Commentary

Basic Income Will Inevitably Turn Against You

The greatest problem with basic income (BI) is not that it would make recipients lazy but that it would give the political elite an obscene amount of power and even broader mandate to tax and meddle. Don’t just be worried about power when it goes to someone scary.

The basic income is the rent seeking of the 99%. And it will be abused.

The basic income is where the ulterior motives of the rent seekers and the power seekers meet. When the self-proclaimed 99% wants to secure a status-based income, and the political elite promises to deliver it, what could possibly go wrong?

god-is-just-god-is-good-at-workhouse

A workhouse with a generous serving of righteous condescension. Source: Wikipedia

The relation between effort and payoff is indeed shaky. So is the relation between work and pay. Plenty of socially indispensable work goes unpaid – and thus looked down upon – and for some reason the most unappealing jobs tend to get paid the worst. In the meantime means testing is notoriously expensive, unforgivably intrusive, not to mention that it provides an incentive against trying to get out of poverty. So I agree, there is a lot to rationalize there.

But when it comes to BI, people tend to obsess about a non-issue: whether it promotes complacency in its recipients. It is a patronizing nonsense. No one ever worried themselves sick for landlords, trophy wives, or millennials retired in their 30s – whether they find meaning or languish in life aimlessly and without purpose.

But BI is as good as any idea: It sounds right until politicians hijack and bureaucrats execute it. And the devil is in the execution.

The real problem with BI is twofold. The first is that there isn’t any money for it – and the discussion should end here. But of course, it doesn’t. Politicians always promise to legislate scarcity away – and helpless voters readily empower these liars to do it already. But the second problem is much bigger. It is the amount of power BI would give to said politicians.

And the state of mind it would put us in. 

The day after BI is introduced, tinkering starts

And people would eagerly approve of it.

The same condescending, self-validating, middle class, and merit-based argumentation that makes people scorn welfare recipients would make them agree to conditions attached to BI. That would undo the whole point of BI, I know. If it’s not universal, it is something else. But you would be powerless to stop it – because it would arrive in a sheep’s clothing.

If I have to guess, it would be something about pregnancy and how much would a fetus deserve at each stages of pregnancy. Wouldn’t you give from the public pot if it was for a precious fetus? Of course, you would.

Yes, people would happily start discussing the BI-worthiness of various groups. And they would accept regulations about BI-worthiness without hangups. Parliaments would be happy to discuss it, voters would readily accept that this is a legitimate topic for discussion. It could start with felons. No one likes a felon, so no one would get upset if their BI would be cut. We all love some punishment, right? Not from our taxes…

And if human history is any guide and our newly elected leaders not lying, policies would be implemented to make sure that the wrong kind wouldn’t be incentivized to procreate. Maybe the nasties could be excluded from BI altogether. No one wants the wrong kind to freeload, right?

BI would ramp up identity politics.

Whoever is your perfectly justified nemesis in society – gypsies, Eskimos, Muslims, random races and nationalities that cause you angst –  you would suddenly see how their discrimination is justified. And if you can’t come up with arguments by yourself, some politician would readily supply them. And it is not mean when you have the perfectly good excuse: they are receiving your money. Not from your taxes, right?

The nasty leash of citizenships that own you right now would get much more suffocating – but you would put it down to other factors. As long as you’re on the better end of that stick.

Of course, all this tinkering flies in the face of the idea of BI, and removing the BI of the most unprivileged groups would make them even worse off (felons more likely to recommit, etc.) and their assimilation into the right kind virtually impossible – but it would still happen. And it would start with the first 500-page of legislation about BI…

Means testing on steroids

How much intrusion are you willing for tolerate for 1000 euros?

Because it would bring back the old-fashioned, much-hated means testing bonanza – but this time on steroids. This time they wouldn’t be doing it with the excuse of finding out whether you have too much money to receive help. This time they would be checking if you’re worthy. As per identity. Where you were born, possibly your religious group (just look at our new global leaders…) or whether you were assimilated enough.

So how much are you ready to endure? Would you answer questions on your patriotism? About your feelings for the government? About fellow countrymen in general? Get tested on language or history as the current government prefers to interpret it? They are not afraid to ask…

Would you agree to cuts to those who haven’t delivered the expected number of new taxpayers to society? Of course, you would. They have only themselves to blame, right? The market for infertility certificates would immediately take off.

And those who happen to want exactly what their state wants from them: Would you submit to a transvaginal ultrasound only to ascertain the precise age of your fetus? Politicians adore that machine. It allows them to remote-penetrate unruly women. And they order that even when there is no need for it, imagine what you’d get if they had an excuse like BI. You would submit to it to start getting free money ASAP. Everyone else does it, right?

And then the most brutal type of discrimination: political. Venezuela is a basket case of what happens when you let your politicians grab all that power to make scarcity go away. They are now withholding even food rations from those who are in opposition of that glorious regime of starvation and economic ruins. Don’t ever hope that it cannot happen in your country. That is exactly the logical endgame of BI when resources run scarce.

Complexity and bureaucracy would not be reduced

The complexity of benefit rules that now works against the most disadvantaged could actually even increase, not to mention bureaucracy – which will never, ever agree on being reduced. Ever.

They would be full of arguments as to how the world would collapse if their forms and papers and certificates would no longer be produced. You don’t want a wrong kind accidentally get some of your money just because bureaucrats are not there to protect you, right?

And since bureaucrats are the only one who have any idea what they are doing, we would have to believe them. They can also lobby in the heart of the state. My money is on them staying on in full numbers and administering BI and gradually building a bureaucracy equal to the previous social benefit departments. Just with new (publicly procured) software to answer to the needs of the new jobs…

Populism on steroids

If you think elections and populism got out of hands wait until BI makes an appearance. And every candidate will put in a number as to how much he would give. Again, from our money. Can you imagine those campaigns?

Don’t just picture angels as political leaders – picture Trump and Farage and Corbyn and Le Pen and Orbán and Putin. What do you think they would make of your solemn little idea?

According to needs?

Instead of what we can afford, the discussion would be hijacked by how much a person needs. But that’s the absolutely worst thing that can happen to BI.

When the amount of BI detaches from the economy and what a country can afford (i.e. even before adoption) we are collectively put on a trajectory to a catastrophe. It would not even be a slow-motion train wreck, it would happen within a few years.

Redistributive power = Power

It would be great if politicians would not have discretion over redistribution. If they stopped tinkering with the rules to give to the right kind and take from the wrong kind. If they stopped punishing  behaviour that doesn’t benefit them and call it public interest. But it will never happen. Discretion in whom to give, the distribution of resources and privileges is at the heart of power and they won’t let go.

Feeding certain voter groups out of hand and taking money from others, disposing over resources and privileges is the main allure of the job. This is the reason our great-great (just kidding) politicians even bother to appeal to the masses they so despise, this is why they run for office in the first place. This is power itself.

I agree that it would be great if they stopped having that power – but do you seriously believe they would let go? They wouldn’t have the power to lure and blackmail you with the enormous carrot and stick they wield anymore – and they would just sigh and let that happen? Do you really believe that there would be no complex, million-page legislation full of conditions and excuses to meddle and tinker with the rules all the time?

No, if BI gets introduced, it will quickly flourish in complexity and adopt the worst of all worlds: The rent seeking of the masses meets the hunger for more control by politicians, the overpromising of welfarism, and the bureaucracy to determine worthiness. And it would feed our worst instincts to judge and measure and envy and hate.

 

Follow us on Facebook , Twitter @_MwBp , or subscribe to newsletter

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Basic Income Will Inevitably Turn Against You

  1. Pingback: Taking the ‘risk’ out of ‘longevity’ | Meanwhile in Budapest

  2. Pingback: When Government Is The Obstacle We Have To Find A Way Around To Live | Meanwhile in Budapest

  3. Not sure what the article is trying to aruge for, that there are problems in perception that make a UBI seem unlikely when it actually is quite capable of being compatible with the concerns outlined?
    Or the opposite, and that people in favor of a UBI are ignorant of the most obvious but shallow arguments against one?
    Either way, the problems outlined aren’t supported by arguments to a point where that’d seem insurmountable or particularly problematic as long as the policy is in demand by the people. (With some of the supportive arguments lacking direction to the point where it seems this is about fear mongering rather than making a point.)
    Probably trying to get traffic with the ‘here’s 5/10 things about …’ format.
    On the bright side, articles like these make people think about things, because you have to look for what they’re trying to say, if you don’t buy into erratic fearmongering? Then again, there might also be people who just want to be fearful of loss, to the point where this line is more than just an out of context observation that rings true regardless of context: “That when they give you something for free, you also lose something. Always.” (‘they’ being all the people who you relate to by some process. Of course you give up something when you take/are given something in the broadest sense of the words. Your freedom to take something else, and your freedom to not hold anything and freedom of responsibilities that come from holding something that others could take just as well. Unless you want to over-interpret something into this line to mean some conspirancy thing that isn’t explicitly argued for in the article.)
    Also curious is the way the word always is used a couple times.
    As much as I agree with the line “Don’t design policy with a certain type of personality in mind”. One of the nice points of UBI. It makes sense if you apply a veil of ignorance (edit: that means assuming you could be in any position within a system) to figure out the level agreement that anyone might have or not have with the policy, by hinting at similarly strong support from most of all perspectives, if enough information is considered.
    tl;dr: pretty directionless because of the format. Should’ve maybe sticked to 1 point at a time, which I’d imagine would lead to the realization that not enough thought was spent to draw the conclusion that seems to be built up to here. (“the real reason why BI would end in disaster. In the next post…”)

    Like

  4. -“But the second problem is much bigger. It is the amount of power BI would give to said politicians.”
    Right now the said Plutocrats pull the strings in politics. Giving power back to politicians to look after the interests of ALL voters would fix our broken political system.

    Like

  5. Wouldn’t you give from the public pot if it was for a precious fetus?
    I think this is a reference to pro-lifers. By and large, they would not.
    Means testing on steroids
    If there’s means testing, it’s not UBI.
    And every candidate will put in a number as to how much he would give. Again, from our money. Can you imagine those campaigns?
    They’d have to balance quite strongly people who are making a relatively large amount from wages and people who are making little or nothing from wages.
    Instead of what we can afford, the discussion would be hijacked by how much a person needs.
    Certainly at first. If there were sufficient job loss, then politicians would view UBI as an economic stimulus.

    Like

  6. I think this article is pointing out the most important part of BI, but not in the correct way. It should be inspiring us to ensure, as citizens, it is implemented as universal, (UBI) with absolutely no exceptions. Law where if the bar is raised or lowered, it’s raised and lowered for all.

    Like

  7. Pingback: Equal But Poor | Meanwhile in Budapest

  8. What, the plumber will sit and watch the robot. What, NO there will be no Plumber or cab driver. THey will be unemployed with a lot of time on there hand and no money.

    Like

  9. The ‘basic income’ attitude lays bare everything that is wrong with the elite in todays society. Consider how things like AI and robotics will create such an incredible future for todays workers. A cab driver, rather than slugging around all day in his cab can instead have his robot do it for him. A plumber, rather than deal with sewage all day, can sit back at home and drink tea while his robot does it for him. If you owned or leased a few acres, why would you buy food when your robots can work all day tending the land to grow and process and cook for your organic food for you into delicious meals. But to the elite and the state, the workers owning their own production and the possibility that the dependent classes can break free and become self sufficient makes them sick to their stomach. So rather, they want to control all the technology, regulate the workers out of the marketplace, and give the rest of us a token allowance called basic income to pacify us and shut us up. This is what UBI is really about, it’s about pacifying people so they won’t want a share of the wonderful independent future that is ours. It’s about giving us tokens and making us dependent while they try to monopolise global production. Bullshit. We have a right to keep our income, use our property to be productive, to save up capital and buy our own production and creation, in spite of these fuckers.

    Like

  10. Pingback: The 5 Biggest Fallacies Of Basic Income | Meanwhile in Budapest

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s