UBI or not UBI?

[MorkandMindy]

Only after UBI has arrived will people see the value of the scheme.

Among the first to benefit would be the lowest paid young mothers who get little financial benefit from going to work and leaving their children in paid child care.

In the pre-COVID days, I saw huge lines of MPVs with mothers dropping off their children and zooming off to work, spending almost as much on their cars and fuel and after-school child care as they earned on jobs that didn't need to be done.

More older people nearing retirement will be able to take up voluntary work or pursue hobbies.

Other people will take time out to retrain for more valuable jobs.

It should increase opportunities currently restricted by working around the existing welfare system.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are right that there are other reasons.

Keeping politicians' reputations and directing money to the companies which fund the lobbyists are two more good reasons.

Another reason is to keep the official unemployment figures as low as possible. Dump two million unnecessary administrators out of their jobs, and the unemployment rate will jump one whole percent.

So this is all a conspiracy of the lobbyists for the welfare administrators unions? Sure.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Not that UBI will necessarily arrive.

With about twice as many people in the workforce as there are jobs, the current system keeps pay rates down, and ensures there are always surplus people ready to fill in for any who leave or go on strike.

Allowing people of marginal value at present to employers to retrain or raise children or do more useful and worthwhile things, will reduce the number of people chasing after the scarce worthwhile jobs there are at present.

I think it will benefit the economy and country as a whole, but that doesn't mean it will make the rich richer.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The factors favoring UBI will increase as:

1. Automation continues so there is an ever growing amount of money available to fund the UBI

2. Other countries find UBI works out well

3. Some billionaires decide instead of pushing Bernie Sanders and now Andrew Yang out of the way and just looting the US, they'll do something to help us:

 

[zippy2006]

UBI vs the current guaranteed minimum income type welfare plans

I think UBI is a far more workable plan than the alternative which is being applied in a patchwork fashion at present through a multitude of complex welfare allowances directed at supplying a guaranteed minimum income.

But it seems to me that the UBI is so simplistic it's silly. Why would we need to give everyone a UBI? Bill Gates does not need a UBI. Anyone making over $50,000 does not need a UBI. The government is not a money tree. We can't just give everyone free money. The reason such a scheme won't pass is because it's a bad idea.

If government welfare programs have become convoluted then implement a basic income at a specific income threshold, such as $40,000, as a replacement. Make it a welfare program. That simple change cut through the same amount of administrative complexity and red tape, and saved trillions in comparison to a UBI.

 

[dogs4thewin]

There aren't enough high paying jobs to go around, unfortunately.

It is not all about high paying jobs it is about paying people what their skills are worth. If you work your way up you should earn more money, but you should not earn that same money for a lower level job. Something some younger people do not understand.

 

[FireDragon76]

But it seems to me that the UBI is so simplistic it's silly. Why would we need to give everyone a UBI? Bill Gates does not need a UBI. Anyone making over $50,000 does not need a UBI. The government is not a money tree. We can't just give everyone free money. The reason such a scheme won't pass is because it's a bad idea.

If government welfare programs have become convoluted then implement a basic income at a specific income threshold, such as $40,000, as a replacement. Make it a welfare program. That simple change cut through the same amount of administrative complexity and red tape, and saved trillions in comparison to a UBI.

People like Bill Gates presumably would be paying for the UBI's for everybody else. Even if they get a UBI, they're going to be paying a higher proportion of their income as taxes.

 

[MorkandMindy]

What worked in the 1930s and 1940s was taxing the rich and then using the money to employ those who were unemployed. It worked very well, and the US was still a wealthy and successful nation two and a half decades after WW2.

It was 'tax and spend,' and it worked.

But there is a new opportunity - a chance to make a virtue of necessity, and that is our entry into the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

 

[MorkandMindy]

There is a new source of money - savings produced by automation.

The fairly obvious idea is to move those savings to compensate for the salaries and wages lost due to automation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

View attachment 310946

There is a new source of money - savings produced by automation.

The fairly obvious idea is to move those savings to compensate for the salaries and wages lost due to automation.

What makes you think that the specific savings from automation are identifiable for taxation purposes?

 

[FireDragon76]

What worked in the 1930s and 1940s was taxing the rich and then using the money to employ those who were unemployed. It worked very well, and the US was still a wealthy and successful nation two and a half decades after WW2.

It was 'tax and spend,' and it worked.

But there is a new opportunity - a chance to make a virtue of necessity, and that is our entry into the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

4th Industrial Revolution is a good analogy, as every industrial revolution has involved disruptive technologies.

 

[zippy2006]

What makes you think that the specific savings from automation are identifiable for taxation purposes?

This is a really good point. I was thinking the same thing, but you've stated it very clearly and succinctly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Last year the US did have a limited form of UBI for at least a subset of the population -- parents. The expanded child tax credit was about $3000/child and the only restriction was a high-income roll-off. It might return this year, but probably would have a somewhat lower cut off.

Having a similar UBI for all Americans would require about $1 trillion per year of revenue to fund. If you're going to spend that kind of money, I think there are more targeted ways to spend it that would be more effective than just giving everyone a modest check.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Inflation

Andrew Yang's UBI is transfer-and-spend and therefore is noninflationary. The source of funding for Yang's UBI is the automation dividend which comes from decreases in production costs. Decreased production costs lead to price reductions which are deflationary. Therefore overall, a Yang Presidency would be mildly deflationary.

The Trump and Biden plans were/are funded from newly printed money - increasing the money supply and are therefore inflationary.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Andrew Yang's UBI is transfer-and-spend and therefore is noninflationary. The source of funding for Yang's UBI is the automation dividend which comes from decreases in production costs. Decreased production costs lead to price reductions which are deflationary. Therefore overall, a Yang Presidency would be mildly deflationary.

You think deflation would be a good thing? Guess again.

The Trump and Biden plans were/are funded from newly printed money - increasing the money supply and are therefore inflationary.

There were no Trump or Biden UBI plans. What are you talking about?

 

[Pommer]

…Decreased production costs lead to price reductions which are deflationary. Therefore overall, a Yang Presidency would be mildly deflationary.

You think deflation would be a good thing? Guess again.

Verily. Our system has inflation baked in as part of the financial policy.

Once deflation started (which the central banks would never allow to happen), it’d all come crashing down.