guaranteed income. what is your opinion about implementing it in europe?

[ideocracy]

Lets try to imagine what this will lead to.

for example, as i see it, it maybe will have such influence:

1) increased happines of poor people (as they will have more kpney)

2) decreased happines of rich people (as they will have to pay)

3) neutral position of middle class (as they may see it as a back up plan for themself, feeling more confident)

4) significantly lower level of crime (as most crime is done by poor people, keepong them happy should decrease crime level)

5) significantly lower level of working time (at least initially. why to work if you can rest? same effect as with unemployment benefits, which may cause actual increase of unemployment)

6) increase od all sorts of recreation services and art (people like to do such things if they have enough time)

7) immigration (even if migrant will not get such income, they will fill low level jobs opportunities, wich will be avoided by poor people with guaranteed income)

8) if migration problem will be avoided, then this may lead to automatization and wide use of machines for simple work

9) negative budget. i dont see how such region could pay for itself in short term. will middle class pay enough taxes to pay for all poor people who will instantly stop working? how long will it take for poor people to start doing something valuable for the region?

10) because of the position above middle class may want to somehow remove the poor people away. this may lead to a situation where you have to work not for money, but for some kind of "respect" to stay at such place. Or some other mechanism will be used, increasing the distance between poor people and mid class even more, thancurrently in europe.

You could specify with wich point you agree or dont agree, or make your own point.

Alternatively you can discus my total lack of any political knowledge

[Langburn]

Sounds like a terrible idea. But then again, it is the EU.

[Westwind]

What if, when someone is born, $20,000 is put into an interest baring account that they cannot access until the age of majority.  Then it can be used to jumpstart their opportunities in the world...such as using it toward education or a home, or tools and training for a trade.  $20k for 20 years at 4% interest would be about $44k .  A nice sum for a downpayment, or towards tuition.  That way there is an incentive to make use of the money, than to become dependent upon a guaranteed income which removes those incentives.  And the taxpayers are only covering the first $20k, nothing more, and everyone has the same equal benefit.  Set the initial deposit-on-birth amount to adjust according to inflation.

 

Or.....

 

How about $100,000 is put into an account when someone is born?  In 20 years it will be about $215k.  Then have the interest convert from compounding to paying the interest out as a dividend instead.  That would give each person about a $8k/year income cushion as a baseline in addition to their salary from work.  

 

Or maybe that arrangement pays for their lifelong health care ?

 

Or.....

 

Change how retirement security is handled....establish an account at birth and let it grow interest until.....whatever age is chosen....65 ?  A one time $50k deposit at birth would give you about $700k at retirement to live out your days, without having to save a dime all your life unless you want to.

 

Or....?

[North Pacific Spy]

I'm actually quite liking this idea.

[Westwind]

The first problem with my example is the interest rate.

 

With savings accounts currently paying an average of .06%, that's a far cry from 4%.  However, there are a few giving about 1% out there, and annuities generally are able to garner a 7% annual return (which allows the financial company providing the annuity the profit margin they need, while offering customers a good rate.)  Government managed systems of savings take the most conservative route, which means the least interest available.  Such government managed systems don't take on much risk, thus a low return. 

 

There is also the problem that the world economy is so screwed up right now, that central banks are considering negative interest to force consumers to spend their money, not save it, in order to stimulate the economy.  (If your savings account gets smaller every month instead of bigger, you're going to spend it before it devalues) I noticed the Bank of Ireland forbid "small" withdrawls of less than $700 Euros from tellers at the bank, and the Bank of England is looking at blockchain technology (the tech behind Bitcoin) to use it to take the Pound all digital.  An all digital currency makes negative interest rates easy and attractive to central banks.  I also saw the creator of Bitcoin is being considered for a Nobel prize in economics.  Governments, Business, and Banks don't like Bitcoin, but the all like the underlying technology.  Mastercard is looking at it, there is an auto loan company looking at it.  The US Federal Reserve Chair just said they need to 'research' new 'tools', which I take as code words for the same things these others are looking at.

 

Can't help it, I've been researching cybercurrencies a lot lately. Even thought about what it would take to start an NScoin. It's a possibility.  There are open source blockchains, just change the parameters, name it, and create a 'genesis block' to get it started.  Just think of the recruitment telegram, "You'll recieve 100 NScoins for joining our region, which are fully tradable on any cybercurrency exchange.  Your posts on our offsite forum will gain you even more NScoins, and our Army pays it's soldiers and officers in NScoins as well.  Seriously!  You can also turn your NScoins into US dollars or Euros at the exchange, keep it for yourself or purchase telegram stamps to help our region's recruitment efforts...."

 

*imagines a paid NS army rampaging across regions*

[North Pacific Spy]

If there were negative interest rates, wouldn't you either switch banking providers, lose faith in the currency (and get some pretty hefty inflation), or take your money offshore in a different currency?

 

As a consumer, I don't like the idea of negative interest rates. That said, I can see the advantages in them. The housing markets prices would skyrocket - as everyone wouldn't try and save for a house, but try and purchase one immediately. I think instead of negative interest, interest at a lower rate than inflation, or zero interest, would be a better option.

 

I'm not so sure about an all digital currency, it'd open everything up to hacking, and those movies where the intelligence service drains the bank account would result in the victim having nothing, rather than just cash. I quite like having cash in my hand, rather than numbers in an account, don't have or use a card personally. I wouldn't expect the US Federal Reserve to be one of the leaders in the field - they seem more conservative, and I doubt Joe Hillbilly, or even Joe Sixpack for that matter, would be too happy about physical currency being phased out.

 

I don't particularly follow the financial markets closely, but I've seen enough of Bitcoin to be convinced that (I didn't realise there was a Nobel Prize in Economics) the founder(s) of Bitcoin would deserve an Nobel Prize in Economics - not in the next few years, but after the technology begins to snowball.

 

The paid NS army is a scary thought. Although we would get a much higher uptake on the forums here if we were paying people to do it, although the average post quality would likely decrease (but the quantity would skyrocket). I'd think we'd prefer NSCoins to have a higher value, approximately one NSCoin to one US cent - unless we're intending to pay $100 US to every new member.

 

Then again, I've seen founders/regions banned for similar things, such as a virtual off site currency in NS where you could pay real money to gain the currency, and get homework done for you etc. - the real money bit is the problem. That's why you can only gift stamps, you can't ask for anyone to do anything back after you gifted the stamps.

 

Just imagine how many WA votes Bitely would have... (He's had his month, now he's vanished back to obscurity again)

[Westwind]

Here we go.....Finland considers basic income of 800 Euros/month for every adult, replacing all other welfare.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/12035946/Finland-is-considering-giving-every-citizen-800-a-month.html