Universal Income.

[TomB]

No you wouldn't. The tax scales would be adjusted so that you as an employee won't be better off. So you would still need to work that overtime if you want the truck.

Wait...how does that work?

If I make $2000/month and UBI is $2000/month I get $4000/month, but you do what?

First $2000 (UBI) tax free?
Second $2000 (from employment) taxed at 100%?
Above $4000 taxed as normal?

Because that's what it would have to be for those with jobs to be no better off. Unless you are assuming that DirtyWick is in a higher tax bracket, which doesn't really align with working overtime to afford toys.

If that's what you are proposing, anyone making the UBI or less will be just as well off (or better) by just quitting their job.

It also seems like a massive waste:
"Here's your UBI check of X dollars. Please remit your tax payment of X dollars in the enclosed envelope."

 

[psionl0]

If I make $2000/month and UBI is $2000/month I get $4000/month, but you do what?

If you are going to make up an absurdly high UBI and a much lower than average (for a full time worker) wage then you are going to have a hard time getting the numbers to add up.

Consider a UBI of $1,000 per month and a salary of $4,000 per month. A tax rate of 25% is not unreasonable and surely no disincentive to seeking additional work.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not sure staggered hours gets you anywhere unless the jobs are over-resourced at the moment.

For hourly paid staff you also have the issue of them getting either a 20% pay cut or a 25% increase in their hourly rate or some balance of the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-day_week#Perpetual_Guardian_trial_in_New_Zealand

In New Zealand, trust company Perpetual Guardian announced in February 2018 that it would begin trialing a four-day work week in March 2018. The six-week trial, initiated by founder Andrew Barnes, saw the company's 240-plus staff nominating a day off each week whilst still receiving full pay. The trial, held in March and April 2018, attracted international media attention. In late March 2018, Barnes noted that the trial was going well with staff reporting more time for their families, hobbies, completing their to-do lists and doing home maintenance.

The trial, which was tracked and assessed by the University of Auckland Business School and Auckland University of Technology, was described as a success and 'a total win-win'. Perpetual Guardian then extended the four-day work week scheme permanently. The trial saw increased productivity, customer engagement levels, and staff engagement; reduced staff stress levels; and improved work–life balance. The company's revenue remained stable while costs went down, due to less power being used throughout the period.

The trial sparked publicity both in New Zealand and internationally. New Zealand workplace relations minister Iain Lees-Galloway said the trial was 'fascinating'.

The initiative was held up by Barnes as a way of helping to close the gender pay gap and increase diversity in the workforce. Barnes also held the scheme up as a potential blueprint for the workplace of the future, ensuring companies were attractive to millennials and easing Auckland's traffic congestion.

However, while four-day work weeks were deemed a success for most, not everyone involved within the Perpetual Guardian trial was able to adapt, with some reporting feeling increased pressure to complete work within a shorter time frame, particularly around deadlines. Other staff reported they were bored on their extra day away from work and missed the work environment.

 

[Matthew Best]

If you are going to make up an absurdly high UBI and a much lower than average (for a full time worker) wage then you are going to have a hard time getting the numbers to add up.

Consider a UBI of $1,000 per month and a salary of $4,000 per month. A tax rate of 25% is not unreasonable and surely no disincentive to seeking additional work.

OK, so I get $4,000 a month now, and then I suddenly get an extra $1,000 a month UBI. My tax rate is 25% so I only get to keep $750 of that $1,000. I'm now $750 better off, no?

Please explain.

 

[Elaedith]

OK, so I get $4,000 a month now, and then I suddenly get an extra $1,000 a month UBI. My tax rate is 25% so I only get to keep $750 of that $1,000. I'm now $750 better off, no?

Please explain.

I think we are assuming a) the first $1000 would have been a tax-free threshold - that is now replaced by UBI so you pay tax on $4000 instead of $3000; b) that the tax rate may not have been as high as 25% before UBI, but it can be increased without making average earners worse off, or removing the incentive to work.

Obviously not everyone would have UBI exactly offset by tax adjustment and it could be tricky to set the point at which tax increases would exceed UBI (most calculations set this at very high earnings). The main point is to show that the net cost of UBI is much lower than the gross cost that people tend to keep using.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-day_week#Perpetual_Guardian_trial_in_New_Zealand

Those are salaried office jobs though presumably? Which is not the issue I was raising.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If you are going to make up an absurdly high UBI and a much lower than average (for a full time worker) wage then you are going to have a hard time getting the numbers to add up.

Consider a UBI of $1,000 per month and a salary of $4,000 per month. A tax rate of 25% is not unreasonable and surely no disincentive to seeking additional work.

It would be an ADDITIONAL 25% tax to balance up though. Or 100% of your first $1000 or 50% of your first $2000.

That's not feasible at all. In order for a UBI to work in practice you can't expect low earners to be cost-benefit neutral.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Since low wages are often not liveable wages, I would suggest that a UBI scheme should also make low wage earners better off than they otherwise would have been. This not only improves people's lives, but helps the economy. It also provides more incentive to work.

The tax increases to cover the costs should be scaled to income so that the more you earn the more you contribute. Perhaps have it so that once you earn over the average national wage your net gain from UBI is neural or negative.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think we are assuming a) the first $1000 would have been a tax-free threshold - that is now replaced by UBI so you pay tax on $4000 instead of $3000; b) that the tax rate may not have been as high as 25% before UBI, but it can be increased without making average earners worse off, or removing the incentive to work.

Obviously not everyone would have UBI exactly offset by tax adjustment and it could be tricky to set the point at which tax increases would exceed UBI (most calculations set this at very high earnings). The main point is to show that the net cost of UBI is much lower than the gross cost that people tend to keep using.

Yeah the devil very much seems to be in the detail though and the slightly annoying this is the lack of consistency in the explanations.

I'm not sure that I agree 100% with your point about net vs gross cost though because if you include 'tax rises to offset the cost' then the net cost of every government program is much lower than the gross cost. It also has to be remembered that for UBI the net benefit is also lower if you include these offsets.

 

[lionking]

Since low wages are often not liveable wages, I would suggest that a UBI scheme should also make low wage earners better off than they otherwise would have been. This not only improves people's lives, but helps the economy. It also provides more incentive to work.

The tax increases to cover the costs should be scaled to income so that the more you earn the more you contribute. Perhaps have it so that once you earn over the average national wage your net gain from UBI is neural or negative.

We have seen many people in this thread contend that nobody loses from a UBI. I think this is utter ********. What about you?

 

[psionl0]

OK, so I get $4,000 a month now, and then I suddenly get an extra $1,000 a month UBI. My tax rate is 25% so I only get to keep $750 of that $1,000. I'm now $750 better off, no?

No. 25% of $4,000 is $1,000. Instead of being exempt from paying tax on your first $4,000 you get UBI to offset the tax you would otherwise pay.

It would be an ADDITIONAL 25% tax to balance up though. Or 100% of your first $1000 or 50% of your first $2000.

Are you ever going to make sense? 25% is 25%.

Medium and high wage earners get a UBI instead of a tax free threshold. Why is that so confusing for you?

 

[psionl0]

We have seen many people in this thread contend that nobody loses from a UBI. I think this is utter ********. What about you?

I don't think anybody has claimed that. They only point out that you don't have to print trillions of dollars to finance a UBI.

Obviously if some people get money that they are not getting now then others have to pay for it. Or would you rather that they starve instead?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. 25% of $4,000 is $1,000. Instead of being exempt from paying tax on your first $4,000 you get UBI to offset the tax you would otherwise pay.

AAANNNDDDDDDD if you don't make $4000 but make $1000? You only pay $250 back? Great then it's not cost neutral. Or you pay back the $1000? Great then it's not 25%

Are you ever going to make sense? 25% is 25%.

Medium and high wage earners get a UBI instead of a tax free threshold. Why is that so confusing for you?

Numbers aren't your strong point are they?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We have seen many people in this thread contend that nobody loses from a UBI. I think this is utter ********. What about you?

I don't think I've seen anybody suggest that. Rather the suggestion is that those who are better off can shoulder the part of the cost that they can without really noticing. This isn't a controversial idea, it's literally what tax brackets are.

 

[psionl0]

AAANNNDDDDDDD if you don't make $4000 but make $1000? You only pay $250 back? Great then it's not cost neutral.

* SIGH * Post #760.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Exactly. So workers don't get anything extra and pensioners don't get anything extra.

You would have to reread post $760 to see who does get anything extra (and that's the only thing that extra funds will be needed for). I doubt that you will do so. You prefer out of context grabs filled in with your own narrative because you can't deal with the real argument.

So the only tax rises needed will be those to offset the UBI EXCEPT for those needed to pay the UBI and administer the UBI. OK Great. Top logic-ing there by Mr Arithmetic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

* SIGH * Post #760.

Which sentence of the mutually contradictory ones you provided there do you want me to refer to THIS TIME exactly and how long should I assume that applies for before you change to one of the other ones.

UBI costs money. it has to cost money. Otherwise there is no new money to give out.

UBI can't replace the welfare system as it stands and I have seen no coherent proposals to achieve that. So you can't magic savings from welfare administration to pay for administering it.

So can someone, maybe you, articulate to me what the benefit of UBI actually IS over just paying people more/better welfare? For the love of God it shouldn't be this difficult to get straight answers should it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't think I've seen anybody suggest that.

Oh it was definitely suggested.

Rather the suggestion is that those who are better off can shoulder the part of the cost that they can without really noticing. This isn't a controversial idea, it's literally what tax brackets are.

That's how welfare works right now. So what's the benefit of UBI over increasing welfare?

The welfare system is already established and kind of functioning and people kind of understand it.

 

[psionl0]

So can someone, maybe you, articulate to me what the benefit of UBI actually IS over just paying people more/better welfare?

Why would anybody repeat countless posts explaining the benefits again when you are not arguing in good faith?

According to you, somebody on $4,000 per month would be paying $1,000 on the first $1,000 in tax and nothing on the other $3,000. Seriously, no normal person believes that the tax system works that way.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why would anybody repeat countless posts explaining the benefits again when you are not arguing in good faith?

Explaining what? I've asked several times and you haven't given a single benefit other than criticising me for not being able to see the advantages.

I'm not even arguing at all - I said several times I have no objection to UBI in theory - I'm asking for explanations on how it works and all I am getting in return is hand wavy BS that doesn't add up and changes from one post to the next.

According to you, somebody on $4,000 per month would be paying $1,000 on the first $1,000 in tax and nothing on the other $3,000. Seriously, no normal person believes that the tax system works that way.

That's not what I said at all. I asked if you foresaw that someone earning $1000 pays the whole $1000 back or just $250. Because in the former the tax rate is 100% and in the latter it costs money. Some people earn less than $4000 a month you know?

No normal person would interpret my post the bizarre way that you did. You are the person not arguing in good faith it seems. If you think the way to win people over to your idea is to not provide information when asked for it and to provide contradictory explanations from one post to the next then go for it, but it's not working on me so far.