Let's talk about Universal Basic Income

[FreedByte]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Supported even by fiscally conservative libertarians like Milton Friedman

Guarantees a minimum while simultaneously maintaining work incentives by removing 50 cents of benefits for every 1 dollar earned through working.

/thread

 

[MachZer0]

The problem is that people are victims of greed. Money is the god of many and those many refuse to let go, at any cost.

The greedy are those that want something for nothing at the expense of others

 

[Ana the Ist]

I really only hear people on the right say these sorts of things. Do you happen to be one of those?


You can't help voluntary poverty. The people that actually are getting the short end of the stick, though, will be better off.


Why would there be? You seem to misunderstand the entire point of this. Every eligible person gets an income. It's not a matter of "getting off" it because life suddenly got a bit better. You will keep receiving it no matter what (Aside from, you know, issues of imprisonment and citizenship stuff).


There's a real social stigma when you have to pull out a food stamp to get what you need to live. Thing is, though, everyone gets the money in the first place. There's no "Ew, that person's broke" reaction from anyone. And even if there were still a stigma associated with the whole thing, it's not like you can tell whether someone is using BI money to buy things without asking.


With issues like welfare traps removing all incentive to work for some, and not to mention great inefficiency.


That would be their freedom not to work.

Lol I consider myself to be just left of center on the political spectrum, or a left-leaning moderate. On CF that makes me a full fledged left wing radical. If you doubt this, ask NHE or MachZero...they'll tell you how conservative I am.

I don't want to eliminate the social stigma around welfare and food stamps. People should want to get off any form of aid as soon as possible.

How in the world could this be a sustainable idea if you continue to receive it even after you make more money? Wouldn't this require a massive increase in income tax? Why can't I jus keep my income and not get it all taxed away and not receive BI.

People have the freedom not to work now...it's just now there are consequences for it.

 

[keith99]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Supported even by fiscally conservative libertarians like Milton Friedman

Guarantees a minimum while simultaneously maintaining work incentives by removing 50 cents of benefits for every 1 dollar earned through working.

/thread

The aspect of not creating a qualifying level is huge. There is no wall, no point where earning $1 more costs you hundreds or thousands or loses you medical coverage.

That part I like.

It seemed to me that his levels were truly barely surviving, thus still a real incentive to work. Also note that part of the package is no minimum wage.

There is a huge difference between a guarantee that is enough to eat well, drink a case of beer a week have internet, cell and cable and just eating decently and having a roof over your head. For many there is little to no incentive to work under the second situation, especially at a low wage job.

 

[Guy1]

Lol I consider myself to be just left of center on the political spectrum, or a left-leaning moderate. On CF that makes me a full fledged left wing radical. If you doubt this, ask NHE or MachZero...they'll tell you how conservative I am.

What's important is what you consider yourself, really. Look at the issue this way:Most people will be smart and at least try using it to live. They could do absolutely nothing with it and just let it sit in the bank and it would still help the economy because it allows banks more money to loan from (Making the credit market that much more robust). They could spend it all on absolutely nothing of value and end up on the streets yet again (The poorer they are, the more likely they are to spend most, if not all, their income).

The list goes on. The worst possible thing anyone could do with BI is just send it overseas, and that's not exactly a concern in general.

I don't want to eliminate the social stigma around welfare and food stamps. People should want to get off any form of aid as soon as possible.

Fair enough, but in today's economy, we really can't possibly employ 100% of the population to such a degree where we stop needing aid. As it stands, part-time work has seen the largest gains in the economic recovery. That really isn't enough to help anyone. Money is pooling at the top, and workers are desperate for food. Giving them a basic income guarantees they they can put their foot down when they're mistreated by their employers.

How in the world could this be a sustainable idea if you continue to receive it even after you make more money? Wouldn't this require a massive increase in income tax? Why can't I jus keep my income and not get it all taxed away and not receive BI.

Well you know of the cuts in government programs increasing efficiency right off the bat. The rest can be made up with the adoption of a flat tax (Discussed to be around 40%). That sounds like a lot, but your effective tax rates end up being the same, if not lower, after you receive BI. In effect, your rates go up the more you make as BI represents a smaller and smaller portion of how much you pay out.

People have the freedom not to work now...it's just now there are consequences for it.

Pardon the violent rhetoric, but if you have a gun to your head and you're told to hit your mother, would you say you're free in that situation? We might just have very different ideas of what "freedom" is.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

When you have no choice but to keep a job, what ends up happening is that you are vulnerable to all sorts of mistreatment including abuse, wage theft, fraud, overwork, etc. If you don't see the problem with that, I'm going to need you to leave this thread. We're not going to get anywhere if you don't care about an employee's well being.

So it's all because of what employers might do to them? We have L & I to address that.

You mention that there those who don't want to work. Well, what social mechanism are we going to have to compel them to? You acknowledge yourself, the market seems to be effective at that, and no doubt most of them are presently more productive than they would be if they were paid simply to use up oxygen.

 

[FreedByte]

The aspect of not creating a qualifying level is huge. There is no wall, no point where earning $1 more costs you hundreds or thousands or loses you medical coverage.

That part I like.

It seemed to me that his levels were truly barely surviving, thus still a real incentive to work.

Well the levels are not nearly as important as the concept. You can set the levels to whatever you want.

Also note that part of the package is no minimum wage.

That's the whole point. The NIT is supposed to take the place of all other social programs.

There is a huge difference between a guarantee that is enough to eat well, drink a case of beer a week have internet, cell and cable and just eating decently and having a roof over your head. For many there is little to no incentive to work under the second situation, especially at a low wage job.

That's why it is a minimum income

 

[Guy1]

So it's all because of what employers might do to them? We have L & I to address that.

It's all because of what employers do to them currently.

You mention that there those who don't want to work. Well, what social mechanism are we going to have to compel them to?

None, that's the point. A free market doesn't compel people to do anything for any reason other than the sheer desire to make more money. That is the idea of capitalism: Everyone wants to make more money. As I said to a previous poster, the worst possible thing people can do is send the money overseas. They could sit at home watching movies all day and it would still move the economy forward in some way while avoiding the massive costs to society that would come from their poverty and possible turn to crime as a means to sustain themselves.

You acknowledge yourself, the market seems to be effective at that, and no doubt most of them are presently more productive than they would be if they were paid simply to use up oxygen.

Only some of them are. Let's face it, people want to work. Everyone likes to get more than just enough to live. Even the ones that sit at home eventually have to get bored and do something with their lives. But even if they don't, the above is still true.

Do you like the idea of Capitalism and Free-markets, or am I just arguing from the wrong angle here?

 

[Steve Petersen]

I think it is entirely conceivable that in the not-too-distant future all labor will be automated. Robots and nanobots will be self-replicating and self-repairing and able to provide anything we need at nearly zero cost.

As we approach that point we are going to have to re-evaluate how we survive without working. Taxes on all corporations to support the populace may be the only way to make that happen.

 

[KarateCowboy]

That's the whole point. It's earned simply by existing

That doesn't seem like really earning anything. That's money for nothing.

Before we talk about universal income, shouldn't we talk about universal labor?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Lol I consider myself to be just left of center on the political spectrum, or a left-leaning moderate. On CF that makes me a full fledged left wing radical. If you doubt this, ask NHE or MachZero...they'll tell you how conservative I am.

I don't want to eliminate the social stigma around welfare and food stamps. People should want to get off any form of aid as soon as possible.

How in the world could this be a sustainable idea if you continue to receive it even after you make more money? Wouldn't this require a massive increase in income tax? Why can't I jus keep my income and not get it all taxed away and not receive BI.

People have the freedom not to work now...it's just now there are consequences for it.

You said it! I don't think this is a matter of conservative or liberal. It's just traditional Western culture that people should pull their own weight; that's a good thing.

It's like good old Spiderman: with great power comes great responsibility. It's the same principle as "no taxation without representation". If you have rights then you have responsibility, and if you have responsibility then you have rights; the two should never be separate. If we're going to talk about "universal income" then we should first talk about "universal input", ie "universal labor". I don't want to go that route and I guess neither would you, because then it's "arbeit macht frei".

 

[Guy1]

That doesn't seem like really earning anything. That's money for nothing.

Again, you shouldn't have to earn a basic living. You want shelter, food, running water, power, and communication? We're at an age where that can and should be the given. You want to go out, eat out, buy that new dress, go to the movies, get that new videogame console? Work for it. That's what Capitalism is for.

The fact that you're set means you have the power to look for and negotiate with an employer of your choosing as opposed to taking whatever you can get. You say what you want your pay to be, how long you want to work, and if they don't want to give it to you, you're entirely free to go look for someone who will.

Before we talk about universal income, shouldn't we talk about universal labor?

Way back in the day, I would agree. But these days not everyone can or should work a job. There's just no economic need to employ every able adult in a population. If I can run my business with three people, why would I bother hiring nine more? Sure, it's not to say we can't make more jobs, but to act like forcibly shrinking the unemployed workforce is a good idea is wrong.

I like you. You're one of the few people on this thread that argues in good faith.

 

[MachZer0]

That doesn't seem like really earning anything. That's money for nothing.

Before we talk about universal income, shouldn't we talk about universal labor?

We shouldn't be discussing either. The governments should not give one cent to any able bodied person who does not provide a valuable service or product in exchange

 

[HannahT]

This conversation is making me dizzy.

????

Universal income just because you are turning 18. Where do we get the money? lol from taxes....so we tax the universal income to get some of it back? WELL at least 40% due to the flat tax...so they are back in the hole once again.

They don't need to work, because they fear they might be abused and the current economy is only giving them PT positions anyway.

The individuals that think its fun to be abused at work - since its small number - have places where everything is automated to lesson the abuse to an extent.

They get taxed the flat 40% to help pay for the next unemployed person that doesn't want to work because its possible ill treatment there.

The company that owes all the automated equipment that makes everyone's life's awesome - because they don't need to work due to the fear of being mistreated gets the 40% flat tax.

OH heck lets tax them more, because they are the mean old companies and they deserve it! Their making everything automated for our pleasure, but its NOT enough! They only forcing a small number of people to work there PT because they LIKED being abused.

But WAIT! There still isn't enough money! Lets tax those companies MORE! If they whine about it?

Well call them 'greedy' and tell them they only care about themselves. NOTE: everyone on those sofa's at home need to join in! Those meanies don't want to pay their fair share anymore! Let's do a protest as part of our exercise routine today!

Opps. Maybe not.... the automated gas station closed down, and the automated mechanic retired. So we have no cars or gas to get there!

Darn it all....RAISE the FLAT tax to 70%! We deserve free cars and find a way to get that gas station back OPEN!

(shivers) Seriously people?

I've been hearing all kinds of great things happening in France! Low hours and TONS of entitlements! They even ask you to turn off your cell phone after 6pm - to lower the stress level even more.

Why not just migrate?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again, you shouldn't have to earn a basic living. You want shelter, food, running water, power, and communication? We're at an age where that can and should be the given. You want to go out, eat out, buy that new dress, go to the movies, get that new videogame console? Work for it. That's what Capitalism is for.

The fact that you're set means you have the power to look for and negotiate with an employer of your choosing as opposed to taking whatever you can get. You say what you want your pay to be, how long you want to work, and if they don't want to give it to you, you're entirely free to go look for someone who will.



Way back in the day, I would agree. But these days not everyone can or should work a job. There's just no economic need to employ every able adult in a population. If I can run my business with three people, why would I bother hiring nine more? Sure, it's not to say we can't make more jobs, but to act like forcibly shrinking the unemployed workforce is a good idea is wrong.

I like you. You're one of the few people on this thread that argues in good faith.

I totally understand what proponents here are saying about this being a way to improve wages and work conditions. What I don't understand is where all this money is supposedly going to come from. Wouldn't taxes need to be raised by a large amount to cover this sort of thing? Wouldn't I have to give out a lot more than I'm going to get back in order to cover those people who aren't contributing anything in taxes?

 

[Guy1]

I totally understand what proponents here are saying about this being a way to improve wages and work conditions. What I don't understand is where all this money is supposedly going to come from. Wouldn't taxes need to be raised by a large amount to cover this sort of thing? Wouldn't I have to give out a lot more than I'm going to get back in order to cover those people who aren't contributing anything in taxes?

The money is coming from a mix of tax hikes (In the form of the adoption of flat taxes and code simplifications, and , most importantly, cuts to programs. You pay for a variety of welfare programs as it stands. Not to mention things like Social security on top of that. Thing is, though. We spend so much money trying to figure out who to give to and how much to give, you're better off just giving indiscriminately. Obviously, it's not like we're about to eliminate things like VA and the DE, but clearly some of their functions could and probably would become redundant with this in place, further facilitating even more cuts. Then you have things like the military budget that can be cut significantly without major ill effect (Spending is close to 550B in the year 2014 from what I could see).

Yes, I concede that just cuts won't pay for it all, but it gets us a good bit of the way there without touching the amount you pay as it is. That's where the flat tax comes in. Your BI (In any sensible system I could imagine) is exempt from taxes, while your income is taxed at the appropriate rate. Unlike what other, less reasonable people here are insisting, it's not 40% on top of what you already pay, but rather a flat 40%. If you're well off, you'll be in the group that ends up paying in effective taxes. If you're not, you are paid more than you pay.

The cutoff point, as I stated before, for 15k, is exactly 37500/y.

Tl;dr: Cut redundant and unnecessary programs to make the government more efficient while imposing progressive taxes on income.

 

[Joykins]

There's an intelligent (though not particularly recent) discussion on UBI here

Guaranteed minimum income: how much would it cost? (updated) — Crooked Timber

 

[FreedByte]

This conversation is making me dizzy.

????

Universal income just because you are turning 18. Where do we get the money? lol from taxes....so we tax the universal income to get some of it back? WELL at least 40% due to the flat tax...so they are back in the hole once again.

They don't need to work, because they fear they might be abused and the current economy is only giving them PT positions anyway.

The individuals that think its fun to be abused at work - since its small number - have places where everything is automated to lesson the abuse to an extent.

They get taxed the flat 40% to help pay for the next unemployed person that doesn't want to work because its possible ill treatment there.

The company that owes all the automated equipment that makes everyone's life's awesome - because they don't need to work due to the fear of being mistreated gets the 40% flat tax.

OH heck lets tax them more, because they are the mean old companies and they deserve it! Their making everything automated for our pleasure, but its NOT enough! They only forcing a small number of people to work there PT because they LIKED being abused.

But WAIT! There still isn't enough money! Lets tax those companies MORE! If they whine about it?

Well call them 'greedy' and tell them they only care about themselves. NOTE: everyone on those sofa's at home need to join in! Those meanies don't want to pay their fair share anymore! Let's do a protest as part of our exercise routine today!

Opps. Maybe not.... the automated gas station closed down, and the automated mechanic retired. So we have no cars or gas to get there!

Darn it all....RAISE the FLAT tax to 70%! We deserve free cars and find a way to get that gas station back OPEN!

(shivers) Seriously people?

I've been hearing all kinds of great things happening in France! Low hours and TONS of entitlements! They even ask you to turn off your cell phone after 6pm - to lower the stress level even more.

Why not just migrate?

A negative income tax would cost less than all current social programs to fund.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

 

[Ken-1122]

Just thought I'd share and maybe start a conversation.

To make a long story short for those who don't know of it, it's basically guaranteed, livable income for every eligible person (the requirements being something basic like being a legal adult and citizen or the like). This would, of course, replace welfare programs like Section 8, SSI, food stamps, etc. and alleviate a number of issues associated with these bureaucratic systems. It has its own subreddit which contains plenty of relevant information. I'll try to answer any questions any of you may have if you're not entirely convinced.

Do you get a raise each time you have a child?

K

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Its actually saving the government a lot.

If the government gave you $20k when you were 18 years old and you invested it and made even modest 2% gains on it for 50 years until you retire at 68 years old, your government cheque would have ended up more than doubling to $53k.



Also, you still didn't address the fact that we need people in low paying jobs. Nor did you address the fact that it would improve those (necessary) people's lives with regards to food, housing, health and lifestyle.

The whole reason why people oppose the idea of a social security opt out in the first place is because they don't trust other people to plan accordingly with their own funds...

That very topic has been discussed on these forums several times.

...and yes, I know, we do need people in low paying jobs...however, we also need those jobs to be low paying to keep pricing down. The whole reason that $50k is considered a livable income is because the guys who bag groceries only make $8/hour.

If we had to start paying them triple that, or subsidizing that income with additional taxes, that person earning $50k no longer has the same buying power or net pay that they once had...