Universal Income.

Hercules56 said:
We should NOT be giving UBI to employed people, as employers will just use this as an excuse to pay their workers less, since Uncle Sam will fill in the gaps.
Click to expand...

Strange then that there is ZERO evidence of that happening in any of the UBI trials that have been carried out anywhere in the world

Hercules56 said:
I guess we could give UBI to unemployed people so they can pay for food, housing, clothes, fuel, etc. But we shouldn't give them more than the bear minimum. If they want to live the good life, with a big apartment and an extra car and yearly vacations, get a ******* job!!!
Click to expand...

Aha, the usual elitist talking points, direct from chapter 1 of the right wing conservative play-book.
 
Hercules56 said:
Why should I work for my money when others can stay at home and just collect $40,000 a year for doing nothing and enjoying it?
Click to expand...

Oh Dear.

At least do some RESEARCH about a the subject, then you can come on here and debate from a position of actually knowing what you are talking about.

PS: I notice you didn't provide any evidence of this..

Hercules56 said:
We should NOT be giving UBI to employed people, as employers will just use this as an excuse to pay their workers less, since Uncle Sam will fill in the gaps.
Click to expand...

Well?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
But again my point is isn't all of this supposed to be wrong?

It doesn't matter if they have 90 gazillion dollars because of tax dividends or 90 gazillion dollars because of inheritance or 90 gazillion dollars because they family owns a oil well. Having the 90 Gazillion dollars was the problem I thought.

You can't fix unfairness by making money off of the unfairness, that just entrenches the unfairness.
Click to expand...
In the first place I'm not sure that people getting to be "too rich" is a thing to be fixed. But even if it is, why does it have to be solved by this particular initiative? I'm sure I'm worried about people being too poor.
 
smartcooky said:
Oh Dear.

At least do some RESEARCH about a the subject, then you can come on here and debate from a position of actually knowing what you are talking about.

PS: I notice you didn't provide any evidence of this..



Well?
Click to expand...

Walmart. Pays their workers **** wages and then guides them as to how to apply for welfare. ******* disgrace.
 
Hercules56 said:
Why should I work for my money when others can stay at home and just collect $40,000 a year for doing nothing and enjoying it?
Click to expand...

You think $40,000 is bad? Imagine they are getting $120,000 for doing nothing. That will really make you mad.

I mean, neither have anything to do with UBI, but if you want to be mad why half-ass it.
 
smartcooky said:
Aha, the usual elitist talking points, direct from chapter 1 of the right wing conservative play-book.
Click to expand...

Actually I think its very elitest for people to think that they deserve to be given UBI by society without earning that money. Why are they special? Others should work hard so that they can just sit pretty and make it by on charity?
 
Dr. Keith said:
You think $40,000 is bad? Imagine they are getting $120,000 for doing nothing. That will really make you mad.

I mean, neither have anything to do with UBI, but if you want to be mad why half-ass it.
Click to expand...

So UBI only means $4,000 a year? I believe a lot of people don't simply want guaranteed money, they want a guaranteed living wage. That comes out to at least $28,000 a year. And I'm sure it will need to be adjusted based on locality, so folks in New York and LA will demand $40,000 a year per household.
 
Hercules56 said:
So UBI only means $4,000 a year? I believe a lot of people don't simply want guaranteed money, they want a guaranteed living wage. That comes out to at least $28,000 a year. And I'm sure it will need to be adjusted based on locality, so folks in New York and LA will demand $40,000 a year per household.
Click to expand...
Why be sure of that? Sounds negotiable to me.
 
Hercules56 said:
Walmart. Pays their workers **** wages and then guides them as to how to apply for welfare. ******* disgrace.
Click to expand...

And this is evidence that UBI will cause employers to lower wages?

FailedStamp.png


Try again
 
smartcooky said:
Oh Dear.

At least do some RESEARCH about a the subject, then you can come on here and debate from a position of actually knowing what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of projection in the argument you're responding to, just like when Christians say that without god Atheists are going to be evil people.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think we're making a dangerous assumption that if the Bezos and Gates and other multi-billionaires are no longer keeping all of their money they will just keep working as hard and making as much.
Click to expand...
When you have that much money, most of your wealth is coming from stock options and investments, not salary. It's hard to stop earning in that situation.
 
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.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by utopian levels? Do you mean something like 100K per person in the US which would exceed the US GDP? That's would be a ridiculous strawman if someone were to say that.

All actual proposals are for something like preventing poverty, which would make a figure like 28K or less in the US a realistic proposal. In terms of "affordable" they are, pretty much by definition, affordable because the money exists and is flowing. You may not be able to get agreement on a plan to divert the money where you want it, but the money flow definitely exists.

This will put some government in charge of more money than they have ever been in charge of, but the money does exist.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
All actual proposals are for something like preventing poverty, which would make a figure like 28K or less in the US a realistic proposal.
Click to expand...
We have seen several numbers mentioned in this thread: $6K, $28K, $40K, $100K etc. The more opposed somebody is to UBI the bigger the number they fling around.

The simple fact is that it would be impossible to meet even a sensible number instantly. It will have to start at a lower level and gradually be increased as is politically and economically feasible.

I can see $6K as a doable introduction. It would immediately come off the top of existing (government provided) pensions and welfare benefits and by lowering tax free thresholds (possibly down to zero). That would benefit people who fall through the existing cracks without having much effect on anybody else.

If the marginal tax rate was 30% on the first dollar earned then somebody on UBI who worked would keep 70% of what they earned PLUS the UBI. Thia is much less punitive than for somebody on welfare who starts working.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
This is not what is proposed here.
Click to expand...

You posted this:

There are two major sources of funds for a UBI: savings from cuts to other programs and increases in taxation. Libertarians like Charles Murray and Matt Zwolinski propose using a UBI as a replacement for the welfare state. They argue most or all of the funding could come from abolishing existing programs.[21] The Economist estimates the United States could pay each person $6,300 a year if it cashed out all non-health transfer payments (the figure is $6,100 for Australia).[22] However, The Economist suggests that it is unlikely any political leader would be prepared to deny the full range of existing benefits that go to groups such as age pensioners.

What does that mean other than $6000 is available without tax increases?

As I said earlier tax increases would pay for a higher UBI, but I just can’t see governments increasing taxes.
 
I've seen UBI pilot schemes at about $2000 a month.

These are the ones that show that people are happier, healthier, and continue to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom