Dacia Iluministă

We asked two members of The Movement to present the case for and against “basic income” – involving whether or not everyone should receive a guaranteed income from the State for being a citizen. Each produced a draft to which the other was allowed to respond. However, neither had the opportunity to respond to the final draft, otherwise the process would have kept dragging on. So, here is the case for Basic Income (the thesis) followed by the case against it (the antithesis). This represents a suitable model for all political discussions, with everyone able to see the precise positions of both sides and their responses to each other.

Basic Income – The End of Poverty – by “Master484”

It can be truthfully said that in our current system money is the indicator of your human value. The fulfilment of your basic needs is completely dependent on owning money. Without money, you lose most of your basic human rights, because you can’t afford them: food, water, housing and so on. What is the point in making a long list of human rights if one can attain those things only by using money? Even in the so called “modern” nations we have people who are starving and don’t have running water or electricity, just because they don’t have enough “human value points” called “dollars” and “euros” to buy them. Shouldn’t we therefore make money a basic human right?

The solution to poverty is an astonishingly simple one: we just make sure that everyone always has enough money to afford the basic necessities of life, no matter what the circumstances. This can be achieved by implementing a concept called basic income. Every citizen gets an unconditional monthly payment guaranteed by the state, which is enough to live on. It wouldn’t matter whether you are rich or poor, have a job or not, or if you’re even willing to accept a job or not. Everyone would get basic income, no matter what. With this simple gesture, poverty and all negative phenomena caused by it would to cease to exist.

The definition of basic income.

Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) defines basic income with the following words: “a basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.” The only requirement for basic income is citizenship. Therefore one could describe it as a citizen’s wage; you get paid just for being a citizen.

These four points make basic income unique when compared to existing welfare systems:

1. It is paid to individuals, rather than households.

2. It is paid irrespective of any income from other sources.

3. It is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

4. The size of basic income is comparable to minimum wage, which means it’s high enough to live on.

The phrase “comparable to minimum wage” means that basic income must in all cases be high enough to cover at least the following:

– The cost of all basic necessities of life, such as food, water, hygiene products, clothes etc.

– Housing costs, such as rent and electricity bills.

– The cost of basic communication devices and methods, such as cellphones, computers and internet connections.

How does it work in practice?

You get a certain amount of money every month, no matter what your life situation is. Whether you are employed, unemployed, a student or a pensioner, it doesn’t matter, basic income flows all the time. Also, the level of your salary has no effect on the amount of basic income you receive.

To clarify:

Jobless person = Gets basic income. Person with a job = Gets basic income + the salary from his job. Student = Gets basic income + “student bonus”. Pensioner = Gets basic income + pension.

Can the level of basic income be increased or decreased in any cases? As for the increase above the normal level, yes. Basic income can be increased above the minimum wage level in some cases, such as:

– Having dependents while being unemployed.

– Being a student or having dependents while being a student.

– Having many dependents while having a low paid job.

There would be “minimum income limits” for different family configurations, and if all your sources of income (basic income + salaries) fail to meet these limits, then your basic income would be increased to meet the minimum limit.

Also, basic income can be increased as an incentive to encourage unemployed persons to take part in:

– Approved voluntary work or training.

– Caring for young or elderly persons.

– Community projects.

But as for the decrease below the normal level, the answer is no. Basic income can never be reduced below the “basic” level.

However, there is one special case in which basic income is not paid: if you are sentenced to prison. After the prison sentence is over, one regains his right to basic income. This will ensure that “crime does not pay”, as we’ll soon see.

How do we fund the basic income system?

A) Normal funding methods

Many different funding methods have been suggested to fund basic income. Some of these include:

– Income taxes

– Sales taxes

– Capital gains taxes

– Inheritance taxes

– Wealth taxes

– Pollution taxes

– Land taxes

– Profit accrued from state-owned enterprises

– Elimination of current income support programs

In a meritocracy there will of course be a 100% inheritance tax, which will boost the governments wallet quite a lot, although this source of funding is somewhat unstable, as the amount of tax money it provides depends on the number/wealth of the persons who have died that year. The other and far more reliable source of income provided by meritocracy is this: when all banks and corporations are nationalized, their revenues will go directly to the state instead to the pockets of private owners. This is a stable form of funding, and together with the 100% inheritance tax, it ensures that the state budget will be much larger than it is now. These two things assure that there will be enough money to fund basic income, and other things too, like free healthcare and free education.

B) Money creation

There also exists a far more radical way of funding; money creation. This idea isn’t necessarily as crazy as it sounds. Have you never wondered why the banks are so eagerly marketing loans to us? Just pause for a moment, think about how the banking system actually works, and you’ll soon realize that all money is created out of thin air. You see, when banks give loans to the people, the loan money is literally created out of nothing. When you spend that loan money, it eventually returns to the bank(s) as “real money”, making them and their owners richer. This process is called “economic growth”. This is a well-hidden secret, and if the people became aware of it, there would be a revolution the day after tomorrow.

When a nation’s GDP rises, it actually just means that the amount of money in circulation gets higher. Money creation is what makes economic growth possible. If there were no money creation, the amount of money in circulation would always be the same, and no growth could take place. Both the amount of consumption and production would always be constant. The same would be true for the amount of work the system produces. So to sum it up: economic growth causes more work and more debt for the people, and yields more money for the rich. However, the ordinary people can’t see this continuous increase in money for four reasons:

1. Over 95 % of all money is digital (invisible).
2. Most transactions are digital (invisible).
3. When the economy grows, salaries don’t rise that much (except for those on the top of the pyramid).
4. Because of reason number 3, the people own only small amounts of money at a time. (And of course, because of reason number 4, people are forced to take loans!)

So you can’t see the money because most of the time it’s literally invisible. Ordinary people can experience economic growth only in the sense that they’re continuously forced to do more work and take on more loans. In addition to this, the money created in the loan process is totally worthless. The only reason why people think money has actual value is that they never own too much of it, hence always want more, and this is what causes money to have “value” in people’s minds. But what if the banks actually gave real money to the people instead of loans? Would it really make any difference from an economic viewpoint? The people would still use the money, just as they use their loans. The economy would still grow just as before. The only difference is that the bank owners would no longer get richer at the expense of the people. And of course in this model there would be no private bank owners at all, because all banks would be owned by the state (private bankers would never give money to the people for free). What are the benefits of the basic income system?

1. No poverty. Poverty as we know it would cease to exist. Everyone can always afford the basic necessities of life and pay their bills and rent. This in turn will cause:

1a) Significantly lower crime rate. Crime will no longer seem so attractive, when all your basic needs have been fulfilled. There will no longer be any need to steal in order to make a living.

More importantly, because inmates will lose their right to basic income while they are in prison, the potential criminals will think twice before breaking the law, and most of them will choose not to. Committing crimes will no longer earn you money in the same way it used to, since you now stand the chance to lose your basic income if you get caught. As a result, criminal gangs will have a lot harder time recruiting new members, and in time they might disappear altogether. Crime will no longer pay in the literal sense. Right now, many countries have an opposing system where you actually receive a small sum of money for every day you sit in prison. Plus your daily needs are taken care of while you’re behind bars. This has caused the prison system to become a form of social security. If you’re poor enough, you may end up in a situation where you have no alternative other than going to prison. In a twisted sense, prison provides a person with a form of “basic income”: you get housing, food, water, shower etc. coupled with a small daily allowance. No one can take these things away from you while you are in prison. They are guaranteed by the state, no matter what. The only requirement to get these benefits is to commit a crime that is serious enough to put you in prison. No wonder the prisons are full!

And when your prison sentence is over, you go back into your previous situation of uncertain income (and in some cases, back to the streets). If you can’t get a job soon after your release, and chances are that you won’t, then you must rely on unemployment benefits, which are a more uncertain form of income when compared to the benefits you got while in prison. The employment agency now controls your life. You are forced to apply for jobs that you aren’t necessarily interested in, and to participate in “activation programs”, otherwise you lose your only source of income. After a while, you’ll start to wish that you were back in prison, where you could just sit. Soon committing crimes feels like a reasonable alternative because you really don’t have that much to lose. Of course you would lose your “freedom” again, but on the other hand you would receive a guaranteed income and upkeep while in prison. So why not? And then you start wondering if some of your “old buddies” still live in the area… And then the circle starts from the beginning once again.

If you have a very low-income level or no income at all, it’s logical to commit crimes in order to get a prison sentence, which will both increase your income and guarantee your basic needs. This creates an insane situation: if you commit crimes, the state pays you. And don’t forget that while in prison you may have the opportunity to study or perform some kind of work (simple, low paid part time work, which the “normal” labour market can’t offer). So by committing a crime, you might actually get a job of sorts, in addition to the other benefits. No wonder that the “battle against crime” has lasted forever. Crime can never disappear from a society that rewards crime. But if you always had an unconditional, guaranteed source of stable income, which would be taken away from you only in the case that you commit crimes, then these problems would be solved. Ending up in prison would be the last thing you want. You would just lose both your freedom and your income. Crime would no longer pay anything at all.

It’s good to remember, that most people sitting behind bars are small time criminals who ended up in prison because of two reasons: 1) The lack of money and 2) All things caused by it. But if we rewarded people with a basic income for just being a citizen, then both of these two problems would be solved. In our current system, only good behaviour (seeking or having a job) is rewarded, while both neutral (not seeking or not having a job) and bad behaviour (criminal activity) are punished. So it’s quite easy for one to move from neutral behaviour to bad behaviour, because both are punished. And, as we demonstrated, the guaranteed upkeep that the prisons offer to inmates makes it seem like bad behaviour is in some ways punished less than neutral behaviour. This causes a prison sentence to be an option, rather than a punishment.

In the basic income system, both good and neutral behaviour will be rewarded, while only bad behaviour will be punished. And of course good behaviour will still be rewarded more than neutral behaviour, because you get basic income in addition to your salary from work. So the better you behave, the higher the reward. If you decide to just hang around for whatever reason, as long as you don’t cause any trouble, you will still be rewarded in a small way i.e. you’ll be given enough money to survive. But if you start causing trouble, you’ll be punished. Basic income will therefore remove all exterior reasons (problems caused by poverty) from criminal activity. Only interior reasons (free will choices) would remain. And how many people are there who would willingly start a criminal career in a system which genuinely cares for its citizens? Not many. It’s important to realize that most criminals aren’t inherently evil. Most of them choose to commit crimes because of exterior reasons (which make them feel that they have no other choice), not because they really want to.

1b) Significantly reduced homelessness problem. Everyone would have money to pay their rent, so fewer people end up to the streets.

Many people end up homeless because they lose their job and start drinking. Drinking causes a divorce, and then comes the street. Unemployment is a “social shame”, which many can’t handle properly. Some people would rather live on the streets than beg for their benefits every month. But if you had a guaranteed basic income then there would be no begging, and the fear of unemployment would be much lower. This way, if you lose your job, it won’t strike you so hard. Even so, you could still find yourself in the position of being unable to pay your rent. For example if you lived in a big house and then suddenly lost your high paid job, basic income might not be enough to pay the rent. The solution to this problem is conventional social security aid; it will still exist alongside the basic income system for emergencies. (But ordinary income support programs would not exist, because basic income replaces them.)

1c) Significantly reduced prostitution. Guaranteed income = No need to sell your body.

******

So, to sum it up, poverty and crime will be greatly lessened. However, depending on the cost of education and healthcare, poverty might not totally disappear with basic income alone. But if basic income is combined with free education and free healthcare then poverty would truly exist no more.

******

2. More jobs, more sensible labour markets and a motivated workforce One of the most striking features of basic income is that it’s paid to all citizens regardless of whether or not they have a job. This allows the creation of simple, low paid, part time jobs, which would otherwise be impossible to create because the salaries of those jobs would be too low. But when you simultaneously receive both basic income and the salary from your job, this makes it possible for people to accept low paid, few-hours-a-day jobs. This way people with little or no education would have more job opportunities. Also, one of the biggest problems concerning the low paid jobs would be no more: right now many don’t want to accept a job that has a salary not much higher than one’s unemployment benefit.

Thanks to their unconditional basic income, the workers can turn down any job that’s offered to them, so the employers cannot create just anything that comes to their mind. The created jobs must be meaningful, otherwise no one will accept them. On the other hand, the best of such jobs would always attract workers. This creates a real and a more sensible “labour market”. The employers can now easily create new jobs, but at the same time they must actually think what they’re offering, because the workers can now freely choose what they want to do. Right now, we have many jobs that the people hate to do. The employers can comfortably offer these jobs, because they know that someone always accepts them. The job seekers on the other hand are forced to accept these jobs because if they don’t they might lose their unemployment benefits. This creates shitty jobs, performed by poor, unmotivated people.

But basic income ensures that there will be no shitty jobs. They will become extinct because people will refuse to do them. The future labour market will work like a voting system of sorts. Good jobs will attract more workers – this votes them “in” – while bad jobs attract nobody, so they’ll be voted “out”. The future labour market will “know” what it wants to do and what it doesn’t. In comparison, our current labour market is “dumb”. People accept jobs because they’re forced to, and that’s why the employers don’t really have to care whether the jobs offered are “meant for humans” or not. In a dumb labour market, productivity is all that matters. The wellbeing of the workers means almost nothing. If they resign, there’s always someone else to take their place. This makes the workers mere resources that can be pushed around in any way you like. They have no autonomy or real choice in anything.

Basic income is the only way if we want to create a real, just and smart labor market. It will ensure that all workers are motivated, because working will be a free choice. Employees will be able to trust their employers, and vice versa. Co-operation and mutual agreement between the bosses and the employees is always required. Bad bosses would soon find out that nobody wants to work for them anymore, while good bosses would never have a shortage of employees. If some company treats its employees unfairly, the word would spread quickly, and after a while nobody would want to work for that company anymore, forcing its leadership to resign and shut down the business. (Although if all companies were owned by the state, the bad leader would simply be fired and replaced with a new one, but the company itself would remain intact, unless there are other problems too in addition to bad leadership.)

3. More freedom and autonomy. Basic income allows people to develop independently and autonomously. Your life would no longer be dictated by money. Instead you can freely choose what to do with your life.

Basic income gives you the following freedoms:

– Freedom to choose whether to work or not.

– Freedom to choose whether to accept a job or not when offered.

– Freedom from conditional social- and unemployment benefits, which now allow various government agencies to dictate your life. (Basic income will replace most of these benefits.)

– Less dependency of wives on husbands. (Such as in the case of a couple where one is unemployed while the other one has a job. This can cause the employed person to become the “economic leader” of the relationship.)

– Increased autonomy from families. (Such as in the case where some family members have a job and others don’t, making the jobless members economically dependent on the others.)

– Increased autonomy from criminal gangs. (When you have a guaranteed income, you won’t be so dependent on gangs i.e. you will have a realistic chance to start building a life that is outside the gang.) In addition, you’ll have more free time, since now you don’t have to devote your whole life into work. More free time means increased creativity. There will be more time for art, music, literature, sports, meditation, spirituality, and so on. This will create a new renaissance, when people start paying attention to their “forgotten abilities” again.

4. Increased psychological well-being. As a result of the elimination of poverty, creation of a sensible labour market, reduced crime rates and increased freedom, the psychological well-being of the entire nation will improve.

The people today are mostly worried about money. It dominates their lives. Almost all fights between couples are about money. But thanks to basic income, there will be less stress and worrying about it. You can always be sure that you can afford to pay your bills in time and that you’ll always have enough money to live, no matter what your life situation is. This makes you feel comfortable at all times, leaving more time for other thoughts. Also, the social stigma and shame that is today associated with being poor or unemployed will disappear. There will be no more begging for your benefits. Every citizen receives basic income at all times, so “living on basic income” won’t be such a shame as “living on social security”. Right now, the poor are humiliated on a regular basis because they have to ask and beg for their benefits, and organizations such as the employment agency can dictate their lives.

This quickly breaks anyone’s self-esteem and makes them consider themselves as second-class citizens (which is indeed what they are in the current system). This in turn lowers their motivation, and causes many to give up all their ambitions and plans for life. The current “social security system” should be called “social despair system”, because it causes depression in previously healthy people. Unconditional basic income means that having a job will be a choice of free will. This will have a profound effect on the nature of work. Working will no longer be slavery but something that you choose to do voluntarily. Both work ethics and motivation will therefore be improved. The mantra “forced to work” will be replaced by “joy of service”.

In our current system, many children grow up in stressed families, listening to their parents arguing about money. They hear their parents saying things like “we can’t afford it” and “how on earth can we pay for this?” Many marriages break up because of one reason only: the lack of money. When a child grows up in an environment like this, he/she becomes stressed at a young age. But if both parents had a guaranteed basic income then a lot of problems would be solved. Remember: broken people generally come from broken families, and stable people from stable families.

Many mental problems have their roots in poverty. Depression is one of the most common mental disorders in the modern society. But why do you think people become depressed in the first place? The answer is poverty, and all the things caused by it: lack of security, lack of self-esteem, stress, and so on. Of course not all mental problems are caused by money, but it’s safe to say that at least half of them are related to the patient’s economic situation. And psychiatrists of course cannot heal your economic situation, so even if they succeed in helping you out in some ways, the basis of your problems is still there – poverty.

Increased psychological well-being also means that there will be fewer “bad habits”, such as alcoholism and drug use. This will cause the people to be healthier both physically and mentally and this will further decrease the crime rates. (Many “crimes” that take up enormous amounts of police time are alcohol related disturbances, quarrels and fights.) Basic income will also create an honest society. No one will be faking it anymore. Everything that you do with your life will be a decision of free will.

5. Government saves money. Because basic income solves many problems of the society, the government will save money in the following areas:

– Crime rates will be significantly lower = Big savings in law enforcement and in the “prison industry”.

– Homelessness rates will be significantly lower = Savings in various aid programs.

– The people will be psychologically healthier = Lower mental health costs.

– Less alcoholism and less drugs = Savings in rehab programs, less “public disturbance crimes” that eat police resources, etc.

In addition, most of the existing income support programs and other aid systems can be abolished, because basic income will replace them. The existing welfare programs also have huge, ineffective and expensive agencies formed around them. We have amazing numbers of people working in these agencies, and what is their primary purpose? To decide who is entitled to receive the various benefits, and who is not. What a joke. And loads of unnecessary red tape of course accompany all decision processes. When basic income is implemented, these “paper factories” will become mostly obsolete.

Criticism and responses.

Here are some common arguments against basic income, and responses to them.

A) It will create a society full of lazy people. The critics of unconditional basic income argue that it will create a society which will be full of lazy people and free loaders.

The reasons why this would happen, according to the critics, are these:

– Basic income is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.

– The size of basic income is comparable to minimum wage, which means it’s high enough to live on.

So, if one is not required to do anything at all to get it, surely this would cause laziness, especially so because it’s high enough to live on? Motivation to work would be zero, right? And then the whole of society would collapse, because no one would maintain it. The core issue here is motivation.

To understand this issue better, think about what motivates the people right now. What makes them work? The bottom line is of course that they’re forced to do it: if they didn’t, they would run out of money and die (well, almost). But there are other reasons too, such as achieving something in your life, caring for your family, and benefiting the society in general. Also, many people have identified themselves with their jobs, so that their profession is a part of their identity (this is why some people collapse mentally when they lose their job). So, there are plenty of other reasons. Now, if we add basic income to this formula, only the first reason, the threat of total poverty, would disappear. All the other reasons would still be there.

But one could of course always argue that the first reason, the threat to lose all your income, is the biggest reason why people go to work. It’s the ultimate punishment, and that makes it the biggest reason. And this is true. That reason threatens your very survival and therefore it’s the single most important reason why people go to work. But what if we remove that reason, and replace it with a new one? Right now, the reason to do work is the threat to lose your income. So what happens when basic income comes to the scene? It replaces the threat with an unconditional reward. The negative threat disappears and is replaced with the extreme positive opposite: and unconditional reward. So the change here is total.

Now, think about the motivation issue. In our current system, the motivation to work is based on a threat. In the basic income system, the motivation will be based on an unconditional reward. So how could the people’s motivation to work be lower than in our current system? I’ll soon demonstrate this motivation issue better, but first let’s take a look at the other arguments.

B) Contributing to the society won’t pay off, because you gain the same reward if you do nothing.

The critics of basic income have also pointed out that it would create a situation where you stand the chance to “lose” if you decide to contribute to the society. If everyone gets the same amount of money from the state no matter what they do, this means that you stand to gain the most if you do nothing. In the case where you choose to contribute, but others choose not to, you “lose” your contribution because the system will crash and therefore you are left without the money you were supposed to gain as your universal right.

An example similar to this one has been used to demonstrate this problem:

A community has 100 members.

We decide to give every member an unconditional universal benefit of some kind.

Providing this service costs 1000$.

The value of the benefit gained by every member is therefore 10$. Each member is then asked to participate in the funding, by making a small contribution of 1$.

Here are the four possible outcomes of this arrangement:

1. I work and others also work: 10 – 1 = 9

So I gained the universal benefit of 10$, and lost my contribution of 1$, leaving me with a gain of 9 $.

2. I don’t work, but others do: 10 – 0 = 10

Here I don’t contribute, so I don’t lose the 1$, but I still get the universal benefit of 10$, leaving me with a gain of 10$. So I gain more if I don’t contribute.

3. I work, but a large enough number of others don’t: 0 – 1 = -1 Here the universal benefit system crashes, because enough people have chosen not to contribute. But I still contributed, losing 1$, and leaving me with a loss of -1$.

4. I don’t work, and a large enough number of others also don’t work: 0 – 0 = 0

Here the system also crashes, but this time I didn’t contribute, so I lost nothing, leaving me with neither a gain nor a loss. Once again, I stand to gain more if I don’t contribute. Had I chosen to contribute, I might have lost 1$.

The above formula would be true if everyone really gained the same amount of money, regardless of what they did. But this is not the case with basic income, because you get your salary from work in addition to the basic income. Also, the above formula assumes that you get no salary at all from your contributions; instead you just lose money.

As a reminder, basic income works like this:

Non-contributing person = gets basic income.

Contributing person = gets basic income + salary.

Because of this, you always stand to gain more if you choose to contribute. By not contributing, you always gain less.

Let’s see how that above formula looks like when we start paying salary to the contributors. Let’s assume that the salary is at least of the same size as the universal benefit (basic income): 10$.

Here are the four outcomes:

1. I work, and others also work: 10 + 10 = 20

I get 10$ as salary, and 10$ from the universal benefit system, so I gain 20$.

2. I don’t work, but the others do: 10 + 0 = 10

I get no salary, but I get 10$ from the universal benefit system, so I gain 10$. However, should I choose to work, I would gain more.

3. I work, but a large enough number of others don’t: 0 + 10 = 10

Here the universal benefit system crashes, but I still get salary from my job, so I gain 10$.

4. I don’t work, and a large enough group of others also don’t work: 0 + 0 = 0

Here the universal benefit system crashes, and I get no salary, so I gain nothing. However, should I choose to work, I would gain 10$.

So in every case one stands to gain more, if one chooses to contribute. Working is rewarded more than not working.

C) Basic income rewards you if you do nothing, thus feeding passivity and laziness.

Doing nothing is rewarded just a little bit: with an amount that will keep you alive and which prevents you from becoming a criminal. If one wishes to be rewarded more, then one must start contributing. The more you achieve, the higher reward you get. This creates the incentive to start contributing. If doing nothing is punished, as it is now, this causes the problem we described earlier: it’s very easy to move from neutral behaviour into bad behaviour, since both are punished and bad behaviour may seem like it’s punished less. But if neutral behaviour is rewarded in a small way (you get basic income), while bad behaviour is clearly punished (you lose your basic income), then moving into bad behaviour will be much more unlikely. And the other way, when neutral behaviour is rewarded in a small way, and good behaviour is rewarded in a bigger way, this makes it likely that one always tries to behave as well as one can.

D) Nobody would do shitty jobs anymore, if working is a choice of free will.

Yes they would, when those jobs are made more attractive by decreasing the work hours, raising the salary, or both.

E) Basic income would create “social immobility” if people are just allowed to sit at home without doing a thing.

No it wouldn’t. Instead, it gives you a real chance to do anything you want. Although you could of course just sit if that is what you really want to do. In a basic income society, there will be no faking anymore. If you do something, you do it because you really want to, not because someone forced you to. Everything will be voluntary. This is not to say that the society couldn’t offer activation opportunities to the people. Of course it can offer them, and it should. The people can then decide if they want to take these opportunities, but they should never be forced. Instead, an incentive should be offered; one gets a small increase to one’s basic income, if one decides to take part in community projects, learning new skills, etc. This will create real and motivated social mobility, done on your own initiative, instead of fake mobility, where someone else “moves your feet”.

F) But what about the social bums?

Yes indeed, what about the long-term social bums who have been living on welfare for tens of years? In some cases, this continues from one generation to the other. And what about people who refuse to accept work, no matter what? Almost all of these people are acting in this way because they feel that our current system is not worth serving. Abusing a system that abuses you is a normal thing to do. These people were not born lazy. When they grew up and realized that the system is rigged against them, they decided to give up and became “social bums”. It’s a logical thing to do. Your conscience won’t punish you for that since there is nothing wrong in biting the hand that tries to control your life.

When basic income is implemented, most of these people will stay as social bums, because it’s hard to give up a habit that you have had for ten years or more. However, as time passes, some of them might change their habits, but not all. They’ll stay free-loaders for the rest of their lives, and this can’t be helped. Laziness and resistance to work is hard-wired in them. But these people are a minority, so it really doesn’t matter. They haven’t been able to crash this system with their laziness, so they won’t be able to do that in the basic income system either.
__________

4/8