Universal Income.

arthwollipot said:
No - a full UBI should replace all of those programs.
Click to expand...

Welfare yes.

Social security and government pensions? No.

Those two are retirement programs which are paid for by contributions of a percentage of salary by both the employee and the employer. (In the case of government pensions, the employer is the government entity they work for. Upon retirement, the retiree gets a benefit based on their contributions and wage history. UBI would not replace that.

As an example: Suppose UBI is $2000/month. Your wages are $4000/month, but you contribute 8% to your pension plan (social security is 6%), it really comes out to $3680 (Ignoring taxes and other deductions. Your living income then is $5680/month.

If UBI eliminates your pension (or social security), it will be very difficult to retire as your income will drop from $5680/mo to $2000/mo. Could you live on that? Probably. But your standard of living post retirement would drop drastically.

Unless UBI increases after retirement, it doesn't replace retirement benefits.
 
TomB said:
As an example: Suppose UBI is $2000/month. Your wages are $4000/month, but you contribute 8% to your pension plan (social security is 6%), it really comes out to $3680 (Ignoring taxes and other deductions. Your living income then is $5680/month.

If UBI eliminates your pension (or social security), it will be very difficult to retire as your income will drop from $5680/mo to $2000/mo. Could you live on that? Probably. But your standard of living post retirement would drop drastically.
Click to expand...
Any retirement fund that you personally invested in would of course be quarantined from the UBI and neither the twain shall meet.

However, if there is a government added component to your retirement income (old age pension for example) then UBI might replace that component.
 
psionl0 said:
Any retirement fund that you personally invested in would of course be quarantined from the UBI and neither the twain shall meet.

However, if there is a government added component to your retirement income (old age pension for example) then UBI might replace that component.
Click to expand...

How about Social Security? (In the U.S.) How do you classify that?

Basically, it's a (mostly) mandatory government run pension. The employee contributes 6% of their income and the employer contributes another 6%. Your benefit at reaching retirement age is based on a numb er of factors: contributions, number of quarters working a job that made contributions, earning history, etc. There is also a death benefit (which is not a refund of contributions) and survivor benefits.

But if you don't pay into it, you don't get it. For example, in Illinois State employees do not pay into social security. Instead, they pay into one of the state employee pension plans (which are in bad shape, largely because the legislatures in the past voted for "pension holidays" where they skipped or made partial payments of the "employer" contribution). So when my dad retired from teaching, he got his teaching pension, but not social security. (Some teachers work summer jobs for the express purpose of paying into Social security so that they will get a benefit after retirement.)

For most people, though, Social Security is the main retirement pension they can count on. Supplemented by 401k or IRA savings plans.
 
psionl0 said:
Any retirement fund that you personally invested in would of course be quarantined from the UBI and neither the twain shall meet.

However, if there is a government added component to your retirement income (old age pension for example) then UBI might replace that component.
Click to expand...
Another fair point.
 
TomB said:
How about Social Security? (In the U.S.) How do you classify that?

Basically, it's a (mostly) mandatory government run pension. The employee contributes 6% of their income and the employer contributes another 6%. Your benefit at reaching retirement age is based on a numb er of factors: contributions, number of quarters working a job that made contributions, earning history, etc. There is also a death benefit (which is not a refund of contributions) and survivor benefits.

But if you don't pay into it, you don't get it. For example, in Illinois State employees do not pay into social security. Instead, they pay into one of the state employee pension plans (which are in bad shape, largely because the legislatures in the past voted for "pension holidays" where they skipped or made partial payments of the "employer" contribution). So when my dad retired from teaching, he got his teaching pension, but not social security. (Some teachers work summer jobs for the express purpose of paying into Social security so that they will get a benefit after retirement.)

For most people, though, Social Security is the main retirement pension they can count on. Supplemented by 401k or IRA savings plans.
Click to expand...
That sounds a little bit like Australia's Superannuation guarantee except that employers pay 10.5% into the fund and employees are not required to contribute anything (but many "salary sacrifice"). Contributions are taxed going in and when they are withdrawn after retirement. The rate is 15% which is half the normal taxation rate (giving an added incentive to salary sacrifice).

Needless to say, neither scheme would be impacted by UBI since they are not taxpayer funded. However, old age pensions are means tested so somebody who received a decent chunk of super would expect their pension to be reduced. This wouldn't happen if old aged pensions were replaced (at least in part) by UBI.
 
One strange thing in Australia. Job vacancies are at a high level, but employers are not willing to pay more wages to fill the vacancies. Wages growth is still very low. Will see what happens after the effects of jobkeeper wears off. I suspect that the vacancies will disappear.
 
rjh01 said:
One strange thing in Australia. Job vacancies are at a high level, but employers are not willing to pay more wages to fill the vacancies. Wages growth is still very low. Will see what happens after the effects of jobkeeper wears off. I suspect that the vacancies will disappear.
Click to expand...

Jobkeeper has been gone for 2 months and vacancies are still there. And labour shortages were there well before covid.

To get back on topic, I would like to see a decent argument that increasing payments to everyone, including unemployed people, will not exacerbate labour shortages. Psion says unemployed people will take up jobs with a UBI on offer. I don't think so.

Maybe a trial will show who is right, but here are two problems with a trial in Australia. Firstly, for political reasons it won't happen (and anyone who disagrees with me on this issue doesn't understand Australian politics) and secondly, if it does miraculously happen, to be valid, it would have to have a control group which does not get UBI. Again, can anyone see this happening?
 
lionking said:
To get back on topic, I would like to see a decent argument that increasing payments to everyone, including unemployed people, will not exacerbate labour shortages. Psion says unemployed people will take up jobs with a UBI on offer. I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Such an argument has already been presented.
 
Matthew Best said:
Such an argument has already been presented.
Click to expand...

I said decent argument.

But to the rest of my post you cut. How would you organise a trial to show that a UBI would work?

Most people posting here simply assume a UBI would be a good thing.
 
lionking said:
I said decent argument.

But to the rest of my post you cut. How would you organise a trial to show that a UBI would work?

Most people posting here simply assume a UBI would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Some may but most haven’t - they have given their reasoning, some have provided data, some have provided links to further information.

You seem to be assuming it wouldn’t work without giving any reasons.
 
I should add that I did propose and manage a trial that proved a government intervention did a social good. The government funded that intervention to the tune of $60m a year. I was able to prove the benefit greatly outweighed the cost. It involved a control group.

I don’t accept contentions that something sounds good, so it must be good.
 
lionking said:
I said decent argument.

But to the rest of my post you cut. How would you organise a trial to show that a UBI would work?

Most people posting here simply assume a UBI would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly don't. I'm not convinced either way. One of the reasons why I'm not convinced by you, however, is that the only thing you've managed to muster so far is "nuh-huh", and "I think it will increase employment shortages, and that's it!"
 
Belz... said:
Well I certainly don't. I'm not convinced either way. One of the reasons why I'm not convinced by you, however, is that the only thing you've managed to muster so far is "nuh-huh", and "I think it will increase employment shortages, and that's it!"
Click to expand...

I would have thought that you would hold the view that people proposing a massive change like a UBI have the onus to provide evidence that it would work. Where is that? There has been a list of trials that showed people like it. Where is the evidence that it worked as intended?

There isn’t.
 
Hmmm, I’ve gone back through this thread to find evidence that a UBI would work. The best I have found is a post by Orphia Nay of trials, many long ago and others that haven’t been implemented.

That’s it? I’m supposed to accept a UBI is a good idea without any evidence?

But keep on calling me a contrarian and take comfort in your utopia....
 
Belz... said:
Of course I do. But I also hold the view that if one argues that it wouldn't work, they should also explain why.
Click to expand...

I have been.

But have a look at the volume of people who are arguing that a UBI is a good idea without evidence. Have you been holding them to account? Not that I have seen.
 
lionking said:
I have been.
Click to expand...

"It would make problem X worse" is not an explanation. It's a claim. I'd like to know WHY you think so.

But have a look at the volume of people who are arguing that a UBI is a good idea without evidence. Have you been holding them to account? Not that I have seen.
Click to expand...

Look harder. I've asked them to explain various aspects of the proposal, and I am satisfied, thought not necessarily convinced, with their explanations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom