|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Universal Basic Income: good idea or bad idea?"
Love you, tooSaturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
Here's political question that doesn't dierctly reference any upcoming elections or contests: Should there be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?
For those not familiar with it the idea of UBI is that the state pays everyone a standard allowance, which is set at such a level that people can live reasonably comfortably on it - so a higher rate than the kind of state benefits that provide just basic subsistence living. More akin to the rate of the state pension than say unemployment benefit, and paid to everyone, regardless of whether working or not, or personal wealth level, hence "universal". When I first came across the idea I wondered how on earth it could be afforded but I gather serious economists have said it is economically possible - advanced economies generate enough revenue that UBI is possible.
The idea is that while people could choose to do nothing and just draw their UBI most would still want to work because that would give them a much higher income, plus people would soon get bored if they had nothing to do, so they'd either work, or do creative stuff like music or art or writing. Or even become a WAM producer. It would also mean that working conditions for people would improve, if a business treated its staff badly they could just walk away and know they'd still have enough to live on, so the incentive would be on companies to attract staff rather than people having to work just to avoid starvation. Plus, and contrary to the "you must work or you're not contributing" ethos that dominates much of the world, even someone just drawing UBI and watching TV or playing games is creating demand for services, which business can then meet.
Apparently the USA almost introduced a UBI back in the early 1970s, and the US and Canadian governments considered it from the 60s to the 80s, connected to the idea of negative income tax. More recently the Swiss had a vote on it, at least one of the Nordic countries has done short-term experiments, and I think the Scottish government looked into it too.
So what do people think?
For those not familiar with it the idea of UBI is that the state pays everyone a standard allowance, which is set at such a level that people can live reasonably comfortably on it - so a higher rate than the kind of state benefits that provide just basic subsistence living. More akin to the rate of the state pension than say unemployment benefit, and paid to everyone, regardless of whether working or not, or personal wealth level, hence "universal". When I first came across the idea I wondered how on earth it could be afforded but I gather serious economists have said it is economically possible - advanced economies generate enough revenue that UBI is possible.
The idea is that while people could choose to do nothing and just draw their UBI most would still want to work because that would give them a much higher income, plus people would soon get bored if they had nothing to do, so they'd either work, or do creative stuff like music or art or writing. Or even become a WAM producer. It would also mean that working conditions for people would improve, if a business treated its staff badly they could just walk away and know they'd still have enough to live on, so the incentive would be on companies to attract staff rather than people having to work just to avoid starvation. Plus, and contrary to the "you must work or you're not contributing" ethos that dominates much of the world, even someone just drawing UBI and watching TV or playing games is creating demand for services, which business can then meet.
Apparently the USA almost introduced a UBI back in the early 1970s, and the US and Canadian governments considered it from the 60s to the 80s, connected to the idea of negative income tax. More recently the Swiss had a vote on it, at least one of the Nordic countries has done short-term experiments, and I think the Scottish government looked into it too.
So what do people think?
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
This would actually be a magnificent idea to help end world poverty. But, realistically, it might never happen (much as I would like to) as the powers that be will likely do everything they can to make sure they have complete control over the working classes.
Never say never though.
Never say never though.
I believe that the Scottish Government is showing interest in a similar idea, which they call Universal Basic Income. Several local authorities are signed up to take part in a pilot project (BBC news 11 June 2020).
My main concern is over the level at which it would be set. They are talking about 6k pa for couples, 13.5 k for a family of four.
Which really does little more than replicate benefit level and is barely realistic for anyone with a mortgage, for example.
It is an intriguing idea, think of the savings, not requiring means testing, national insurance or State pensions, to name just a few.
Everyone would have this income instead.
Mr W
My main concern is over the level at which it would be set. They are talking about 6k pa for couples, 13.5 k for a family of four.
Which really does little more than replicate benefit level and is barely realistic for anyone with a mortgage, for example.
It is an intriguing idea, think of the savings, not requiring means testing, national insurance or State pensions, to name just a few.
Everyone would have this income instead.
Mr W
Splash me
My main concern is that even this doesn't go far enough. It's a great stepping stone for eliminating poverty but when you consider the devastation caused in the communities by Thatcher and her successors, it'll take a real economic revolution to get to a point where people have a real say over their lives.
For example, the political movement go beyond welfare-ism in the disabled community and get to a point where disabled people own their own means of care is something that should be carefully looked at whilst our Tory overlords carry out eugenicist polices (fun fact, Thatchers political mentor lost his political standing after recommending that working class people should be sterilized. Churchill once recommended a similar thing)
What I'm basically saying is that those of us who aren't inbred lords or coked up yuppies wont know true economic freedom until we have a society of our own where we have a real say in how the workplace and the state works for us as a collective. Until then, those in power will hand us stolen wealth from the neo-colonies until they run out of that and just fuck off to Mars with Elon Musk and other nauseating cunts.
For example, the political movement go beyond welfare-ism in the disabled community and get to a point where disabled people own their own means of care is something that should be carefully looked at whilst our Tory overlords carry out eugenicist polices (fun fact, Thatchers political mentor lost his political standing after recommending that working class people should be sterilized. Churchill once recommended a similar thing)
What I'm basically saying is that those of us who aren't inbred lords or coked up yuppies wont know true economic freedom until we have a society of our own where we have a real say in how the workplace and the state works for us as a collective. Until then, those in power will hand us stolen wealth from the neo-colonies until they run out of that and just fuck off to Mars with Elon Musk and other nauseating cunts.
Well, since the ONLY legislation trump passed in 4 years was a tax bill that literally gave 95% of the benefits to the 1%, and since Congress has ballooned the debt to the highest level (adjusting for inflation) since WWII, and since we now have a national deficit of 21 trillion dollars (29 trillion by end of year) which gave 95% of all benefits to millionaires, multi-millionaires, billionaires, corporations and the 1%, AND since no corporation, millionaire or billionaire has shown any intention of paying a living wage with benefits to the working class, I would say a UBI is a necessity.
You know, to buy necessities.
Live well all,
Madeline
You know, to buy necessities.
Live well all,
Madeline
Madeline
As long as government allows people to breed & force other people into existence without their prior consent, government should guaranteed a home & medical care for everyone.
Who's to pay for it? Breeders.
That's the Antinatalist & my position.
I never said that UBI or universal healthcare is some unquestionable "right".
It's a matter of justice/fairness. As long as politicians think/believe the existence of THEIR jobs & positions & agencies & even the existence of nation is an unquestionable "right", then I (and many others) will fight for UBI.
If you want to go the total anarchist route: no laws, no govt at all to either help or hurt/punish,
then that's at least fairer/more logical, i.e. more logically consistent than what we have now,
and I can respect true anarchists.
Who's to pay for it? Breeders.
That's the Antinatalist & my position.
I never said that UBI or universal healthcare is some unquestionable "right".
It's a matter of justice/fairness. As long as politicians think/believe the existence of THEIR jobs & positions & agencies & even the existence of nation is an unquestionable "right", then I (and many others) will fight for UBI.
If you want to go the total anarchist route: no laws, no govt at all to either help or hurt/punish,
then that's at least fairer/more logical, i.e. more logically consistent than what we have now,
and I can respect true anarchists.
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
Interesting replies so far, and from the poll the majority appears to be in favour, but a significant minority against. Anyone want to say why they're opposed?
In my own case I'm in favour as I see it as a way of rebalancing things when most of the actual wealth-generation is done by machines, and also ensuring that there is still an economy to support small businesses. Give money to the poor and they go out and spend it, which makes everyone else richer as the money flows up through the economy. Plus of course I'd hope some of it would get spent buying my downloads.
In my own case I'm in favour as I see it as a way of rebalancing things when most of the actual wealth-generation is done by machines, and also ensuring that there is still an economy to support small businesses. Give money to the poor and they go out and spend it, which makes everyone else richer as the money flows up through the economy. Plus of course I'd hope some of it would get spent buying my downloads.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
Sorry i missed the poll until now, AND this would be a NEW reason that i love this website: here for the WAM, stay for the political/social discussion!
the problem with the "total anarchist" route is that with no penalty for robbery, rape, murder, the result will be... (drum roll please...) TOTAL ANARCHY!
But i think this is not the peaceful Utopia you are imagining, but a *social* return to "square one" EXCEPT we have all of the technology in place (or even if we eliminated all the technology, do you propose somehow eliminate ALL the KNOWLEDGE of how to create that technology???)
Just imagine - whoever has control of the military EQUIPMENT will be "off the chain" establishing their fiefdoms with no regard for fairness, and as we all know "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
But maybe *anarchy* might be better left as the subject of its very own thread?
Zoidbergs Evil Twin said:
If you want to go the total anarchist route: no laws, no govt at all to either help or hurt/punish,
then that's at least fairer/more logical, i.e. more logically consistent than what we have now,
and I can respect true anarchists.
If you want to go the total anarchist route: no laws, no govt at all to either help or hurt/punish,
then that's at least fairer/more logical, i.e. more logically consistent than what we have now,
and I can respect true anarchists.
the problem with the "total anarchist" route is that with no penalty for robbery, rape, murder, the result will be... (drum roll please...) TOTAL ANARCHY!
But i think this is not the peaceful Utopia you are imagining, but a *social* return to "square one" EXCEPT we have all of the technology in place (or even if we eliminated all the technology, do you propose somehow eliminate ALL the KNOWLEDGE of how to create that technology???)
Just imagine - whoever has control of the military EQUIPMENT will be "off the chain" establishing their fiefdoms with no regard for fairness, and as we all know "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
But maybe *anarchy* might be better left as the subject of its very own thread?
...i will have a better signature, eventually!
DungeonMasterOne said: Interesting replies so far, and from the poll the majority appears to be in favour, but a significant minority against. Anyone want to say why they're opposed?
As an FYI, I didn't bother to vote. I don't like talking politics here because my views tend to be opposite the majority and my main purpose here is to market my wetlook photos...
But since you asked, I'll risk the political fallout. A universal basic income sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it has never worked whenever it was tried, in all it's various forms.
My response to your opening post;
When I first came across the idea I wondered how on earth it could be afforded but I gather serious economists have said it is economically possible - advanced economies generate enough revenue that UBI is possible.
Economically it can only be possible if taxes were high enough to support the program. But it would be like trying to tax society into prosperity. But it also goes beyond economics which produces other problems that can result in some pretty bad consequences.
The idea is that while people could choose to do nothing and just draw their UBI most would still want to work because that would give them a much higher income, plus people would soon get bored if they had nothing to do, so they'd either work, or do creative stuff like music or art or writing. Or even become a WAM producer.
Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing. Examples of this can be found with various welfare programs. The people on these programs have no incentive to work, and often refuse to work. If a nation chooses to go to a UBI, the natural desire not to work leaves less workers in the work force to do the necessary jobs needed to support society. Imagine for example, a farmer who decides that he can just wait for the check to show up in the mail rather then tend to his fields. The outcome for society is famine, if most of the farmers choose to do the same thing. Who will compel them to work?? What if Doctors decide that they can just collect their check and play golf all day, instead of seeing patients and trying to help heal them?? The result would be a breakdown in the health system and a dramatic reduction in quality of life. Who will compel them to work?? What about the small business owner? If people choose to stay home, they can't operate without employees. Their businesses fail and along with them, the services they provide. The big businesses aren't immune. If they fail, the things in life we take for granted will no longer be available. From cars to smart phones, to computers, to medical equipment, to the scientific industry. All would collapse if there isn't enough people to do those jobs. Society would collapse.
It would also mean that working conditions for people would improve, if a business treated its staff badly they could just walk away and know they'd still have enough to live on, so the incentive would be on companies to attract staff rather than people having to work just to avoid starvation.
When people have no incentive to work, working conditions has no meaning.
Plus, and contrary to the "you must work or you're not contributing" ethos that dominates much of the world, even someone just drawing UBI and watching TV or playing games is creating demand for services, which business can then meet.
How would those businesses operate if no one has the incentive to work?
So what do people think?
It's a really bad idea. When people have no incentive to work, they will not work. Even if a society could incentivize some jobs, there will not be enough employees if even a portion of society decides to work. Taxes would have to be enormous and they couldn't collect enough to pay for the entitlement. The shortcoming would eventually force some people to be compelled to work by their governments, such as doctors, farmers and others who are essential for society to survive.
EdR
Everything's better when wet…
EdwinR said:
As an FYI, I didn't bother to vote. I don't like talking politics here because my views tend to be opposite the majority and my main purpose here is to market my wetlook photos...
But since you asked, I'll risk the political fallout. A universal basic income sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it has never worked whenever it was tried, in all it's various forms.
As an FYI, I didn't bother to vote. I don't like talking politics here because my views tend to be opposite the majority and my main purpose here is to market my wetlook photos...
But since you asked, I'll risk the political fallout. A universal basic income sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it has never worked whenever it was tried, in all it's various forms.
You think so? The Ontario pilot project was very popular, and was scuttled by a petty reactionary Conservative government who even went so far as to force everyone to erase all data. The problem isn't the fact that it failed, but with the fact that it was the wrong kind of success -- namely, one that was gotten by a rival government, using principles that Doug Ford doesn't like. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/trial-phase-2018-in-basic-income-in-review/ Moving on to other examples, a limited version of the project was federally funded in our Covid response (CERB and CESB), an enormously popular project -- we Canadians usually take it as an instance of the government actually doing the job it is supposed to do, contrary to your claims. And of course citizens of Alaska get a variable monthly stipend from oil revenue, and I doubt they're complaining about it, so no disaster there.
I am willing to agree with you for the sake of argument that the power to tax is at the core of fiscal policy. So tax the rich. If they move overseas, be protectionist. If protectionism doesn't appeal to you, then endorse the WTO and UN against the right-wing loons who hate those agencies. None of these are ideal solutions, but the real world forces us to make second best choices.
Do you think a wealth tax on the gilded age rich -- i.e., people who have assets greater than 50 million -- wouldn't cover the cost? OK, then state your assumptions and game it out. Don't just say things, give reasons too.
Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing.
Citation needed. From what I understand, prior experiments have shown that people like to continue working. The difference is that their motive to work was no longer tied to desperation, but instead, out of gratitude. That produces a very different set of incentives. Your farmer gets to live and work for an actual profit instead of dithering in poverty. (By the way, I'm putting aside the fact that many advanced economies, including yours, have in fact never given up on subsidizing agriculture. Basic income indeed.)
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
EdwinR said: Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing. Examples of this can be found with various welfare programs.
So basically you think people only work if they are forced to? I gather this is a fairly common Conservative viewpoint, but my experience suggests otherwise. Immediate example, my models. None of them depend on their shoot fees to live. The money is a nice extra and certainly a better incentive than nothing, but nothing compels any of them to shoot for me, some of them actually give up what would otherwise be days off from their normal jobs to do scenes. They do them because they enjoy them, plus get paid extra, which can then be put towards luxuries, holidays, or savings - Maude is putting her model fees towards a house deposit.
So I disagree that no-one will work unless forced to. UBI would be enough to live reasonably on, but most people aspire to more than that, and it's not as if work and jobs would be abolished. You are right that a certain proportion probably would chose to just collect their cheques (though these days I'd expect it to be direct bank transfers, that's how everything is done in the UK), but most people would want to earn more, and finding work to do would be a way to do that. And as long as the "just collect" people are spending the money, that's still generating business opportunities for suppliers.
One of the problems with a lot of welfare programmes is that as soon as someone on one of them earns anything, the welfare is cut or withdrawn. With UBI on the other hand, you get it no matter how mich else you earn, so it avoids the "welfare trap". Plus you get to abolish the expensive administration systems needed for welfare.
We effectively already have UBI in the UK for older people - the state pensoion. Everyone gets it once they reach pension age, regardless of wealth, famously Prince Charles donates his to charity. And as Nein says above, agriculture is already massively subsidised, I gather the reason so much American food has corn syrup in it is because farm subsidies mean enormous quantities of corn are produced, far more than is needed, so something has to be found to use all the excess corn. The one thing I wasn't so keen on in Vegas back in 18, Coke and Pepsi don't taste as nice in the US because they are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, here in the UK they stil use the original recipies with sugar as the sweetner, and it tastes nicer.
I don't mind discussing political issues here, and accept different people have different views, and as it's a bit less personal than something like FB I don't have a problem if others have views that differ from mine, within reason. I think it only becomes a problem when someone tries to "convert" someone else and ends up trying to do so by sheer force of number of posts made - I remember well the flame wars of Usenet.
So interesting to see a differing view.Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
EdwinR said: It's a really bad idea. When people have no incentive to work, they will not work. Even if a society could incentivize some jobs, there will not be enough employees if even a portion of society decides to work. Taxes would have to be enormous and they couldn't collect enough to pay for the entitlement. The shortcoming would eventually force some people to be compelled to work by their governments, such as doctors, farmers and others who are essential for society to survive.
I think there are a couple of different interpretations of UBI here, so people might be talking at cross-purposes. One option is the Star Trek future, where money has been abolished. In that situation, I agree that there's no real incentive to get up at the crack of dawn to plough a field, when you could just stay in bed and then have a lazy afternoon watching YouTube videos. In the context of open source software, some people talk about a "gift economy", where you get status by giving stuff away (e.g. likes/retweets on social media), but that wouldn't apply to every job.
However, I think that DungeonMasterOne is talking about something different: a basic income (guaranteed) which is then supplemented by income from a job. That means that people do have an incentive to work, in order to get extra money.
Digressing slightly, when I was a kid (in the UK), there were "NHS glasses". The idea was that any children who needed glasses could get them free of charge. However, they were ugly, with thick black plastic frames, presumably because they were the cheapest design available. Later on, the rules changed, and anyone who needed glasses got a voucher instead. This voucher would be enough to pay for the lenses and a cheap frame, so you could get the same glasses as before completely free of charge. Alternately, you could pay a bit extra to get a nicer frame (e.g. thin metal). Comparing the old/new schemes, that meant that you might only be paying the £5 difference rather than £50 for the entire cost of the glasses.
When I was in my early 20s, I lived in a "studio flat" (aka a bedsit). I had one room, with a bed in one corner, a shower in one corner, a kitchenette (hob, sink, mini-fridge) in one corner, and the doorway in the 4th corner. There were 3 flats like this on the ground floor: we all shared a front door, and there was a shared toilet in the corridor. So, this was a bit like living at university (hall of residence) or in a hostel. Later, I bought a one-bedroom flat, where I didn't have to share a toilet.
The reason I mention those anecdotes here is that I see a similar concept for UBI: it would pay enough for you to have a roof over your head, along with food to eat and glasses to see, but this wouldn't be the height of luxury. If you want to eat out at a restaurant, or wear fancy glasses, or live in a big house with a garden, that will cost extra and you'll need to get a job to pay for it.
I think that doctors generally get paid pretty well, which justifies the time/money they spend on studying. Looking at other jobs, I think the current pandemic has shown that key workers aren't always highly paid, but if we rely on those jobs as a society then those people probably should get paid more.
DungeonMasterOne said:
So basically you think people only work if they are forced to? I gather this is a fairly common Conservative viewpoint,
So basically you think people only work if they are forced to? I gather this is a fairly common Conservative viewpoint,
You may not realize that your comments can be very offensive. Forced to work is akin to forced labor, which is another way of saying slavery. This is not a common conservative viewpoint. Rather it was once the viewpoint -at least in America, about 150+ yrs ago, of the "Dixiecrat" party, which fought a war to retain and perpetuate slavery.
No one here is 'forced' to work, rather we all work out of necessity. There is an old saying that goes something like this; If you want to eat, you gotta work. The reason is simple to understand but often forgotten. All work has value, some work has more value than others, but no job is worthless. No one is forced to go to college to learn to become a doctor, a lawyer, a scientist, etc. Likewise no one is forced to wash dishes or flip burgers. You are free to work or not. You may have a right to eat, but you are not entitled to the labor of others to eat.
Immediate example, my models. None of them depend on their shoot fees to live. The money is a nice extra and certainly a better incentive than nothing, but nothing compels any of them to shoot for me, some of them actually give up what would otherwise be days off from their normal jobs to do scenes. They do them because they enjoy them, plus get paid extra, which can then be put towards luxuries, holidays, or savings - Maude is putting her model fees towards a house deposit.
Heres an idea, rather than wait for legislation to pass for a UBI, why don't you take the lead and pay your models more money? Wouldn't that be fair too? I propose that you begin by paying your models 5000 euros per set. In fact, lets put it to a vote. Who here says yes to DMO paying his models enough to cover their living costs? Who here says no??
So I disagree that no-one will work unless forced to. UBI would be enough to live reasonably on, but most people aspire to more than that, and it's not as if work and jobs would be abolished.
So what do you define as "reasonable", Maybe my definition of reasonable isn't tha same as yours. So if you really think a UBI is a good idea, then I propose that your definition isn't enough for "most" people to live on. If I had to agree with you, I think it would be more fair that I could afford more than just one house and I think I should be able to afford a new sports car. After all, there are people out there that have way more money than the rest of us, even if we are entitled to a "reasonable" UBI. Why stop at say $500/month? Why not have a UBI that provides say $10K per month? With that kind of money, we could buy things that we really want, like a yacht or take a monthly vacation. Imagine the money that, that kind of money will generate for the economy. Imagine the amount of taxes we can collect if everyone had much more money....
You are right that a certain proportion probably would chose to just collect their cheques, but most people would want to earn more, and finding work to do would be a way to do that. And as long as the "just collect" people are spending the money, that's still generating business opportunities for suppliers.
Thats why I propose a real UBI. I think $10,000 per person, per month would go a long way to generating business
One of the problems with a lot of welfare programmes is that as soon as someone on one of them earns anything, the welfare is cut or withdrawn. With UBI on the other hand, you get it no matter how mich else you earn, so it avoids the "welfare trap". Plus you get to abolish the expensive administration systems needed for welfare.
Lets be clear, a UBI is a welfare program. They just won't call it that, but rest assured, it's a welfare program, complete with the typical bloated govt bureaucracy running it. And like any welfare program, it will be cut, there will limits as to who will and who won't be entitled to it. And, a politician will make UBI promises to get elected.
I don't mind discussing political issues here, and accept different people have different views, and as it's a bit less personal than something like FB I don't have a problem if others have views that differ from mine, within reason. I think it only becomes a problem when someone tries to "convert" someone else and ends up trying to do so by sheer force of number of posts made - I remember well the flame wars of Usenet. So interesting to see a differing view.
So interesting to see a differing view. Well thats my differing view, and because you asked.
EdR
Everything's better when wet…
EdwinR said:
Heres an idea, rather than wait for legislation to pass for a UBI, why don't you take the lead and pay your models more money? Wouldn't that be fair too? I propose that you begin by paying your models 5000 euros per set. In fact, lets put it to a vote. Who here says yes to DMO paying his models enough to cover their living costs? Who here says no??
Heres an idea, rather than wait for legislation to pass for a UBI, why don't you take the lead and pay your models more money? Wouldn't that be fair too? I propose that you begin by paying your models 5000 euros per set. In fact, lets put it to a vote. Who here says yes to DMO paying his models enough to cover their living costs? Who here says no??
Since you asked, I vote that DMO pay 1,000,000 euros a month to models per set.
Just on one condition: first, he must become the sovereign leader of an empire with a large central bank operating under fiat currency and a wildly undertaxed and oversubsidized billionaire class, and then he should tax them with prejudice. I endorse this proposal above yours because, unlike your proposal, it would actually contribute to a conversation related to political economy, and not languish in confusions derived from comparing the fate of a monetary system to lessons of household economics.
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
We clearly have very different views of things, which is fair enough, but I do have to correct this:
No, it isn't. The whole point of a UBI programme is that it is universal, and not dependent on anything other than the recipient being a) living and b) a citizen of the country. Everyone from the poorest paupers to the richest billionaires gets it, automatically on coming of age, and the rate is the same for everyone, no elegibility tests, no limits to entitlement. And hence no need for much of a bureaucracy to administer it. That doesn't mean there won't be one as such is the nature of such things, but it'll be a lot smaller than the enormous structures needed to micro-manage (usually badly) typical welfare systems.
As I said we already have UBI for old people here, the state pension. Only requirement to get it is that you've reached pension age. Used to be 65 for everyone but they've started extending it as people live longer, I'll get mine when I'm 67, 15 years from now, regardless of what my other income is by then - who knows, perhaps I'll be a billionaire wam mogul! But I'll still get my pension.
And yes, politicians will want to tinker with the rates, though I'd like to hope that would be done by an independent appointed committee, based on economic factors, the same way the Bank of England here and the Fed in the US set interest rates entirely independently of government control. The true purpose of any UBI system is to support capitalism by ensuring everyone has money to spend in the economy. As an avowed capitalist I'm all in favour of that. So let the people who really understand capital markets and economic factors control it, rather than politicians who's only concern is reelection.
EdwinR said: Lets be clear, a UBI is a welfare program. They just won't call it that, but rest assured, it's a welfare program, complete with the typical bloated govt bureaucracy running it. And like any welfare program, it will be cut, there will limits as to who will and who won't be entitled to it. And, a politician will make UBI promises to get elected.
No, it isn't. The whole point of a UBI programme is that it is universal, and not dependent on anything other than the recipient being a) living and b) a citizen of the country. Everyone from the poorest paupers to the richest billionaires gets it, automatically on coming of age, and the rate is the same for everyone, no elegibility tests, no limits to entitlement. And hence no need for much of a bureaucracy to administer it. That doesn't mean there won't be one as such is the nature of such things, but it'll be a lot smaller than the enormous structures needed to micro-manage (usually badly) typical welfare systems.
As I said we already have UBI for old people here, the state pension. Only requirement to get it is that you've reached pension age. Used to be 65 for everyone but they've started extending it as people live longer, I'll get mine when I'm 67, 15 years from now, regardless of what my other income is by then - who knows, perhaps I'll be a billionaire wam mogul!
But I'll still get my pension. And yes, politicians will want to tinker with the rates, though I'd like to hope that would be done by an independent appointed committee, based on economic factors, the same way the Bank of England here and the Fed in the US set interest rates entirely independently of government control. The true purpose of any UBI system is to support capitalism by ensuring everyone has money to spend in the economy. As an avowed capitalist I'm all in favour of that. So let the people who really understand capital markets and economic factors control it, rather than politicians who's only concern is reelection.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
It does look strange when you look at it like that, but it could actually be rewarding for a country's economy: people getting it will spend that money locally (food, rent, bills; this isn't really going to be enough to travel abroad), and it means the state will spend less on special help programs for jobless people. Sure, there's going to be a small minority that's going to take advantage of it to do nothing, but some people will use it to start an university degree, bringing someone qualified to the country's economy, or to gather their ideas and resources to start a business...
Plus, look: some countries have programs made to attract rich people, like the Greek citizenship by investment https://tranio.com/greece/passport/ . These people get preferential tax rates, the countries get extra income. Some countries base a significant part of their economy on tourism. Some want to attract companies.
They could try to implement an UBI program and these rich people, tourists and businesses would all be interested in a country with no homeless people, low criminality (guaranteed income = no need to rely on crime to make a living) and no ghettos.
Plus, look: some countries have programs made to attract rich people, like the Greek citizenship by investment https://tranio.com/greece/passport/ . These people get preferential tax rates, the countries get extra income. Some countries base a significant part of their economy on tourism. Some want to attract companies.
They could try to implement an UBI program and these rich people, tourists and businesses would all be interested in a country with no homeless people, low criminality (guaranteed income = no need to rely on crime to make a living) and no ghettos.
Nein said:
Do you think a wealth tax on the gilded age rich -- i.e., people who have assets greater than 50 million -- wouldn't cover the cost? OK, then state your assumptions and game it out. Don't just say things, give reasons too.
Citation needed. From what I understand, prior experiments have shown that people like to continue working. The difference is that their motive to work was no longer tied to desperation, but instead, out of gratitude.
Do you think a wealth tax on the gilded age rich -- i.e., people who have assets greater than 50 million -- wouldn't cover the cost? OK, then state your assumptions and game it out. Don't just say things, give reasons too.
EdwinR said:
Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing.
Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing.
Citation needed. From what I understand, prior experiments have shown that people like to continue working. The difference is that their motive to work was no longer tied to desperation, but instead, out of gratitude.
Citation needed.
...i will have a better signature, eventually!
ncgreg231lc2 said:
Citation needed.
Nein said:
Do you think a wealth tax on the gilded age rich -- i.e., people who have assets greater than 50 million -- wouldn't cover the cost? OK, then state your assumptions and game it out. Don't just say things, give reasons too.
Citation needed. From what I understand, prior experiments have shown that people like to continue working. The difference is that their motive to work was no longer tied to desperation, but instead, out of gratitude.
Do you think a wealth tax on the gilded age rich -- i.e., people who have assets greater than 50 million -- wouldn't cover the cost? OK, then state your assumptions and game it out. Don't just say things, give reasons too.
EdwinR said:
Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing.
Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing.
Citation needed. From what I understand, prior experiments have shown that people like to continue working. The difference is that their motive to work was no longer tied to desperation, but instead, out of gratitude.
Citation needed.
Various news sources about the experiments of Universal Basic Income. Finland and the United States.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2193136-universal-income-study-finds-money-for-nothing-wont-make-us-work-less/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/the-results-finlands-universal-basic-income-experiment-are-in-is-it-working/
https://basicincome.org/news/2019/04/finland-further-results-from-the-famous-finnish-ubi-experiment-published/
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/10/8/20902839/universal-basic-income-stockton-trial
Until we tax churches just like sales get taxes, yes: we SHOULD give atheists free money.
Until we stop free welfare for the mass-murdering Holocaust factory farming meat industry, yes: we SHOULD give antinatalist animal rights vegans free money.
Until we mandate strong antinatalist laws and mandate vasectomies & abortions to prevent people from breeding, we should give childfree persons free money, until they stop being childfree & choose to breed.
Money doesn't address what work/labor is being produced. Money means nothing unless you discuss what work/labor is available to spend that money on. That's a whole 'nother topic
that is FAR more important & complicated, of course. Socialists & communists & Marxists have historically deeply analyzed this. Their opposites - anarchists - have analyzed a little more than the general public, but not nearly as mathematically.
Until we stop free welfare for the mass-murdering Holocaust factory farming meat industry, yes: we SHOULD give antinatalist animal rights vegans free money.
Until we mandate strong antinatalist laws and mandate vasectomies & abortions to prevent people from breeding, we should give childfree persons free money, until they stop being childfree & choose to breed.
Money doesn't address what work/labor is being produced. Money means nothing unless you discuss what work/labor is available to spend that money on. That's a whole 'nother topic
that is FAR more important & complicated, of course. Socialists & communists & Marxists have historically deeply analyzed this. Their opposites - anarchists - have analyzed a little more than the general public, but not nearly as mathematically.
EdwinR said: I don't like talking politics here because my views tend to be opposite the majority .
What an ENORMOUS understatement for ME. I SYMPATHIZE INFINITELY.
Because I make no distinction between war vs murder:
hence no distinction between a "soldier" vs a "murderer" or "terrorist".
I wish people dead from Covid19 or being shot just like other people cheer and laugh at opponents going to prison. There's no difference between death threats, bomb threats,
and political incorrectness. All choices, all decisions, all thoughts are math calculations.
No person, no nation, no law, no institution, no agency has any special absolute "right" to exist.
There's just causing more positives than negatives or vice versa to each individual
and keeping track of it all (accounting).
Zoidbergs Evil Twin said:
What an ENORMOUS understatement for ME. I SYMPATHIZE INFINITELY.
Because I make no distinction between war vs murder:
hence no distinction between a "soldier" vs a "murderer" or "terrorist".
What an ENORMOUS understatement for ME. I SYMPATHIZE INFINITELY.
Because I make no distinction between war vs murder:
hence no distinction between a "soldier" vs a "murderer" or "terrorist".
A good example of an opposing view. In my own reality, I can make a distinction between war vs murder, and hence a distinction between a solider vs a murderer or a terrorist.
All choices, all decisions, all thoughts are math calculations.
Like 2+2=5?
No person, no nation, no law, no institution, no agency has any special absolute "right" to exist.
I find a distinction here too. People have a right to exist, everything else can only exist purely out of necessity.
EdR
Everything's better when wet…
EdwinR said:
As an FYI, I didn't bother to vote. I don't like talking politics here because my views tend to be opposite the majority and my main purpose here is to market my wetlook photos...
But since you asked, I'll risk the political fallout. A universal basic income sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it has never worked whenever it was tried, in all it's various forms.
My response to your opening post;
Economically it can only be possible if taxes were high enough to support the program. But it would be like trying to tax society into prosperity. But it also goes beyond economics which produces other problems that can result in some pretty bad consequences.
Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing. Examples of this can be found with various welfare programs. The people on these programs have no incentive to work, and often refuse to work. If a nation chooses to go to a UBI, the natural desire not to work leaves less workers in the work force to do the necessary jobs needed to support society. Imagine for example, a farmer who decides that he can just wait for the check to show up in the mail rather then tend to his fields. The outcome for society is famine, if most of the farmers choose to do the same thing. Who will compel them to work?? What if Doctors decide that they can just collect their check and play golf all day, instead of seeing patients and trying to help heal them?? The result would be a breakdown in the health system and a dramatic reduction in quality of life. Who will compel them to work?? What about the small business owner? If people choose to stay home, they can't operate without employees. Their businesses fail and along with them, the services they provide. The big businesses aren't immune. If they fail, the things in life we take for granted will no longer be available. From cars to smart phones, to computers, to medical equipment, to the scientific industry. All would collapse if there isn't enough people to do those jobs. Society would collapse.
When people have no incentive to work, working conditions has no meaning.
How would those businesses operate if no one has the incentive to work?
It's a really bad idea. When people have no incentive to work, they will not work. Even if a society could incentivize some jobs, there will not be enough employees if even a portion of society decides to work. Taxes would have to be enormous and they couldn't collect enough to pay for the entitlement. The shortcoming would eventually force some people to be compelled to work by their governments, such as doctors, farmers and others who are essential for society to survive.
EdR
DungeonMasterOne said: Interesting replies so far, and from the poll the majority appears to be in favour, but a significant minority against. Anyone want to say why they're opposed?
As an FYI, I didn't bother to vote. I don't like talking politics here because my views tend to be opposite the majority and my main purpose here is to market my wetlook photos...
But since you asked, I'll risk the political fallout. A universal basic income sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it has never worked whenever it was tried, in all it's various forms.
My response to your opening post;
When I first came across the idea I wondered how on earth it could be afforded but I gather serious economists have said it is economically possible - advanced economies generate enough revenue that UBI is possible.
Economically it can only be possible if taxes were high enough to support the program. But it would be like trying to tax society into prosperity. But it also goes beyond economics which produces other problems that can result in some pretty bad consequences.
The idea is that while people could choose to do nothing and just draw their UBI most would still want to work because that would give them a much higher income, plus people would soon get bored if they had nothing to do, so they'd either work, or do creative stuff like music or art or writing. Or even become a WAM producer.
Truth is, if given a choice between working for your money and getting money for nothing, far more people choose to get paid for nothing. Examples of this can be found with various welfare programs. The people on these programs have no incentive to work, and often refuse to work. If a nation chooses to go to a UBI, the natural desire not to work leaves less workers in the work force to do the necessary jobs needed to support society. Imagine for example, a farmer who decides that he can just wait for the check to show up in the mail rather then tend to his fields. The outcome for society is famine, if most of the farmers choose to do the same thing. Who will compel them to work?? What if Doctors decide that they can just collect their check and play golf all day, instead of seeing patients and trying to help heal them?? The result would be a breakdown in the health system and a dramatic reduction in quality of life. Who will compel them to work?? What about the small business owner? If people choose to stay home, they can't operate without employees. Their businesses fail and along with them, the services they provide. The big businesses aren't immune. If they fail, the things in life we take for granted will no longer be available. From cars to smart phones, to computers, to medical equipment, to the scientific industry. All would collapse if there isn't enough people to do those jobs. Society would collapse.
It would also mean that working conditions for people would improve, if a business treated its staff badly they could just walk away and know they'd still have enough to live on, so the incentive would be on companies to attract staff rather than people having to work just to avoid starvation.
When people have no incentive to work, working conditions has no meaning.
Plus, and contrary to the "you must work or you're not contributing" ethos that dominates much of the world, even someone just drawing UBI and watching TV or playing games is creating demand for services, which business can then meet.
How would those businesses operate if no one has the incentive to work?
So what do people think?
It's a really bad idea. When people have no incentive to work, they will not work. Even if a society could incentivize some jobs, there will not be enough employees if even a portion of society decides to work. Taxes would have to be enormous and they couldn't collect enough to pay for the entitlement. The shortcoming would eventually force some people to be compelled to work by their governments, such as doctors, farmers and others who are essential for society to survive.
EdR
Wow, so many misconceptions. I know I can't hit them all, but here goes at a few:
Universal Basic Income is 1: Universal, 2: Income, and 3: Basic. A farmer wouldn't be able to just fuck off and not tend his fields with a UBI, because it wouldn't be enough for him to pay his already existing debts. We're talking enough for 1 person, in a city, having food, shelter, and transportation. In the US, farmers already have subsidies that are hard to get rid of that are much higher than any proposed UBI.
In regards to people on welfare, not having an incentive to work, you've got it backwards, they have a disincentive to work. Because, at least in the US, benefits are tiered, and the resulting drop in benefits are going to be more than what they bring home by working, creating a net loss by actually getting a job. They are actually making the best economic decision, given their circumstances.
The taxes wouldn't have to be enormous (on most people), for two reasons -
First, Every time money changes hands, it generates tax revenue (generally). I'm not sure why UMD doesn't charge tax, but that could have to do with inter-state tax law that is way beyond my pay grade, but when the commission to EPOCH is sent, that's taxable revenue. So is the revenue to UMD, and to the producer. UMD and the producer are going to put that money towards models, infrastructure, supplies, and services, all of which get it taxed again. Models are going to use that for reasons, where it get taxed again. This is called the multiplier effect, and as long as the money stays in low to mid income tax brackets, it continues to circulate, having an effect 5x greater than the original purchase. Where it all falls down is when that money goes into high income tax brackets and major businesses, where it's not being spent, but either saved or invested. This reduces the multiplier effect, and that's where point 2 comes in.
Second - The tax rates for upper income earners and major corporations need to be reformed. While the maximum tax bracket in the US is between 35 and 39%, there are all sorts of shenanigans which can make one's tax burden less. Going back to investments, if one invests in an investment and realizes a loss, then that loss is a tax write-off. Which really doesn't make sense, because you're socializing the loss. In a country where socialism is a dirty word, people should really consider if they want to continue doing that. But that's a different topic. Furthermore, companies can use that money they earned from sales to reinvest in their infrastructure and reduce their income. But then they can depreciate that infrastructure they purchased in year 1, and reduce their income for years to come, even though no money has changed hands. Now, that isn't a problem in, and of itself, but they reduce their taxable income while telling shareholders they've made billions in profits.
These two points would reduce the need for additional taxes.
Now, if current trends continue, we may reach a point where the opposite problem to your scenario unfolds - automation has replaced so many jobs that there are too many people and not enough jobs. If that happens, then you have two options - implement a UBI or have people starving in the street. If you don't want to have people starving, because there are no jobs to be had, then a UBI is the way to go. Food riots never end well for anyone.
Dr. of Splatterology
piboiva said:
First, Every time money changes hands, it generates tax revenue (generally)... This is called the multiplier effect, and as long as the money stays in low to mid income tax brackets, it continues to circulate, having an effect 5x greater than the original purchase. Where it all falls down is when that money goes into high income tax brackets and major businesses, where it's not being spent, but either saved or invested. This reduces the multiplier effect...
Now, if current trends continue, we may reach a point where the opposite problem to your scenario unfolds - automation has replaced so many jobs that there are too many people and not enough jobs. If that happens, then you have two options - implement a UBI or have people starving in the street. If you don't want to have people starving, because there are no jobs to be had, then a UBI is the way to go. Food riots never end well for anyone.
First, Every time money changes hands, it generates tax revenue (generally)... This is called the multiplier effect, and as long as the money stays in low to mid income tax brackets, it continues to circulate, having an effect 5x greater than the original purchase. Where it all falls down is when that money goes into high income tax brackets and major businesses, where it's not being spent, but either saved or invested. This reduces the multiplier effect...
Now, if current trends continue, we may reach a point where the opposite problem to your scenario unfolds - automation has replaced so many jobs that there are too many people and not enough jobs. If that happens, then you have two options - implement a UBI or have people starving in the street. If you don't want to have people starving, because there are no jobs to be had, then a UBI is the way to go. Food riots never end well for anyone.
This is just a grand slam of a post. Nicely done.
piboiva said:
Wow, so many misconceptions. I know I can't hit them all, but here goes at a few:
Universal Basic Income is 1: Universal, 2: Income, and 3: Basic. A farmer wouldn't be able to just fuck off and not tend his fields with a UBI, because it wouldn't be enough for him to pay his already existing debts. We're talking enough for 1 person, in a city, having food, shelter, and transportation. In the US, farmers already have subsidies that are hard to get rid of that are much higher than any proposed UBI.
Wow, so many misconceptions. I know I can't hit them all, but here goes at a few:
Universal Basic Income is 1: Universal, 2: Income, and 3: Basic. A farmer wouldn't be able to just fuck off and not tend his fields with a UBI, because it wouldn't be enough for him to pay his already existing debts. We're talking enough for 1 person, in a city, having food, shelter, and transportation. In the US, farmers already have subsidies that are hard to get rid of that are much higher than any proposed UBI.
Have you never heard of an example? An illustration? A representation??
In regards to people on welfare, not having an incentive to work, you've got it backwards, they have a disincentive to work. Because, at least in the US, benefits are tiered, and the resulting drop in benefits are going to be more than what they bring home by working, creating a net loss by actually getting a job. They are actually making the best economic decision, given their circumstances.
Wrong! In regards to welfare, many people on welfare don't want to work because they get free money to do nothing. I personally knew people like this, even in my own family. They had no incentive to work. A disincentive to work is the same as no incentive to work, but your excuse that the entitlement benefits being more than if they actually worked is total BS because there are all sorts of jobs a person can apply for. Jobs that pay well above what welfare provides. Welfare in the U.S for example was never intended to be a permanent source of income. It was intended to be a helping hand that was supposed to be temporary until those in need got back on their feet. But there are many who don't want to get off of it even when they are capable of working. So in terms of the UBI, theres going to be people who will just accept the check and stop working, because they will have no incentive to work. Even those of you who are in favor of a UBI concede this fact. Some may want to work and receive a UBI, but some will not. The big question will be how many or percentage of the population will just opt out of the work force?? Even by your standard, if people aren't generating revenue, they are absorbing revenue!
The taxes wouldn't have to be enormous (on most people), for two reasons -
First, Every time money changes hands, it generates tax revenue (generally).
Second - The tax rates for upper income earners and major corporations need to be reformed. While the maximum tax bracket in the US is between 35 and 39%, there are all sorts of shenanigans which can make one's tax burden less.
These two points would reduce the need for additional taxes.
First, Every time money changes hands, it generates tax revenue (generally).
Second - The tax rates for upper income earners and major corporations need to be reformed. While the maximum tax bracket in the US is between 35 and 39%, there are all sorts of shenanigans which can make one's tax burden less.
These two points would reduce the need for additional taxes.
A UBI would be prohibitively expensive. Just do a bit of math if you don't believe it. That money has to come from somewhere. Getting the money to support a UBI will require taxes, but anytime you apply a tax you create consequences.
You could apply the tax to products to pay for the UBI. The theory is, people would get more money to buy more things. Therefore, you apply the tax to the things they buy to generate revenue. The consequence is, the price of products goes up. People will tend to buy less products because they will determine that the product isn't worth the cost. You lose revenue if you can't sell products. And if they can't sell enough products, theres no need (or less need) for employees.
You could apply the tax to earnings to pay for the UBI, but this would be like getting a check in one hand will while paying the tax with the other....Of course if you have the wealthy pay the majority of the burden, the little guy can benefit from the UBI and stimulate the economy. The consequence with this option is many.
The wealthy can always leave. For example, in NY state, wealthy people pay a much higher tax rate then they would in other states. The result? The wealthy move to states with lower tax rates. To make matters worse, many of these wealthy people happen to own businesses. When they move, they tend to take their businesses with them, leaving the communities they left with higher unemployment and more need for welfare which in turn requires more tax to be raised, to pay for welfare, food stamp, unemployment programs. If they can't or don't move, there is yet another consequence. Business never pay taxes. They pass it down to the consumer. That means prices on products go up. People buy less (even if they have more money available)
Of course they can do both. Apply a product tax and an earnings tax. But the same consequences will happen and ultimately all of these consequences will generate inflation.
Now, if current trends continue, we may reach a point where the opposite problem to your scenario unfolds - automation has replaced so many jobs that there are too many people and not enough jobs. If that happens, then you have two options - implement a UBI or have people starving in the street. If you don't want to have people starving, because there are no jobs to be had, then a UBI is the way to go. Food riots never end well for anyone.
A UBI will not go well there either. You cannot tax society into prosperity, but you can certainly tax society into poverty and theres dozens of such examples (like Venezuela) The only ways to avoid such an outcome is to participate in the free market, reduce the welfare state and reduce taxes. In this way, you can generate tax revenue while simultaneously encouraging wealth which will also have the net effect of improving quality of life for everyone
EdR
Everything's better when wet…
EdwinR said:
Have you never heard of an example? An illustration? A representation??
...A UBI would be prohibitively expensive. Just do a bit of math if you don't believe it. That money has to come from somewhere. Getting the money to support a UBI will require taxes, but anytime you apply a tax you create consequences.
Have you never heard of an example? An illustration? A representation??
...A UBI would be prohibitively expensive. Just do a bit of math if you don't believe it. That money has to come from somewhere. Getting the money to support a UBI will require taxes, but anytime you apply a tax you create consequences.
Now is well past the time for you to show your math and/or cite people who have done the math in a way that meets your expectations.
A disincentive to work is the same as no incentive to work
Consider: "If you try to pass me the salt I'll put a hot poker in your eye", vs. "Pass the salt, please". There's a disincentive in the former, and no incentive in the latter. You don't see a difference? I do. The first answer gets a firm 'okay, no salt for you', the second answer gets a 'maybe I will pass the salt', or 'I'll pass it if I'm not busy', etc.
So in terms of the UBI, theres going to be people who will just accept the check and stop working, because they will have no incentive to work. Even those of you who are in favor of a UBI concede this fact.
Right, *some* people -- but who cares? They're spending money, creating jobs for people who do want to live above subsistence -- i.e., most of us. What do you have against job creation?
You could apply the tax to products to pay for the UBI. The theory is, people would get more money to buy more things. Therefore, you apply the tax to the things they buy to generate revenue. The consequence is, the price of products goes up. People will tend to buy less products because they will determine that the product isn't worth the cost. You lose revenue if you can't sell products. And if they can't sell enough products, theres no need (or less need) for employees.
Not the problem you think it is, if the UBI is indexed to inflation. And there might be an argument that a UBI environment would prompt a higher rate of interest, as we wean ourselves off a credit based economy. That would apply deflationary pressure. The trick is to balance the inflationary and deflationary pressures.
The wealthy can always leave.
So buy them a bus ticket and wave goodbye. They're hoarders, not job creators. The capitalist is someone who keeps capital moving. The hoarder, on the other hand, just sits like Smaug on their wealth, or keeps it cloistered in financial markets where nothing actually gets done, or (worse) put into equity firms who destroy value (see the sorry legacy of Deadspin).
Business never pay taxes. They pass it down to the consumer.
The reason why businesses don't pay taxes is that guys like you let them get away with it.
Of course they can do both. Apply a product tax and an earnings tax. But the same consequences will happen and ultimately all of these consequences will generate inflation.
They can do more than that. A wealth tax would, well, tax the wealth. An estate tax applies to transfers of holdings. Etc. Inflation can be managed by monetary and fiscal policy, in a non-kleptocratic system of governance.
A UBI will not go well there either. You cannot tax society into prosperity, but you can certainly tax society into poverty and theres dozens of such examples (like Venezuela)
All due respect, and sorry if this is presumptive, but whenever right-wing dudes say "Venezuela" it means you're preparing to show that you're totally confused about inflation. To pre-empt that, I'll describe the Keynesian idea of inflation using an analogy which will hopefully gives you a sense of why modern economists view the anti-inflationist mindset as a pathology.
Think of macroeconomics like driving. Inflation is like applying the gas, deflation (e.g., raising interest rates) is like applying the brakes. Yes, it's true that if you apply inflationary policies, it will end in disaster -- anyone who only pumps on the gas and never brakes is going to get in an accident. (e.g., Venezuela.) But you if only apply the brakes and never the gas (e.g., set high interest rates), you won't get anywhere, because there'll be no liquidity, and demand for money will dry up. Being a conservative economist means at least pretending to be a "brakeist" about driving, which is a ridiculous position. But then again, being a "gassist" would be equally ridiculous -- the equivalent of setting interest rates super high and then keeping them there even though natural demand for money goes down. Credible economic explanations involve an appropriate balance of both inflationary and deflationary pressures.
I know I'm repeating myself, but again, the trouble here is that you right-wing guys pretend like you're firm antagonists to massive state expenditures, but you don't actually believe that massive expenditures are bad. After all, you also understand, tacitly, that sometimes we need to apply "the gas" (i.e., creation of money through credit) through massive state expenditures like farming or military subsidies. When it comes to those things, you're radical state socialists. This has a pretty simple reason: it suits your politics, and has nothing to do with economics.
EdwinR said:
Have you never heard of an example? An illustration? A representation??
Wrong! In regards to welfare, many people on welfare don't want to work because they get free money to do nothing. I personally knew people like this, even in my own family. They had no incentive to work. A disincentive to work is the same as no incentive to work, but your excuse that the entitlement benefits being more than if they actually worked is total BS because there are all sorts of jobs a person can apply for. Jobs that pay well above what welfare provides. Welfare in the U.S for example was never intended to be a permanent source of income. It was intended to be a helping hand that was supposed to be temporary until those in need got back on their feet. But there are many who don't want to get off of it even when they are capable of working. So in terms of the UBI, theres going to be people who will just accept the check and stop working, because they will have no incentive to work. Even those of you who are in favor of a UBI concede this fact. Some may want to work and receive a UBI, but some will not. The big question will be how many or percentage of the population will just opt out of the work force?? Even by your standard, if people aren't generating revenue, they are absorbing revenue!
A UBI would be prohibitively expensive. Just do a bit of math if you don't believe it. That money has to come from somewhere. Getting the money to support a UBI will require taxes, but anytime you apply a tax you create consequences.
You could apply the tax to products to pay for the UBI. The theory is, people would get more money to buy more things. Therefore, you apply the tax to the things they buy to generate revenue. The consequence is, the price of products goes up. People will tend to buy less products because they will determine that the product isn't worth the cost. You lose revenue if you can't sell products. And if they can't sell enough products, theres no need (or less need) for employees.
You could apply the tax to earnings to pay for the UBI, but this would be like getting a check in one hand will while paying the tax with the other....Of course if you have the wealthy pay the majority of the burden, the little guy can benefit from the UBI and stimulate the economy. The consequence with this option is many.
The wealthy can always leave. For example, in NY state, wealthy people pay a much higher tax rate then they would in other states. The result? The wealthy move to states with lower tax rates. To make matters worse, many of these wealthy people happen to own businesses. When they move, they tend to take their businesses with them, leaving the communities they left with higher unemployment and more need for welfare which in turn requires more tax to be raised, to pay for welfare, food stamp, unemployment programs. If they can't or don't move, there is yet another consequence. Business never pay taxes. They pass it down to the consumer. That means prices on products go up. People buy less (even if they have more money available)
Of course they can do both. Apply a product tax and an earnings tax. But the same consequences will happen and ultimately all of these consequences will generate inflation.
A UBI will not go well there either. You cannot tax society into prosperity, but you can certainly tax society into poverty and theres dozens of such examples (like Venezuela) The only ways to avoid such an outcome is to participate in the free market, reduce the welfare state and reduce taxes. In this way, you can generate tax revenue while simultaneously encouraging wealth which will also have the net effect of improving quality of life for everyone
EdR
piboiva said:
Wow, so many misconceptions. I know I can't hit them all, but here goes at a few:
Universal Basic Income is 1: Universal, 2: Income, and 3: Basic. A farmer wouldn't be able to just fuck off and not tend his fields with a UBI, because it wouldn't be enough for him to pay his already existing debts. We're talking enough for 1 person, in a city, having food, shelter, and transportation. In the US, farmers already have subsidies that are hard to get rid of that are much higher than any proposed UBI.
Wow, so many misconceptions. I know I can't hit them all, but here goes at a few:
Universal Basic Income is 1: Universal, 2: Income, and 3: Basic. A farmer wouldn't be able to just fuck off and not tend his fields with a UBI, because it wouldn't be enough for him to pay his already existing debts. We're talking enough for 1 person, in a city, having food, shelter, and transportation. In the US, farmers already have subsidies that are hard to get rid of that are much higher than any proposed UBI.
Have you never heard of an example? An illustration? A representation??
In regards to people on welfare, not having an incentive to work, you've got it backwards, they have a disincentive to work. Because, at least in the US, benefits are tiered, and the resulting drop in benefits are going to be more than what they bring home by working, creating a net loss by actually getting a job. They are actually making the best economic decision, given their circumstances.
Wrong! In regards to welfare, many people on welfare don't want to work because they get free money to do nothing. I personally knew people like this, even in my own family. They had no incentive to work. A disincentive to work is the same as no incentive to work, but your excuse that the entitlement benefits being more than if they actually worked is total BS because there are all sorts of jobs a person can apply for. Jobs that pay well above what welfare provides. Welfare in the U.S for example was never intended to be a permanent source of income. It was intended to be a helping hand that was supposed to be temporary until those in need got back on their feet. But there are many who don't want to get off of it even when they are capable of working. So in terms of the UBI, theres going to be people who will just accept the check and stop working, because they will have no incentive to work. Even those of you who are in favor of a UBI concede this fact. Some may want to work and receive a UBI, but some will not. The big question will be how many or percentage of the population will just opt out of the work force?? Even by your standard, if people aren't generating revenue, they are absorbing revenue!
The taxes wouldn't have to be enormous (on most people), for two reasons -
First, Every time money changes hands, it generates tax revenue (generally).
Second - The tax rates for upper income earners and major corporations need to be reformed. While the maximum tax bracket in the US is between 35 and 39%, there are all sorts of shenanigans which can make one's tax burden less.
These two points would reduce the need for additional taxes.
First, Every time money changes hands, it generates tax revenue (generally).
Second - The tax rates for upper income earners and major corporations need to be reformed. While the maximum tax bracket in the US is between 35 and 39%, there are all sorts of shenanigans which can make one's tax burden less.
These two points would reduce the need for additional taxes.
A UBI would be prohibitively expensive. Just do a bit of math if you don't believe it. That money has to come from somewhere. Getting the money to support a UBI will require taxes, but anytime you apply a tax you create consequences.
You could apply the tax to products to pay for the UBI. The theory is, people would get more money to buy more things. Therefore, you apply the tax to the things they buy to generate revenue. The consequence is, the price of products goes up. People will tend to buy less products because they will determine that the product isn't worth the cost. You lose revenue if you can't sell products. And if they can't sell enough products, theres no need (or less need) for employees.
You could apply the tax to earnings to pay for the UBI, but this would be like getting a check in one hand will while paying the tax with the other....Of course if you have the wealthy pay the majority of the burden, the little guy can benefit from the UBI and stimulate the economy. The consequence with this option is many.
The wealthy can always leave. For example, in NY state, wealthy people pay a much higher tax rate then they would in other states. The result? The wealthy move to states with lower tax rates. To make matters worse, many of these wealthy people happen to own businesses. When they move, they tend to take their businesses with them, leaving the communities they left with higher unemployment and more need for welfare which in turn requires more tax to be raised, to pay for welfare, food stamp, unemployment programs. If they can't or don't move, there is yet another consequence. Business never pay taxes. They pass it down to the consumer. That means prices on products go up. People buy less (even if they have more money available)
Of course they can do both. Apply a product tax and an earnings tax. But the same consequences will happen and ultimately all of these consequences will generate inflation.
Now, if current trends continue, we may reach a point where the opposite problem to your scenario unfolds - automation has replaced so many jobs that there are too many people and not enough jobs. If that happens, then you have two options - implement a UBI or have people starving in the street. If you don't want to have people starving, because there are no jobs to be had, then a UBI is the way to go. Food riots never end well for anyone.
A UBI will not go well there either. You cannot tax society into prosperity, but you can certainly tax society into poverty and theres dozens of such examples (like Venezuela) The only ways to avoid such an outcome is to participate in the free market, reduce the welfare state and reduce taxes. In this way, you can generate tax revenue while simultaneously encouraging wealth which will also have the net effect of improving quality of life for everyone
EdR
Former US Presidential Candidate proposed a UBI of 1500 per month.
That's 18k per year
Federal Minimum Wage is 7.25 per hour. Full time minimum wage grosses 15080 a year.
The average farm size in the US is over 400 acres. The average price per acre of cropland is 4000. Meaning the average farm has a value of 1.6 Million.
In my locality, land is taxed at 50 cents per $100. That's a tax bill of 8k. That leaves 10K for any mortgage, equipment, vehicle, food, etc. over 12 months, 833 per month. You've gone through almost half of the UBI on taxes alone.
I got a dinky ass car for $200 a month. You're down to 633, and you don't even have a mortgage payment, which would be more per month than a single month's UBI.
Utilities are another thing. How about another 200 per month for all utilities (which is probably a low estimation). You're down to 433.
So, we aren't including any payment on the farm or the equipment for the farm, and we're just over $100 a week, for the farmer and any dependents' food. Fuel, taxes, and insurance for the vehicle aren't included either.
That 1500 a month doesn't come close to covering a farmer's realistic expenses.
If you're gonna argue from anecdote, then so am I. I know someone employed, on food stamps, who worries about going over 20 hours at McDonalds because if they go over, they could lose a greater amount in their food stamps than they could reliably make at McDonalds. However, the majority of people on food stamps do work.
And a lack of incentive is not the same as a disinsentive. A lack of incentive means one neither gets positive or negative reinforcement for an action. A disinsentive means one gets negative reinforcement for an action.
As for the threat of rich people moving out of the country, that is an abuse tactic. However, even if they did, there's one important rule of economics you're missing - when the environment changes, the behavior changes. Meaning a country would function differently after the multibillionaires left than before. Personally, I take the view, Put up or Shut up. If such a scenario occurs, then we will cross that bridge when we get there.
"You can't tax your way into prosperity" is Thatcher line. The problem is, it's wrong. There are several countries which have high taxes and high costs of living, but they also have strong government assistance programs. That's the kicker, though. The money has to circulate, and it can't do that if it's being stuffed into a matress.
Dr. of Splatterology
piboiva said:
Former US Presidential Candidate proposed a UBI of 1500 per month.
That's 18k per year
Federal Minimum Wage is 7.25 per hour. Full time minimum wage grosses 15080 a year.
Former US Presidential Candidate proposed a UBI of 1500 per month.
That's 18k per year
Federal Minimum Wage is 7.25 per hour. Full time minimum wage grosses 15080 a year.
You still haven't answered the question. If everyone gets $18k per year as you say, how much money is needed to give every person who is eligible to collect per yr? Heres where you do the math; The current population in the US as of 2020 is 331.5 million. 22% are under the age of 18. That leaves an estimated 258.6 million eligible Americans (based on age). For every eligible American to receive their $18k/yr, you need 4.6548 trillion US $ per year! Where does the money come from?
If you're gonna argue from anecdote, then so am I. I know someone employed, on food stamps, who worries about going over 20 hours at McDonalds because if they go over, they could lose a greater amount in their food stamps than they could reliably make at McDonalds. However, the majority of people on food stamps do work.
And a lack of incentive is not the same as a disinsentive. A lack of incentive means one neither gets positive or negative reinforcement for an action. A disinsentive means one gets negative reinforcement for an action.
And a lack of incentive is not the same as a disinsentive. A lack of incentive means one neither gets positive or negative reinforcement for an action. A disinsentive means one gets negative reinforcement for an action.
You're making my point. If a govt entitlement creates a disincentive to work, say over 20hrs in this case, the net results are still the same! Your friend ends up with no incentive to work (or work more) because they don't want to lose money. It's the same thing...or rather, the same results. There is another option thats often never mentioned and that is another kind of incentive. The incentive to do better. There are numerous examples of people who existed in utter poverty, who managed thru hard work and many hrs of education to improve their circumstances, and were successful. Examples of people who didn't settle for the meager govt dole and became millionaires. But for many people, it's hard to defeat the entitlement mentality. For them, it's easier to just take the money and continue to exist in the limits given them. They make excuses as to who or why they can't succeed. They never take advantage of the opportunities available in this country.
As for the threat of rich people moving out of the country, that is an abuse tactic.
No it's not. It's a smart move.
there's one important rule of economics you're missing - when the environment changes, the behavior changes. Meaning a country would function differently after the multibillionaires left than before.
That would also apply to taxes. You can manipulate behavior by taxes. Increase taxation and people do everything they can to avoid it or escape it. Millionaires move, so do the lower classes. Currently California and NY are the two states with the highest taxes in the country. It's no coincidence that both California and NY are experiencing depopulation, and it's not just the millionaires!
Personally, I take the view, Put up or Shut up. If such a scenario occurs, then we will cross that bridge when we get there.
They are crossing that bridge now, namely the GW bridge in NY, on their way out
"You can't tax your way into prosperity" is Thatcher line. The problem is, it's wrong.
It's absolutely true. You can't take money from someone and tell them they are making more money. Just as you can't just give people $18K per year without taking the money out of the economy, from somewhere else.
There are several countries which have high taxes and high costs of living, but they also have strong government assistance programs. That's the kicker, though. The money has to circulate, and it can't do that if it's being stuffed into a matress.
So is that acceptable to you?? There are also several countries that are economic disasters. I mentioned Venezuela for one. Ever seen what happens to a country that experiences hyperinflation??
Therein lies the rub. For all the micromanaging of programs of good intent, the planners don't have a plan for what people do with their money. At some point, they may force you to behave in the manner which they expect, and when that happens their titles will not be president or prime minister. They will go by titles like Dictator, Fuhrer, etc.
EdR
Everything's better when wet…
EdwinR said:
You still haven't answered the question. If everyone gets $18k per year as you say, how much money is needed to give every person who is eligible to collect per yr? Heres where you do the math; The current population in the US as of 2020 is 331.5 million. 22% are under the age of 18. That leaves an estimated 258.6 million eligible Americans (based on age). For every eligible American to receive their $18k/yr, you need 4.6548 trillion US $ per year! Where does the money come from?
You still haven't answered the question. If everyone gets $18k per year as you say, how much money is needed to give every person who is eligible to collect per yr? Heres where you do the math; The current population in the US as of 2020 is 331.5 million. 22% are under the age of 18. That leaves an estimated 258.6 million eligible Americans (based on age). For every eligible American to receive their $18k/yr, you need 4.6548 trillion US $ per year! Where does the money come from?
The burden of proof was on you first, and we've been waiting for you to pick it up.
Some of your math looks plausible. From what I gather, though, the number of Americans above the age of 18 is 208million. https://www.infoplease.com/us/census/demographic-statistics
The amount that a Sanders-style wealth tax would (supposedly) generate is around 400 billion/year. https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/ The cost of existing welfare or government assistance that would be redistributed into this plan (speaking to the income trap problem mentioned above) is about another 400 billion/year -- by which I mean the annual cost of welfare programs apart from Medicare & Medicaid.
So that's 800 billion spread among 208 million, a little less than 4K each year. That's not even subsistance, but it is a start. Especially given automation, as was mentioned above.
Of course, then you could ALSO redirect all the money being spent on the military each year (700billion-1 trillion). But it's politically incorrect in America to talk about that.
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In