Universal Basic Income

[OldWiseGuy]

What is the plan for removing excess money from the economy to prevent runaway inflation?

 

[Earatha]

Over the past few years real income for most professions (even skilled trades) has fallen. In my trade a person made 40% MORE than what the median is for my position now when adjusted for inflation. There have been similar decreases in other skilled fields, some more dramatic some less. At the same time wealth has been concentrating in a very small number of people in finance. This will eventually cause problems.

I don't know how much damage this has ALREADY caused. I spent five years and $60k+ in loans to get a degree. That is ON TOP OF my grants and scholarships and working full time all through school. I chose a major which can justify that. But what about others? I can't imagine if my brother hadn't had my parents' help, as he majored in education. My friend is in that boat, where her teacher salary BARELY covers her expenses and student loan payments.

Is this ethical? Does this lead to the best and most productive workforce? Does this allow for the most talented and productive to advance?

I'm lucky. My company has offered to pay for my masters. My job is secure and won't be outsourced or made obsolete. But could the child of a truck driver expect this? Or the child of a single parent in a poor neighborhood?

We need a system and culture that allows all people to succeed if they put in work. Not just a few.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Over the past few years real income for most professions (even skilled trades) has fallen. In my trade a person made 40% MORE than what the median is for my position now when adjusted for inflation. There have been similar decreases in other skilled fields, some more dramatic some less. At the same time wealth has been concentrating in a very small number of people in finance. This will eventually cause problems.

I don't know how much damage this has ALREADY caused. I spent five years and $60k+ in loans to get a degree. That is ON TOP OF my grants and scholarships and working full time all through school. I chose a major which can justify that. But what about others? I can't imagine if my brother hadn't had my parents' help, as he majored in education. My friend is in that boat, where her teacher salary BARELY covers her expenses and student loan payments.

Is this ethical? Does this lead to the best and most productive workforce? Does this allow for the most talented and productive to advance?

I'm lucky. My company has offered to pay for my masters. My job is secure and won't be outsourced or made obsolete. But could the child of a truck driver expect this? Or the child of a single parent in a poor neighborhood?

We need a system and culture that allows all people to succeed if they put in work. Not just a few.

We have a system (in the U.S.) that allows college grads to earn $1Million more than those who don't go on to college. That said anyone can do quite well without a college education, it all depends on what one wants in life. I once met a fellow who had an engineering degree but preferred living the "river rat' life with his family on the Mississippi river. He 'engineered' only enough to earn the money needed for things he couldn't catch, shoot, or trap. And there are more people like this than most realize. The normal American dream of wealth and security just aren't at the top of their list.

 

[bekkilyn]

Over the past few years real income for most professions (even skilled trades) has fallen. In my trade a person made 40% MORE than what the median is for my position now when adjusted for inflation. There have been similar decreases in other skilled fields, some more dramatic some less. At the same time wealth has been concentrating in a very small number of people in finance. This will eventually cause problems.

I don't understand why this growing wealth concentration doesn't bother more people than it does. These people who are hoarding all of it didn't work proportionately hard to earn it, and they aren't putting it back into the economy. Meanwhile, others are working harder and harder and still slipping into poverty while those hoarding the wealth continue to get richer due to the work that other people are doing. It's already causing problems now and will cause much more drastic ones in the future.

And spiritually, it reflects where our priorities really are as a culture.

 

[381465]

I don't understand why this growing wealth concentration doesn't bother more people than it does. These people who are hoarding all of it didn't work proportionately hard to earn it, and they aren't putting it back into the economy. Meanwhile, others are working harder and harder and still slipping into poverty while those hoarding the wealth continue to get richer due to the work that other people are doing. It's already causing problems now and will cause much more drastic ones in the future.

And spiritually, it reflects where our priorities really are as a culture.

I couldn't say that "These people who are hoarding all of it didn't work proportionately hard to earn it, and they aren't putting it back into the economy."
Not defending the wealthy, but at the same time I can't universally condemn them.
I know some wealthy people and some poor people. Maybe I'm lucky, but most of the wealthy I know work hard and take risks and are charitable. Conversely, I also know some poor people who are not so great.
Wealth or poverty doesn't determine someone's character, in my opinion.

Just a pet peeve of mine when folks generalize and paint with a broad brush.

 

[bekkilyn]

I couldn't say that "These people who are hoarding all of it didn't work proportionately hard to earn it, and they aren't putting it back into the economy."
Not defending the wealthy, but at the same time I can't universally condemn them.
I know some wealthy people and some poor people. Maybe I'm lucky, but most of the wealthy I know work hard and take risks and are charitable. Inversely, I also know some poor people who are not so great.
Wealth or poverty doesn't determine someone's character, in my opinion.

Just a pet peeve of mine when folks generalize and paint with a broad brush.

There is wealthy and there is super-duper wealthy. And most of them probably do work hard, but they don't necessarily work *proportionately* so much harder than other people to be able to justify having such a growing negative effect on our societies. For example:

• The 1 percent has 35.6 percent of all private wealth, more than the bottom 95 percent combined.
• The 400 wealthiest individuals on the Forbes 400 list have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

And it's only getting worse. I don't have issues with some people getting richer than other people, but I do have large concerns over the ever-growing gap between the wealthiest of us and everyone else. It's a recipe for huge trouble ahead.

 

[Earatha]

It bothers me.

Is my labor worth 40% less than it was for my predecessors 30 years ago? Are the needs I'm filling any less valuable? I'm not exactly thrilled at the cost it took to get here. But I wanted to be an engineer, so I took it on.

I certainly do t think a CEO who got paid 30x his average worker in 1979 is worth +300x their workers today.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't understand why this growing wealth concentration doesn't bother more people than it does. These people who are hoarding all of it didn't work proportionately hard to earn it, and they aren't putting it back into the economy. Meanwhile, others are working harder and harder and still slipping into poverty while those hoarding the wealth continue to get richer due to the work that other people are doing. It's already causing problems now and will cause much more drastic ones in the future.

And spiritually, it reflects where our priorities really are as a culture.

Wealth concentration is usually the natural result of good planning and hard work, either by the person, or his antecedents.

Wealth consists of stuff and money. I don't share my stuff with anyone and everyone, not even my kids, so yes I hoard my stuff. My money isn't stuffed in a mattress (the only way to really 'hoard' it) but is on deposit in banks for any who qualify to borrow it.

The monetary wealth of the rich is also usually in circulation as well, except for cash kept for emergencies (I 'hoard' $2000 for emergencies).

The worst offenders are drug dealers, who deal only in cash, which never enters the mainstream economy, and immigrants who send $50Billion out of the country each year.

Our trade deficits also put pressure on our money as about $600Billion leaves our economy each year.

High taxes and costly regulations also drive businesses overseas as well putting even more strain on the economy.

Lot's of moving parts to the economic problems we face.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Universal basic income? So we're going to formally concede that welfare is a viable career opportunity? No thanks; I'll pass.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

• The 1 percent has 35.6 percent of all private wealth, more than the bottom 95 percent combined.
• The 400 wealthiest individuals on the Forbes 400 list have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

Could you break this down for us. How much is 'stuff' and how much is 'money'?

The reason this is important is because 'stuff' costs money. If someone buys stuff they have to give up some money, which goes back into the general economy. Since wealth, or net worth, is calculated by adding up stuff and money we need to know how much of each these wealthy people have.

We also need to know how the rich might share their expensive homes with others. Do they invite the poor to live with them, or do they sell their mansions and give the money to the poor, then go and live in a 'tract' home somewhere? And how about them yachts, summer homes, country club memberships, expensive vacations, ivy league educations for their kids.

Sharing the wealth means destroying an economy that is the envy of the world, and would reduce the west to third-world economic status. It would also destroy much of the incentive that led to the development of art, science, medicine, technology, etc.

I don't think sharing is such a good idea.

 

[381465]

In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.
The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

This is not a defense of the wealthy and I don't read anything immoral or sinister in the information about how so few have so much.
I certainly don't assume someone with wealth accumulated it by being evil, mean, stingy, etc. I'm sure some did, but not all and maybe not even most.
Hating people for their income is no different than hating for race, sexual preference, etc. At least have a legitimate reason to hate individually.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One reason some people are rich is that they make better choices when it comes to spending money.

 

[Earatha]

Another reason is our tax system favors certain types of earnings and earners.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Another reason is our tax system favors certain types of earnings and earners.

The spending of those tax revenues favors the poor.

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

What is the plan for removing excess money from the economy to prevent runaway inflation?

Actually, the most likely scenario for financial disaster is deflationary depression:

The Lack Of Liquidity Is A Ticking Time Bomb | Seeking Alpha

 

[Earatha]

So an educated workforce only benefits the poor? A healthy infrastructure only benefits the poor? Only poor people are on social security and Medicare? Only poor people benefit from those programs?

The bulk of mandatory spending goes to debt payment, social security, and Medicare/Medicaid. While Medicaid might mostly benefit poor children, 0pregnant women, and the disabled the same is not true of social security. And not just those people on those programs benefit from them, but spending on those cuts costs for EVERYONE. The vast majority of discretionary spending is spent on the military, which most people see very little benefit from directly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So an educated workforce only benefits the poor? A healthy infrastructure only benefits the poor? Only poor people are on social security and Medicare? Only poor people benefit from those programs?

The bulk of mandatory spending goes to debt payment, social security, and Medicare/Medicaid. While Medicaid might mostly benefit poor children, 0pregnant women, and the disabled the same is not true of social security. And not just those people on those programs benefit from them, but spending on those cuts costs for EVERYONE. The vast majority of discretionary spending is spent on the military, which most people see very little benefit from directly.

Government spending favors the poor because they contribute nothing to it. As a net taxpayer I expect tax funded services. The poor do not have the same expectation. For them it's all benefits with no cost.

 

[buzuxi]

I don't understand why this growing wealth concentration doesn't bother more people than it does. These people who are hoarding all of it didn't work proportionately hard to earn it, and they aren't putting it back into the economy. Meanwhile, others are working harder and harder and still slipping into poverty while those hoarding the wealth continue to get richer due to the work that other people are doing. It's already causing problems now and will cause much more drastic ones in the future.

And spiritually, it reflects where our priorities really are as a culture.

They put it to work through investments which allow entrepreneurs and start ups with access to capital. Most wealth is lost by the 4th generation. The Astors were the richest people in the world, today some of them are homeless. Whether Warren Buffet who has pledged his entire fortune to charity, that's a transfer of the top .0001% to the bottom.1%
Because the Baby boomers have accumulated the most wealth we don't know until a generation after they passed where and how it will be redistributed, whether dispersed through a combination of inheritance taxes and divided up between kin etc.
There will always be an imbalance because the concept of " equality" doesn't work. Equality is a myth, except before the law. Read up on the Pareto Principle.

All the rich people I personally know (not that many) have made their fortune without any college education. In fact as a second generation american, I know millionaires in terms of wealth in overall assetts who have no education whatsoever and can barely speak english.
College education many times is the culprit not the solution to wealth imbalance. Because students take courses in what they like rather than what society will need. College expectations also force certain kids into college who would be better suited in a vocational trade.

 

[Fantine]

Old wise guy, you and I are probably in the same generation--older boomers. And so I can understand why, since you made your money in a kinder, gentler time, it's hard for you to believe what our descendants are facing.

You made your money in real estate--but if unemployment surges due to technology, home prices will fall--and so will rentals.

If we don't have a middle class our stocks won't do well, either.

We have one rent house--which we rent to an adult child at cost. It brings us more joy to help her get a head start in life than a profit of a few thousand a year.

Our only child who is financially successful is the one who moved to Asia to realize the American dream. Is this the future for our children?

 

[Belk]

In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.
The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

This is not a defense of the wealthy and I don't read anything immoral or sinister in the information about how so few have so much.
I certainly don't assume someone with wealth accumulated it by being evil, mean, stingy, etc. I'm sure some did, but not all and maybe not even most.
Hating people for their income is no different than hating for race, sexual preference, etc. At least have a legitimate reason to hate individually.

Why do you presume people hate them? Why is advocating for those with little seen as an attack on those with a lot?