Money is the problem. It is used to control every society and its resources. Prices around the world can differ greatly too.
Hi Roger, Money is the problem and as such the solution as well. This is why before we change how money operates, we have to first make it available to everyone in sufficient amounts to have a dignified living. Prices is another system created to control supply and demand which are not necessarily operating now the way economy books say they do, therefore, we have to first address the lack of money to live, the massive inequality and from there, we can continue addressing the changes that should take place at a monetary system level.
We invite you to continue discussing this topic at http://livingincome.me/discuss
Thank you for your site, there seems to have lots of good information. I myself try to find a solution to the “money problem”, that is to say how we could change the value and sense of money. It is quite difficult but I am nearly sure that we could all find a solution. I feel that money could be understood as a violet flow of energy coming from extra-terrestrial dimensions, an infinite source of money coming and giving space for action and freedom to all human beings.
The rich persons would have more money, but the base of the “pyramid” would avoid extreme poverty. The main question would be inflation : maybe a way to solve this problem would be high taxes on rich persons to avoid too much richness.
12 billion persons could be fed with our modern-day farming.
I will take more time to fully read your posts.
I cant reply to your comment below yours, so I do it here. I agree that we can decide how money works and generally that is something we are aiming at along with promoting the provision of a living income. In terms of inflation, we made a hangout on this subject among others, so if you’d like to watch it, it might clarify more points to you. Thanks for learning along and for your support :)
 Inflation and Living Income Guaranteed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZo_NE2lD08
Yes, sorry, me also I don’t know where to post comments so I do it there. I have only little time available on internet so I don’t have time to read all that have already been said, but I will read them no doubt about it. Only a few remarks more : I think that basic income should be given to all adults of the planet according to each specific condition at the nation level. But in order to do this we should create a supra-national organization that would give the basic income to all the adults (to avoid over-population problems). For this we need a kind of general insight on this issue and theoretical researches coming from the top of the “hierarchy”. Love and compassion is what we need.
The only problem with the Living Income Guarantee is that it gives businesses (and landlords) incentives to increase their prices. In addition, living income guarantee will cause inflation because now everybody has more money to spend (including people who have jobs), creating an artificial demand for goods and services.
In addition, it gives people who have full-time jobs an incentive to work less hours or even quit their jobs to live on the living income guarantee.
This is basic economics…
Although this will create jobs, but people without jobs eventually will not be able to buy the goods and services (because the prices will increase above their living Income Guarantee payment). Making their life similar to that on unemployment benefits.
To make your living income guarantee work it must be constantly adjusted to the consumer price index.
How are you going to stop businesses from taking advantage of this opportunity (to make a profit)by rising their prices because people now have more money?
How is living income guarantee different from unemployment benefits?
Hello Chris, here’s a blog that explains your question with regards to inflation.
A point to realize is that Living Income doesn’t only imply ‘giving money’ but a series of alignments that must take place in order to ensure that the inflation process is also adjusted. Part of this point is realizing that the ‘basic economics’ have in fact become a justification to then prevent people from having access to their living necessities due to this ‘fear of inflation,’ without realizing that we can also decide how prices operate based on factual labor and value of the product itself and no longer being fluctuating based on laws that guarantee high profits for owners, but leave worker’s wages in perpetual stagnation that don’t catch up to the general inflation.
People with jobs will earn at least the minimum wage which will be double the living income, this means that people that do work will have a greater incentive to work – and because inflation will be regulated and not merely another ‘byproduct of market forces,’ prices will be placed in a way wherein people that get the living income can afford living needs without a problem and of course, those that work will have access to more than just the bare minimum.
Businesses will be benefited from the sheer fact that large sectors of the population that had No money before, will suddenly have money to spend and as such not only will demand grow but also profits will grow, regardless of prices being adjusted to make living needs affordable to people with a living income. Here’s a blog that explains this point as well https://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/living-income-guarantees-business-profits/ and the related blog there too: https://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/living-income-guaranteed-and-business-transparency/
The difference from unemployment benefits is based on the financing thereof. Unemployment benefits stem from tax payer’s money whereas Living Incomes will be provided through other means like the citizen shareholding process in a nation’s natural resources companies, the redirection of military expenses to fund the living income, using VAT taxes which means no longer will ‘those that work’ have to pay for the benefits of those that do not work, but it will be a given right by guaranteeing each individual’s share of the nation’s economy. Unemployment benefits are usually a stigma imposed onto an individual for ‘not having a job,’ which is why we are also focusing on explaining how the idea of ‘having a job is the only way to make a living’ is becoming more and more obsolete as jobs are automated and more and more millions are prospected to lose their jobs – we require a safety net that doesn’t come as unemployment benefit only, but rather a given natural birth right.
Another point is that ‘means test’ to get unemployment benefit are usually exhausting, denigrating and overall demanding which pushes people to refrain from even asking for it based on the social stigma attached to it due to the notion of failure and ‘losing a job’ which is already a tough process to go through at a psychological level. Giving a Living Income will be through simple means to prove the person is unemployed and having no other money entries and that would be it, because the aim is not to ‘avoid giving money to people’ but rather ensuring each other’s living right as it’s been stipulated in Human Rights Declaration Charter, which hasn’t been made effective as of yet, simply because there hasn’t been any economic and political model that backs such guaranteed access to natural resources to live, which is giving money as a human right to be able to live in dignity.
If something is not yet clear, let me know
Thanks for your questions
A living income guarantee effectively transfers money from the wealthy to the poor, as it should.
Yes, the labor supply will decrease, but that is perfectly fine. We’re getting very low marginal returns on additional labor anyway. Back when men did all the work we were still the most productive nation on earth. Labor is overrated. Also the decrease in supply of labor will increase wages.
Obviously the payments would have to be adjusted for inflation. That’s kind of a no-brainer. Yes, some products will see inflation as more people buy them – specifically the products which are in limited supply. But the inflation will not even come close to canceling out the income payments, for those who receive them. Some inflation will happen, along with some reduction in labor, but the benefits to society should far outweigh them, when everyone has enough money to free themselves from the ruts of poverty.
I want to show you that Living Income Guarantee is impossible under our current economic system. I am going to use math, logic, and reason not my emotions (I want a Utopia) to cloud my judgement. Keep in mind our system is a “debt based system” where every dollar must be borrow into existence as debt plus interest.
Lets assume that Switzerland is the first country that implements a Living Income Guarantee policy. In 2012, Switzerland had a population of 8,039,060 people and if everybody (men, woman, child) is going to get paid a basic salary of $2500 a month.
8,039,060 people x $2500 Living Income Guarantee = 20,097,650,000
20,097,650,000 x 12 months = 241,171,800,000 per year
That means each year your government must either collect 241,171,800,000 in taxes or borrow the money from a bank or a foreign investor (IMF, Private Investors) to cover the short fall each year. In addition, each dollar the government borrows to keep this policy “Living Income Guarantee” going it must pay interest.
Interest rates will have to be at 0% for your government not to go completely bankrupt. Let’s assume the interest rate on Government Bonds (debt) is fixed at 0%. No investor will have an incentive to buy Government Bonds because they cannot get a return on their money.
This means that Switzerland’s Government will either have to collect 241,171,800,000 in taxes or print the money to keep the Living Income Guarantee program going each year.
If your government prints money this increases the money supply and will cause inflation that will lead to hyperinflation unless Switzerland’s Government chooses to cut the Living Income Guarantee Program.
Not to mention that GDP must increase to offset the inflation that is produced by the increase in money supply.
In economics there is always “trade offs” and there is no such thing as a “free lunch”. There is always winners and losers. If you want to increase the prosperity of the people you need to reduce Government and nationalize the banks.
I will be honest with you girls, I too want a better world and have lost many sleepless nights trying to come up with a solution (actually brought tears to my eyes). I literally spend most of my time studying economics and history. It seems no matter what you do, it will have devastating effects on the economy.
“We must learn to spend less than we earn and invest the difference.”
Government is the problem.
Please let me know how a Government is going to fund this program? I have shown you that there is only three ways to fund this program: Taxes, Borrow, or print money. In addition, I have shown you the result of this program will have on an economy if the Government chooses to print the money to keep the program going each year. It will have to establish a “fiat currency” that will inevitably lead to a financial collapse..
Hi Chris, thank you for your input and investigation shared here as well.
This is certainly a frequently asked question so we are in the process of drafting a document that outlines the inflation point you and others have mentioned here. Therefore, we’ll let you know here when that is published,
In the meantime if you have any other points you’d like to ask/share about, this space is open for discussion as well as contributing/suggesting solutions, because that is what LIG is all about too: an open platform for suggestions and solutions that can function within the current system as a first step to propose further changes in it.
I’m sure there is a lot of variability among Guaranteed Income proponents in how much they think each person should receive. I personally think the Swiss policy is far too high and unsustainable. Giving people free access to the middle class is plain unrealistic. But for America, I would propose a nice sum of $7000 per year, per adult. Its not enough to live on, but its enough to provide a comfortable living, supplementing an honest income. The regular checks would offset most of the welfare system, allowing many inefficient government programs to close. To fund the program, I would largely rely on a fourth method, which you left out – cutting spending. I would also increase taxes on the wealthy. They’re able to bear it without much pain, especially when the poor have a new wave of money to buy their products. Printing would be undesirable, and borrowing even worse. Oh, and very important – the Fed must be nationalized so that we’re not paying interest on money. But when one considers that each dollar circulates many many times, I doubt we’re paying that much anyway in interest. I don’t know the actual numbers. But of course there is no reason we should be paying interest on our own money.
I see the Guaranteed Income proposal as just as other government program – very expensive, yes, but not out of economic possibility. Only when the proposed income becomes outrageously high does the program fall apart. I call myself a capitalist. I don’t believe in socialism. The vast spreading of wealth is unhealthy for society, but to guarantee each citizen a basic seed of capital with which to grow their own prosperity is perfectly in line with capitalism and a vibrant economy. With a small government income, every citizen will have the means to become more productive, whether that means going to community college, or starting a small business, or even just buying a small car so a person can travel to work – all of society will benefit.
I am going to play the Devil’s Advocate and will be your worst skeptic because you are going to face these questions by top economists, accountants, and lawyers; especially, if you are serious about implementing this plan. So, I should be good practice and will prepare you for the assholes that will spit, curse, and challenge your Living Income Guarantee Plan.
“I’m sure there is a lot of variability among Guaranteed Income proponents in how much they think each person should receive. I personally think the Swiss policy is far too high and unsustainable. Giving people free access to the middle class is plain unrealistic.”
Answer: I am glad that you can make proper decisions based on math, logic, and reason. However, the media stated that Switzerland is signing a referendum where everybody will receive a basic salary of $2500 and might be implemented in three years time :-p
But for America, I would propose a nice sum of $7000 per year, per adult. Its not enough to live on, but its enough to provide a comfortable living, supplementing an honest income.
First Answer: According to the US Census Bureau in 2014 they estimated that there is 317,000,000 people living in the US. Therefore, the following equation: 317,000,000 population x $7000 = 2,219,000,000,000
According to US Federal Government Budget 2014 are as follows:
Federal Revenue (Taxes): $2,290,932,000,000
Federal expenses (Public Spending): $2,997,884,000,000
As you can see even if you offered 317,000,000 people $7000 each it would still be too expensive. You would have to literally cut 95% of public spending to fund the Living Income Guarantee program or light up the printing presses which will increase the money supply and ultimately cause inflation.
“The regular checks would offset most of the welfare system, allowing many inefficient government programs to close.To fund the program, I would largely rely on a fourth method, which you left out – cutting spending. I would also increase taxes on the wealthy.”
Answer: As I have shown you would have to cut public spending by 95% and shut down almost all welfare programs regardless of efficiency to fund the Living Income Guarantee Program.
They’re able to bear it without much pain, especially when the poor have a new wave of money to buy their products. Printing would be undesirable, and borrowing even worse. Oh, and very important – the Fed must be nationalized so that we’re not paying interest on money. But when one considers that each dollar circulates many many times, I doubt we’re paying that much anyway in interest.
Answer: What taxes would you increase on the wealthy? Company tax? Capital Gains Tax?, Dividend tax? Let’s assume you increase taxes on all three. These are the current tax rates in the US but it obviously will vary from state to state.
US Company Tax Rate: 35%
US Capital Gains Tax: 0 – 15% (for shares) and Long term assets (houses) are taxed at 15% or more depending on your level of income. The US Capital Gains Tax code is ugly to read L
US Dividend Tax Rate: 0 – 15%
Remember when you raise the tax rate it gives companies incentives to hire accountants and lawyers to lower their tax and lobby the Government for a lower tax rate. In addition, it gives businesses the incentive to move their businesses overseas if the tax rates become too high.
I don’t know the actual numbers. But of course there is no reason we should be paying interest on our own money.
Answer: President Andrew Jackson was the only president who survived two assassination attempts and successfully made this happen. Every other president who tried to return the money back to people was assassinated. This is a fact and it really sucks how the private banks will do anything to stay in power.
“Only when the proposed income becomes outrageously high does the program fall apart. I call myself a capitalist. I don’t believe in socialism. The vast spreading of wealth is unhealthy for society, but to guarantee each citizen a basic seed of capital with which to grow their own prosperity is perfectly in line with capitalism and a vibrant economy.”
You must come up with a detail plan that shows facts and figures to show people that your plan is not only variable but actually possible. I would love to help you guys and establish a detail plan that can convince the public that it is possible. But, it is going to take some serious number crunching and serious legislation reforms to make this possible. I am trying to make you guys bullet proof to top scholars and powers that be who will inevitably will want a detail plan before implementing the Living Income Guarantee :-p
By the way, I am just regular, everyday, normal guy living in New Zealand. Just think about the top scholars who will eat you girls for lunch. You need to be able to present a very detail plan based on facts and figures to shove it in economists faces. There is nothing better than being able to stand up for what you believe in and use solid facts and figures to persuade public opinion :-p
Edit: First Answer: According to the US Census Bureau in 2014 they estimated that there is 317,000,000 people living in the US. Therefore, the following equation: 317,000,000 population x $7000 = 2,219,000,000,000
According to US Federal Government Budget 2014 are as follows:
As you can see even if you offered 317,000,000 people $7000 each it would still be too expensive. You would have to literally cut 95% of public spending which includes welfare programs (Sick benefit, Pension Plans, Job Seeker Allowance),Education (Public Schools, Student loans, Research Funding to Universities), Military (Army, Navy, and Airforce), US Court System, Nasa, Public Parks, Public Roads, Traffic Lights,and much more to fund the Living Income Guarantee program. In other words, the US Government will be forced to light up the “printing presses” which will increase the money supply and ultimately cause inflation.
I want you girls to see the big picture and get deep into the actual facts and figures :-p
Hehe, it should be noted that I am a guy, and am not affiliated with the girls here, other than sharing desire for social good. So my comments shouldn’t necessarily be assumed to be their views. I’m just another guy who would like to see this program happen. I do happen to be American. I too am aware of the need for a very detailed plan, and would be happy to work on one, but really the important thing is educating people why this plan would be helpful in the first place. I worry that focusing on the specifics of a certain plan might cause people to get lost in the details rather than to trying to recruiting lots of supporters. I’d be happy to propose a plan, but right now I’m just another guy out there.
Yes after some number crunching, it is true that cuts cannot account for that much of the payments. Being precisely detailed wasn’t my main intention there. Keep in mind though, if everybody is getting a big check, then everybody has the ability to pay more in taxes. The middle class should approximately break even, with their increased tax burden roughly canceling out the payments. The poor, of course, get more, and the rich, of course, would have to pay more. I have an idea what taxes and cuts to propose, but that’s for another time. Just remember that the funding will largely come from the program itself.
Maybe I’m an idealist somewhat. I know that proposing an end to the Fed is a good way to get shot. But I put forward what Needs to happen, not just what is politically easy.
Again I’m not affiliated with the girls, so their opinions will probably differ somewhat. If you have specific plans in mind, feel free to offer. I’ll be glad to work on my own, but it won’t accomplish much until more people become aware of the subject. Maybe a detailed plan would cause people to take it more seriously.
After reading some from the site I think its clear I see differences in belief from the proponents here. A lot of the philosophy they hold I don’t agree with. So keep in mind I come as an outsider. But so long as we are agreed that there is need for some type of social income, we have common ground. That may be part of the problem why this is so politically difficult – even those who are agreed on the generalities have wide differences on the specifics.
Personally I believe minimum wage should be abolished after the introduction of the guaranteed income. You’re welcome to disagree. I believe that a basic level of sustenance should be provided, and after that the free market should be relatively left alone. Don’t worry, people aren’t going to be making 5$ an hour. The market won’t bear it, especially when the poor are already subsidized and have less incentive to work. I’m perfectly fine with a reasonably smaller workforce. I’m willing to bet that labor is getting high diminishing returns, and cutting off a good chunk of labor would not harm our lifestyle to any significant degree. Back when only men worked much, we were still an economic powerhouse. I feel that this site may put forth some economically sour ideas, but so much as they support a guaranteed income, I can be in agreement.
Hello Guys and Girls,
I want to help formulate the detail plan (for free) that is needed for the Living Income Guarantee to work. I believe I have the skills and mathematical ability to make this plan work. I want to do this because I am fed up with this system. It in debts students (like me) with mortgage size debts and makes us pay more in taxes for working hard. I hate the “baby boomers” and hope they perish for setting up this system. I also know exactly how the system works and have a strong foundation of economics.
Please let me know if you need help formulating a detail plan :-p
Wouldn’t mind formulating a plan myself, although everyone will have their own preferences based on their own political leanings. One point I should emphasize – the program is not nearly as expensive as it looks when you consider that the average American will not be profiting from the program. The average person (middle class) should roughly break even. Also, the plan I would propose does not include minors, except for possibly 16 and 17 year olds. Parents should be responsible for supporting children with their own means. Subsidizing childbirth is not a good plan in these times. So only the lower classes would be significant recipients and only the upper class would be significant payers. I have some ideas for funding, but feel free to offer yours.
I agree we should form a group on this forum and develop a detail plan together. We also can hear each others political views on the Living Income Guarantee should be implemented. I agree that Living Income Guarantee should be for people who are 18 years and over. I also agree that the minimum wage law should be abolished as well if everybody is receiving the Income Living Guarantee.
We first must analyse the facts and figures before making any decision. We should always base our decision on math, logic, and reason.
Sounds good. Although I’m not sure how much the site holders will agree with us lol. And we’d need some political strength to make any real change, but putting a plan together is a good place to begin.
I have submitted a request to see if they would like to use my skills and abilities to help formulate their detail plan based on math, logic, and reason. Lets see what happens :-p
Hey guys – cool to see so much activity on here!
All inputs and feedback are welcome so we may utilise it to specify our proposal.
For the purpose of discussion, please visit the Forum on the website (http://livingincome.me/discuss), that way we can keep track of the discussions more easily and in an organised manner.
We are currently still a small group of people and a bit time constrained in terms of getting to everyone’s replies — but we will respond as soon as possible.
Thanks again and hope to see you on the forum!
Leila from the LIG Team
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.