Difference between revisions of "Basic income"

From Sharewiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
m (deleting obsolete link)
Line 179: Line 179:
I feel like forwarding below an interesting
= The SPIRIT of Basic Income via The Commons , Vs Capitalism , and Monopolistic Monetization =
my reply on a fb thread to topics raised
== The SPIRIT of Basic Income via The Commons , Vs Capitalism , and Monopolistic Monetization ==
==around capitalism and basic income== :
my reply on a fb thread to topics raised around capitalism and basic income :

Revision as of 16:22, 12 January 2017

instead of calculating solely based in monetary terms, I am interested in understanding what income we may have access to, as defined in

"both monetary and non-monetary consumption ability"

- basic right to shelter ?

- basic right to food and water ?

- basic right to ... access to internet ?

- basic right to hygiene ?


How do we acquire such basic rights ?

How does it work in distributed networks of sharing ?

further links :


Relate basic income to use value standards

archived message...

Forwarded message ----------

From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson - at - gmail.com> Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM Subject: basic income : use value standards, basic income units, housing cooperatives, etc To: fyeg_green_economy_wg - at - listen.jpberlin.de

I agree with Livia - it will be a long process, and we can not define everything today,

but indeed, I hope that at least some guidelines will be set today.

I feel that Laura created a very interesting set of guidelines, which open up an entire year of more specific definitions.

I allow myself to add some more suggestions and specifics, perhaps for subsequent revisions of the draft Laura wrote.

In this email, in addition to my last email

1 ) - who can claim a basic income ? ( defining further, based on the second point of the draft : " It must be paid universally to every person in a defined community. " ) 1b ) - basic income for nomads ? 2 ) - basic income "currency" , including its use to pay property taxes 3 ) - incentives to encourage mobility, re-development, or avoid concentration of population : set minimum EU standards, that can be increased by local governments 4 ) - basic income related to use value standards ( discussion and attempt at defining further, based on the third point of the draft : " It must be sufficient for living, which is more than covering the basic human needs." ) 5 ) - basic income supporting local economics and not for profit and locally owned cooperative organizations, in turn supporting local ownership of means of production and the local employment opportunies 6 ) - basic income not replacing and added as a complement to other forms of social rights and support 7 ) - basic Income currencies 8 ) - Policies to reduce potential of inflation induced by increase of revenues of the less rich


1 )

I ask myself, what are the conditions to receive the right to a basic income ?

A EU citizenship, or simply the presence on EU territory ? Anyone being on EU territory for a period longer then 3 months, independently from their official "legalization" or not ? In such case, who would process and manage such "rights to access basic income" ? Would everyones files be covered by "professional secret", as in the case of doctors in relation to medical patients, or lawyers, or psychiatrists, ... ?

1b ) some people might not live in one place for a longer period of time, or might choose to be living a nomadic lifestyle;

I believe that such people should not need to be excluded from a basic income, even if they do not have an official residency.

If everyone in the european union is granted a basic income, and if the monetary cost related to covering such basic income changes according to regions,

perhaps the easiest might be to issue a basic income, not in euros, but in various "basic income units", directly related to use value ( housing units, electricity units, water units, etc ) Such units could be exchanged by companies against euros, or kept as such for other exchanges. If they exchange them in euros, they would need to pay taxes on them.

2 )

If people already own a house, and do not need to rent a place, they would not need extra housing points/units/currency.

The people that rent out housing because they have extra property , could receive "housing currency units" in payment, and then decide to exchange them for euros to the governmental body ( but with a percentage loss in value in the exchange / a tax ), or directly re-use them in the form of payment of other taxes without loss of value, or for other payments by anyone accepting the units.

3 ) A minimum basic income use value standard could be set at a european level, but regional or national states could decide to increase it further, to eventually attract people to their region and promote local development of their region. ( re-investing the units they issue and distribute into local production cooperatives )

4 )

Relate basic income to use value standards

such as a certain amount of electricity and other forms of energy sources ( such as for heating, adapted to climate conditions ) , rights to the use of local public transportation, amount of housing space, quality of renovation of the housing space, food prices, etc

4b ) Further explanations :

One other aspect I would like to add, in relation to "basic income", and its relations with the commons and alternative currencies,

is related to the views that FYEG would like to further in relation to "property", and "rent" related to property.

I already mentioned it in one of my points in reply to Laura's draft on basic income :

people that do not already have property, but would need to rent, might not be able to assure themselves as well basic living as people that already own property. Hence the importance to not only consider potential taxes on financial speculation, but also consider taxes on speculation related to property, such as housing.

In certain cities, such as Brussels, prices of housing was growing exponentially, without value created.

It grew even when peoples salaries did not grow, only based on the potential for people with property to guarantee their existing property to further speculate by buying other properties, creating "bubbles" in the housing sector, which then reduces the quality of life of a majority of people wanting to rent or buy, reducing their living space or taking an increasing percentage of their total income. ( in Brussels, people can easily spend more then half of their income on renting a small apartment ).

In Belgium, there is already a system of "minimum income" ( when one does not work, or does not receive unemployment money ), set at around 720 euros a month if you live alone, but although it may have been enough money to survive with a few years ago, in Brussels, today the entire "minimum income" would need to be spent into housing costs alone, even if there is an increase of the minimum income based on the inflation index. ( but the inflation index is unequal as different regions have different levels of inflation - furthermore, housing inflation is only included at a much lower percentage of th total inflation index )

This is a risk one can have also with a "basic income", if it is not related to "use value" standards.

5 ) - Local currencies backed by the basic income ( which are backed by its use for the payment of taxes for basic income ), - promoting the investment of basic income into access to a share of the production infrastructures property ( but not accumulation of such shares , although ceilings would need to be defined ) - Local currencies backed to support local economics

6 )

I believe it is important that basic income does not replace existing social rights and support. In Laura's draft, this can be found on page 2 : " Furthermore, it has to be complemented by additional social benefits for the especially needy, like chronically ill, single parents, the disabled."

For example, in Belgium and other european countries, I believe it should be able to topple up unemployment forms of income, or topple up and complement minimum social income. In current regulations, in Belgium, one is supposed to deduct any other form of income from the minimum last resort social income. Basic income should not be deductable.

7 + 8 )

To avoid inflation of resource prices, such as housing, as a consequence of an access to basic income, special policies could be implemented - such as issuing "basic housing income currencies".

Such specific currencies could enable,

- increased transparency and reduced inflation in the field of housing rent and housing property purchases, by combining it with policies that enable the taxation of rent inflation and housing speculation,

- promote access ( but not accumulation ) to property to each individual or family, by enabling loans in the form of "basic income units" for the purchase of shares in local social housing cooperatives, through units of basic housing income guaranteed by the governing entity. ( local, regional, national or european ? )

- reduce property accumulation by heavily taxing property which is rented out by private companies or individuals. Such policy might be more easily enforced as a majority of the population might start using basic income housing units to cover the purchase of its housing cooperative shares ( shares that enable it to have access and use a property within the social housing cooperative ) while promoting

The SPIRIT of Basic Income via The Commons , Vs Capitalism , and Monopolistic Monetization

my reply on a fb thread to topics raised

==around capitalism and basic income== :


Dante-Gabryell Monson One may ask "What is the SPIRIT of basic income" ? I realize the best answer I come up with is "The Commons". Hence for me, the best way to support the spirit of basic income, is to support the commons.

As for the survival of capitalism, I notice some capitalist countries enable increased growth even midst a climate of insecurity, as insecurity itself can drive spending , not for the bulk of a demonetized population without jobs, but for the few entities who still have access to monopolistic credit with interest currency units.

Hence, capitalism can survive poverty of most of the population. In a number of countries, it looks like it can thrive by it ( and can create new markets for the elite who may increase spending on security ). How many people will be employed into security forces ? Or will it be able to automate it ? Or simply exterminate most of the unwanted population ? ( as it does by using poverty created out of a specific monopoly on artificially scarce means of interdependency / the current monetary architecture ? ).

In my opinion , It seems more likely capitalism will become less strong once it looses its coercive capacity, such as once that a significant number of people on earth can use a variety of concurrent and resilient alternative means of inter-dependency ( both reified and non reified ), instead of a dependency on a centralized and artificially scarce monopolistic monetary system.

This will enable an out-collaboration of capitalism, as the complexity of an artificially scarce monopolistic system of control can not be greater that one of distributed and concurrent transactional interdependency information systems. The commons is imho a central aspect in enabling such diverse and distributed approach.

If a basic income is adopted, there needs to be "choice" as to the type of units used. For example, set standards based on use value, and then enable a variety of units / reifications of such political right ( to shelter, quality food, transportation, communication ). Ideally, a right to basic income would not be based on law and in relation to a central state, but could be adopted culturally, and be expressed through a distributed communications system enabling anoptism, enabling an emergence of overlapping / concurrent communities, who together make sure that all life on the planet can maintain its capacity for creation.


in reply to

"A basic income guarantee, a policy advocated by such socialist radicals as Richard Nixon will create a kinder gentler society while allowing our economy to grow. During the 1930s, to many capitalism seemed doomed. Keynes and Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved it by bringing its benefits to more citizens. Basic income can do the same today. It is the wave of the future. If you disagree, please come up with a better idea. How else do you suggest we stimulate demand in a world that every year needs fewer and fewer workers? "