Well yeah and like said if you don't think UBI will turn into exactly that in at least some instances I've got a bridge made of bitcoins across the Beanie Baby river to sell you.
Universal Income.
- Thread starter RolandRat
- Start date
Well yeah and like said if you don't think UBI will turn into exactly that in at least some instances I've got a bridge made of bitcoins across the Beanie Baby river to sell you.
I'm late to the game so sorry if I missed something but:
The notion that UBI can't replace parts of or the entirety of the remaining social safety net, why not? Make it high enough and it clearly can. At the very least, it makes government run pension programs pointless. Unless you think most or many people just aren't capable of making decisions for themselves.
The notion that its not efficient, why? Its more efficient than just about any other social spending. Just give everyone cash. As minimal a bureuacracy as a government program can have.
Generally I like the Idea, mostly because it would allow the phasing out of the the other more paternalistic programs and distort markets less than things like food subsidies.
I would like to larger and and larger polities try it and see the results. I'd like some study of whether its better to do some sort of phasing out based on means or just give it to everyone one and take it back from rich folks via taxes. I also think it should be taxed so anyone that depends on it will at least think twice about voting for more spending.
The notion that UBI can't replace parts of or the entirety of the remaining social safety net, why not? Make it high enough and it clearly can. At the very least, it makes government run pension programs pointless. Unless you think most or many people just aren't capable of making decisions for themselves.
The notion that its not efficient, why? Its more efficient than just about any other social spending. Just give everyone cash. As minimal a bureuacracy as a government program can have.
Generally I like the Idea, mostly because it would allow the phasing out of the the other more paternalistic programs and distort markets less than things like food subsidies.
I would like to larger and and larger polities try it and see the results. I'd like some study of whether its better to do some sort of phasing out based on means or just give it to everyone one and take it back from rich folks via taxes. I also think it should be taxed so anyone that depends on it will at least think twice about voting for more spending.
Because that's not going to work.
At not one point in goddamn human history has "Oh I know. We'll just make one system to replace all these government systems" ever worked. You always, always wind up with "The new system and all the systems it was supposed to replace still in place.'
In other words:
Yes, that's exactly what a lot of people in the positions of government think.
At not one point in goddamn human history has "Oh I know. We'll just make one system to replace all these government systems" ever worked. You always, always wind up with "The new system and all the systems it was supposed to replace still in place.'
In other words:
Yes, that's exactly what a lot of people in the positions of government think.
Sure, that is true. I was thinking more from theoretical standpoint than the political. You are right, because we are afraid and dumb, politicians won't be able to replace old bad ideas with a new idea. Speaking of the US, UBI could easily replace social security. It wouldn't actually be any different from social security.
It could replace food stamps, it could replace school lunches, it could replace various government health insurance. That is, if you think people can make reasonably good choices given the chance.
As for inflation, probably will cause inflation, but it can't be any worse than what we've done over the last year.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
But is that necessarily a bad thing?
Bad, no. Something we still have to account for, yes.
When everyone has more money (and access to a steady, guarantee stream of money) things will get more expensive. This is "Yes the next pail of water is going to be wet too" levels of you shouldn't be expected to prove it.
Predatory lending will be absolutely out of control if all the Payday loan people and such know to a metaphysical certainty that every financial demographic in America is going to have a guaranteed X amount on the 1st and 15th.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Is it?
Nobody says you can't pay for a UBI through taxation. Printing money implies a budget imbalance which is by no means necessary for this plan to be implemented.
Well that's my other issue.
You can have a UBI paid for through taxation... if you have a 1% upper class that is absolutely beyond any reason just stupid rich.
I know I've heard all the stats and I'm sure you being you have them all memorized and ready to regurgitate at a moment's notice.
So yeah I know. The top 8 people in American own as much as the bottom gazillion. Jeff Bezos could buy everyone in America a solid gold diamond encrusted aircraft carrier and make the money back in 4 seconds. Wage disparage is X bad and getting worse. A CEO makes XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX times as much as a worker. I know.
But... isn't that supposed to be a bad thing? If a bunch super rich people can fund the rest of us to at least a basic survival wage or maybe better... doesn't that sort of mean that cultivating these super-rich, not really rich, not really really rich, not even like holy crap that's so rich but these mega-upper tier of just beyond the concept of rich so calling them just rich doesn't even seem like it really feels right like there should be a new word for it level of rich people was a good thing?
Basically aren't we just poking holes in the bucket to MAKE trickle down economics work?
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Seems like you're making a lot of assumptions. Who says that a taxation scheme had to be targeted to the super rich?
Countries that have more robust welfare schemes usually have higher taxation rates, including on people of fairly ordinary means. Taxing middle class and upper middle class people is often politically unpopular, but there's huge amounts of money there and other countries have shown that it's a viable approach to pay for social spending.
Of course, the other obvious source of revenue would be to reevaluate other spending. Our obscenely bloated military budget is one obvious such source where wasteful spending could be turned into useful social spending.
Because it's only fair if it's targeted at the super rich.
Listen without... starting a thing. The idea that (g)you are... I don't want to say entitled because that carries negative consequences but something along those lines to some of Jeff Bezos's 78 quadrazillion dollars is one thing.
Saying you are entitled to some of your neighbor who only makes enough to buy a one more bedroom house and a car with the leather seat's 100,000 dollars is another.
No there is no exact line, not I don't intend to figure out where one is right now.
This new category of beyond the scale hyper-rich does owe stuff to society that simple "rich" people don't.
And yes there is a difference between taxes for social services, safety nets, relief programs, infrastructure, etc and etc and "Everyone pays everyone else a straight paycheck."
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
This seems like a very strange way to think about taxation. Everyone, even the most poor, pay taxes in some way or another if they participate in the modern economy. In the ideal progressive tax rate scheme, those with more generally pay more. That's roughly how things are done in the US, with notable exceptions where the wealthy have carved out special exemptions to shield their wealth, but that's besides the point.
UBI is no more picking your neighbor's pocket than a public school or section 8 housing is. There's no "line" demarcating those who owe to society and those that don't. Everyone is participating, taking and contributing continuously throughout our interaction with the system.
Belz...
Fiend God
Doesn't depend on your actual income? Like, a family making 150k wouldn't get squat.
That's not how the "UBI Sales Pitch" has every really read to me.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
me neither. U means universal means everyone.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
That's not the idea of a UBI. Once you means test a UBI it is no longer a UBI.
Of course, tax free thresholds would most likely be lower so the wealthy would still pay for their UBI.
Not sure if you're being ironic or not, on account of Salt Lake City's success being much more than just giving people housing.
That being said, there's decent research out there suggesting that just being poor causes worse decision making on account of the stress and basically forcing short term thinking over long term. There is reason to believe that just giving people money could help.
I'm less interested in whether its right or wrong to take from someone to give to someone else than whether or not a policy will have positive or negative consequences. I think there is reason to believe that a UBI will have better positive outcomes and fewer negative outcomes than most current redistributive policies. Minimizing administrative costs, increasing personal freedom, and reducing the incentive for rent seekers to game the system.
A bit of robbing Peter to pay Paul but taxing higher income folks to recoup the cost of giving them the UBI might be more efficient than means testing.