Universal Income.
- Thread starter RolandRat
- Start date
That’s not true. Some have said it would be funded by replacing other entitlements. That may work in some countries, but I’d like to know them.
There is no point when your calculations of cost are wrong from the outset.
For example, if in the UK a basic income of 10k was introduced, I would personally pay an extra 4k in taxes just from treating this as taxable income (eliminating 10k of the tax-free earnings threshold and paying a higher tax rate on an extra 10k of earnings). Therefore the net cost for me would already be reduced from 10k to 6k before even making any adjustments to tax thresholds or rates.
For those who are not earning, UBI replaces almost all benefits, and reduces costs by elimination of a large part of the bureaucracy needed to police access to benefits. There are likely additional financial benefits from reduction in crime and use of health services (which have been shown in pilot studies).
The net cost of UBI is what is leftover after taking these factors into account. This is what needs to be recovered by tax increases or other means. But if you give higher earners 10k then you can increase taxes by up to 10k before they are worse off. Increasing taxes by an amount that does not make people worse off is not an 'impossible increase'. It is likely that only the super wealthy would actually be worse off, and even then not by anything like the amount that has been suggested by some in this thread.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
That shows who can't grasp basic arithmetic. The only tax rises would be to offset the UBI which would leave employees in the same position as before. The rest is just a straight swap between complex pensions/jobseeker allowances and UBI.
Are you seriously suggesting everyone will be as well off after a UBI? That there will be no wealth distribution?
Oh please......
Belz...
Fiend God
I'm sure the super rich will be broken to have a few thousand dollars less at the end of the year.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
This is YOUR claim. Remember, EVERYBODY already gets welfare if they are not employed.
The idea is to adjust tax brackets such that those who don't need to UBI end up paying it back in taxes, while those who do need it don't. There will also be those in between who could use some help but don't need the whole $1000/month (or whatever amount we're talking about), and so end up paying slightly higher taxes, but not as much higher as they are getting in UBI, so they end up with say an extra $500.
So while you give the UBI to everyone, by adjusting the tax brackets it's as though you were only giving it to the poorest X% of the population.
If you do this right you can still avoid perverse incentives, such as someone making less money if they work than if they don't.
How much UBI do we need to gift to the poor to offset their relative impoverishment due to the massive welfare subsidies provided by the Federal Reserve's fiat funny money fractional reserve system that endlessly rewards banks, corporations, and stock, bond, and cryptocurrency investors?
I think I'm almost sold on it, if it will prevent a violent communist revolution. But then I know the reality is that there will never be enough UBI to account for the fact that fewer and fewer people actually own what matters - rent producing assets.
Why is it that the virtue signaling leftists all clamor for more welfare and higher taxes, but they never complain about the corrupt monetary system that is primarily responsible for all of the poverty? I'm guessing it's because they're stupid, and/or ignorant. Meanwhile, those wealthy people who are on both the left and the right who do understand it, just sit back silently and collect their rents, and watch their stocks, bonds, and crypto portfolios skyrocket.
I think I'm almost sold on it, if it will prevent a violent communist revolution. But then I know the reality is that there will never be enough UBI to account for the fact that fewer and fewer people actually own what matters - rent producing assets.
Why is it that the virtue signaling leftists all clamor for more welfare and higher taxes, but they never complain about the corrupt monetary system that is primarily responsible for all of the poverty? I'm guessing it's because they're stupid, and/or ignorant. Meanwhile, those wealthy people who are on both the left and the right who do understand it, just sit back silently and collect their rents, and watch their stocks, bonds, and crypto portfolios skyrocket.
Belz...
Fiend God
There's not going to be a communist revolution either way. You can relax.
Of course, given that you think communism and socialism are one and the same, for you that revolution has already occured.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
You are describing a different problem altogether. I have seen suggestions on how to deal with the fact that wealthy corporations can buy politicians at will but they have nothing to do with removing structural unfairness in the welfare system.
The problem I'm talking about, specifically, is that if you allow certain people to create arbitrary amounts of money ex nihilo, and then you grant everyone else small, fixed amounts of money created ex nihilo aka Universal Basic Income (or funded by some other form of taxation), the people with the power to create money will always create more for themselves, and always enough to maintain their vast riches, and everyone else's poverty.
UBI is in essence, putting a band-aid on the gaping head wound that is the global fiat money/fractional reserve banking system of fabulous wealth for a tiny few, and table scraps for everyone else. This problem completely supercedes political corruption, since most of it occurs outside the realm of politics, or direct government spending.
Last edited:
There's a difference between individual businesses and overall inflation.
First, a lot of jobs pay over the minimum wage already. Raising minimum wag will not raise the salaries of those workers, and therefore will not change production costs.
Second, some businesses are less labor intensive. That is, labor is a less significant factor in the operating costs of the business. For example, retail. Most of the cost at checkout is the wholesale cost of the item, which is likely not affected by minimum wage. (I'm unaware of many US manufacturing jobs that pay at or near minimum.) So increasing retail clerk wages, while it will increase operating costs for the store, it will probably not do so significantly.
But a service, where the main component of operating expenses is labor will have operating costs that are significantly tied to the labor cost. I interpret a care giving service to have mostly labor expenses. Yes, there are supplies, advertising, insurance, and office space for administration. But mostly labor. In such a business, a 30% increase in wages is going to increase operating expenses significantly. Maybe not quite 30%, but maybe 20%. (It depends on what the other expenses are.) that has to be paid either by charging a higher rate or reducing profits margin. (If it's a government agency, it would require increasing the agency's budget.)
If this is a private firm, there's the possibility that they will reduce their profits somewhat, but I doubt they would absorb the whole thing.
For support:
https://www.1800homecare.com/blog/medicare-openly-penalizes-home-health-agencies-that-dont-game-the-system/
So if the profit margin is around 9%, an increase of operating costs of 20% eliminates the profit entirely and puts you into the red. If it's a small agency, like the one that cared for my mom until recently, the owner's income would be entirely wiped out. So I think they would have to pass the cost along in their rates or cease to do business.
But the impact on one business sector or even the low wage sector may not be enough to affect overall inflation rates noticeably.
Belz...
Fiend God
They HAVE the ability to do that already, and what you predict hasn't happened. Maybe come back to reality?
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
The truth is that neither problem will be addressed as long as the voters put corporate shills into congress.
Andrew Yang was one of the Democrat hopefuls in the 2020 primaries. He had policies such as UBI (he called it "social dividend"). He also proposed that every citizen be given $100 per year to donate to a political party of their choice. This was to counter the massive lobbying power of global corporations.
Of course, he didn't get far. There is no room for intelligence in politics which is why a doddering old fogey proved to be much more popular.
WIKI.
Remember going over this twice already to explain what is repeated here?:
Lionking? who are the losers with UBI?
Who are the losers with all this power to affect elections and polls?
Middle income people on an hourly wage as per usual.
Basically the lot that slog their ass off doing stupid hours, that can't afford accountants to avoid tax.
Yet keep getting costs lumped on them, like housing rates on their one house, carbon taxes, road taxes, petrol taxes, insurance hikes after our earthquakes, water taxes (in Auckland). Which go up every year.
And they will then have to pay something horrendous for this pipe dream idea, that doesn't actually fix anything as we already have benefits
Edit: Should have added, basically the majority of people bothering to vote in elections.
Which means no govt, at least in NZ would be stupid enough to implemet it.
Last edited:
You haven't been following what I've been saying.
Centrelink costs more than a UBI.
How will "ordinary taxpayers" suddenly pay more tax?
Because here (and admit this may not be the case there, where ever there is) all proponents I have heard for a UBI have said it is on top of and not replacing existing benefits.