proposals for basic income and so far, everyone of them advocate 'flat tax' at 50% or similar numbers. That is not basic income, it's just plain communism.
I did some calculations to see how much basic income could be given out if you only used taxation on natural resources like oil, mineral ore and similar, in addition to tax on unimproved land (called 'land rent'), because these two could be seen as belonging to the people in a way, which makes taxing it less morally reprehensible. The monthly basic income for that income would be $250 for the country I checked. Obviously this would vary depending on natural resources.
I am generally against basic income for the reason that surviving is life and you could argue that life is worthless if you don't have to survive in some form. Hierarchy is everywhere in nature. No one will be free on basic income, just well fed zoo animals.
If basic income is instituted, then why not basic sexlife? Why is it only monetary income which is envied? Why not athletic ability, good looks or mate pre-selection? Sex is first in the Maslow hierarchy of needs too.
You're right, it appeals to Marxists. Yet, I judge an idea on its merit. For the future it might be a good alternative to the welfare state. If done right, society might be better off.
Myself, I like the idea of a much smaller state where people are given a decent opportunity to escape misfortune and/or poverty. It would be like squaring the libertarian circle.
Still, when something sounds to good to be true, it usually is.