Universal Income.

Orphia Nay said:
Wales has announced a UBI scheme "for people leaving care".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/universal-basic-income-wales-ubi-b1849336.html
Click to expand...
Again, not a full UBI, which by definition is universal, but it's a good start. An interesting point is this:

A successful trial that took place in Manitoba from 1974 to 1979 resulted, according to one study, in an 8.5 per cent drop in hospital visits, fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from accidents and injuries.

Less people were admitted to psychiatric hospitals, and doctors recorded fewer appointments for mental illness.

The research found that while some groups worked less, only new mothers and teenagers did so to a substantial degree; new mothers so that they could care for their babies, and teenagers because they were under less pressure to support their families financially.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Keith said:
I do like the subtle move of the goal posts from:

1) the numbers don’t work and it would lead to massive deficits

To

2) no politician would risk his career to do something good
Click to expand...

Another person declaring a UBI “good” no doubt by definition.

Covid stimulus packages went out into the economy and jobs and businesses were saved. But of the money going from government into the economy, only a small amount comes back through taxes. Governments around the world (Australia included) are facing massive deficits which could take decades to pay off. The UBI will worsen this.

Yes large tax rises will help offset the deficit, but I don’t see too many governments with the appetite for that. Most developed nations seek to reduce tax and spending.

Never ending and growing trillion dollar deficits are not a good thing in my view.
 
lionking said:
Another person declaring a UBI “good” no doubt by definition.

Covid stimulus packages went out into the economy and jobs and businesses were saved. But of the money going from government into the economy, only a small amount comes back through taxes. Governments around the world (Australia included) are facing massive deficits which could take decades to pay off. The UBI will worsen this.

Yes large tax rises will help offset the deficit, but I don’t see too many governments with the appetite for that. Most developed nations seek to reduce tax and spending.

Never ending and growing trillion dollar deficits are not a good thing in my view.
Click to expand...
For what seems like the fifteenth time, tax increases are not the only way a UBI will be funded.
 
arthwollipot said:
For what seems like the fifteenth time, tax increases are not the only way a UBI will be funded.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you tell them taxes are not the only way to fund it.

It doesn't matter how many times you explain it to them.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell them it will not lead to "never ending and growing trillion dollar deficits"

Their answer will always be "nuh-uh", because "nuh-uh" is all they've got!
 
arthwollipot said:
For what seems like the fifteenth time, tax increases are not the only way a UBI will be funded.
Click to expand...

The link you posted showed that a UBI of only $6000 would be possible without tax increases. This is not enough to meet every letter of UBI.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You're acting like a petulant child.

I am trying help you understand grown-up concepts by walking you through this in baby steps. However. it has become abundantly clear that you are simply not interested in learning anything, and it is pretty obvious why - you are afraid that it will disturb the nice little safe and secure middle class worldview you have created for yourself.

So be it.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I have not attacked you personally throughout this thread. Personalising posts like this achieve what?
 
lionking said:
Just for the record, I have not attacked you personally throughout this thread. Personalising posts like this achieve what?
Click to expand...

This was not a personal attack - this was me exhibiting frustration with a poster for whom I have gone out of my way to try to explain this, but who has thus far continued to wilfully refuse to understand.

I have even tried to create a hypothetical to step you towards understanding, but you have refused to engage, its clear that you simply have no wish to understand, and that you are not interested in honest debate.

You just carry on with your "nuh-uh".
 
smartcooky said:
This was not a personal attack - this was me exhibiting frustration with a poster for whom I have gone out of my way to try to explain this, but who has thus far continued to wilfully refuse to understand.

I have even tried to create a hypothetical to step you towards understanding, but you have refused to engage, its clear that you simply have no wish to understand, and that you are not interested in honest debate.

You just carry on with your "nuh-uh".
Click to expand...

I understand well enough. I do not agree with you and others who think utopian fantasies are a good idea.
 
angrysoba said:
I would say that this is false.

For the record, I am very much interested in a proper discussion of Universal Basic Income (which is not happening here), and I think that it may well be necessary at some point. I think Andrew Yang's presidential bid was important for putting the idea in the spotlight, and at least he did have a proposal for paying for UBI - it would be funded by a sales tax and a reordering of the benefits system in the US.

However, we cannot say categorically that how UBI programs will be funded has been answered.
Click to expand...

I mean answered by people in this thread. Perhaps the answer wasn't a complete plan, but it was an answer to the question.
 
lionking said:
Another person declaring a UBI “good” no doubt by definition.
Click to expand...

...did you even read the post you replied to? He didn't declare anything. He noted a change in your argument.

I understand well enough. I do not agree with you and others who think utopian fantasies are a good idea.
Click to expand...

Well you didn't accept the actual explanations or data, so smartcooky moved on to a simpler layman's explanation, and you simply ignored it. It's not hard to see his point that you're not interested in engaging on this topic. As to the reason, that's really not very important.
 
Belz... said:
...did you even read the post you replied to? He didn't declare anything. He noted a change in your argument.



Well you didn't accept the actual explanations or data, so smartcooky moved on to a simpler layman's explanation, and you simply ignored it. It's not hard to see his point that you're not interested in engaging on this topic. As to the reason, that's really not very important.
Click to expand...

Will you please stop telling me what I have and have not read and what I have ignored and not ignored? Your mind reading ability is not good.
 
lionking said:
Huh? $6000 is a universal basic income? Maybe in Indonesia or Nepal.

Please remember we are not talking about welfare, but a UBI.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
Belz, is $6000 per annum without tax increases, as proposed here, a UBI or not?
Click to expand...
Yes. There is no magical number that defines whether something qualifies as a UBI or not. However, if it makes you happy, we could call it UBS (Universal Basic Supplement) instead.

It's obvious that we aren't going to be able to go BOING!!!! the world suddenly pays UBI at an affordable level for everybody. Better to start with something that tax payers can afford and work towards upgrading it (and downgrading welfare payments) over time. Even $6,000 is better than $0 - especially for those people who fall through the welfare cracks it isn't at risk if somebody seeks casual/seasonal employment.
 
psionl0 said:
Yes. There is no magical number that defines whether something qualifies as a UBI or not. However, if it makes you happy, we could call it UBS (Universal Basic Supplement) instead.

It's obvious that we aren't going to be able to go BOING!!!! the world suddenly pays UBI at an affordable level for everybody. Better to start with something that tax payers can afford and work towards upgrading it (and downgrading welfare payments) over time. Even $6,000 is better than $0 - especially for those people who fall through the welfare cracks it isn't at risk if somebody seeks casual/seasonal employment.
Click to expand...

Okay, thank you.

I think UBI will be unaffordable and hopelessly divisive, but you are least are talking about a plan.
 
lionking said:
Okay, thank you.

I think UBI will be unaffordable and hopelessly divisive, but you are least are talking about a plan.
Click to expand...
If you are thinking about setting it at utopian levels the yes, it will be unaffordable. Reality is always worse than the dream.

The divisive element comes from a quirk of human nature. Many people would rather make do with less than see their neighbour get something for nothing.
 
psionl0 said:
If you are thinking about setting it at utopian levels the yes, it will be unaffordable. Reality is always worse than the dream.

The divisive element comes from a quirk of human nature. Many people would rather make do with less than see their neighbour get something for nothing.
Click to expand...

And in certain countries, especially if that neighbour is foreign, a member of a minority, not in their political tribe, or black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom