Universal Income.

Orphia Nay said:
You haven't been following what I've been saying.

Centrelink costs more than a UBI.
How will "ordinary taxpayers" suddenly pay more tax?
Click to expand...

I’d like to see evidence for that. If the UBI is $20000+ (as it needs to be to replace pensions and other benefits) a UBI will cost far more than Centrelink.

Where will the money come from?
 
psionl0 said:
Then you heard wrong.
Click to expand...

The only people I have heard in interviews saying it would be a replacment are the Opportunities party, who frankly have zero chance of ever bein in govt, never mind having a say in it.
 
cullennz said:
The only people I have heard in interviews saying it would be a replacment are the Opportunities party, who frankly have zero chance of ever bein in govt, never mind having a say in it.
Click to expand...
I doubt that you are looking very hard.

The only people this thread who are saying that UBI will be on top of pensions are the ones who are opposed to it.
 
psionl0 said:
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. :boggled:

WIKI.
Click to expand...

I mean, I just explained why UBI will fail. Band-aids don't treat gaping head wounds. But you're right. Nobody but conspiracy theorists like me seem to support abolishing the free money system. Everybody just wants their cut of the free money. They will get it, it just won't matter.

Yang was never any real opposition to anything meaningful. The last real opposition was the Reece Committee in 1954.
 
lionking said:
I’d like to see evidence for that. If the UBI is $20000+ (as it needs to be to replace pensions and other benefits) a UBI will cost far more than Centrelink.

Where will the money come from?
Click to expand...

UBI will be funded by MMT, which is to say, basically the same as other government programs now. The money will be created out of thin air.
 
psionl0 said:
I doubt that you are looking very hard.

The only people this thread who are saying that UBI will be on top of pensions are the ones who are opposed to it.
Click to expand...

Even if this is true I don't see why paying millionaires a UBI and then trying to just get it back costing heaps after their accountants have done everything within the current laws to avoid paying tax is a particularly fruitful excericise, over just giving a benefit to those that need it.
 
cullennz said:
Even if this is true I don't see why paying millionaires a UBI and then trying to just get it back costing heaps after their accountants have done everything within the current laws to avoid paying tax is a particularly fruitful excericise, over just giving a benefit to those that need it.
Click to expand...

Maybe they figure the costs of clawing it back through the tax code are cheaper than the costs of trying to figure out who qualifies in the first place.

I just wonder what happens to the real economy when millions of workers all over the globe decide that it's better to live off the teat. I have a friend who is a regional manager of a large restaurant chain in the US (Hooters). He says that the restaurant business is in chaos. Costs are skyrocketing, there are chicken and other shortages, and it's very very difficult to find help, in between the stimulus payments and the unemployment bennies. His workers that are left are working insane hours under difficult conditions.
 
Tippit said:
Maybe they figure the costs of clawing it back through the tax code are cheaper than the costs of trying to figure out who qualifies in the first place.

I just wonder what happens to the real economy when millions of workers all over the globe decide that it's better to live off the teat. I have a friend who is a regional manager of a large restaurant chain in the US (Hooters). He says that the restaurant business is in chaos. Costs are skyrocketing, there are chicken and other shortages, and it's very very difficult to find help, in between the stimulus payments and the unemployment bennies. His workers that are left are working insane hours under difficult conditions.
Click to expand...

I actually think that if you could earn as much money with a job as you like while having a UBI, most people would still work.

Purely out of boredom more than anything else.

The issue then though would be (I know posters disagree) inflation on everything when everyone has more money.

I just think it is inevitable and the people screwed through no fault of their own due to health etc would be even more worse off.
 
it’s cheaper to collect a set amount of the estimated taxes and then issue a refund at the end of the year. Likely easier to issue the UBI tbt same way and determine how much that effects the taxes on the yearly earnings later also.
 
cullennz said:
I actually think that if you could earn as much money with a job as you like while having a UBI, most people would still work.

Purely out of boredom more than anything else.

The issue then though would be (I know posters disagree) inflation on everything when everyone has more money.

I just think it is inevitable and the people screwed through no fault of their own due to health etc would be even more worse off.
Click to expand...

I think inflation is the reason why UBI couldn’t be enough to sustain a household alone without most people continuing to work. However I think it’s a good economic boost people could use on luxuries when employed and a solid safety net to get over the hump in tough times.
 
The other big thing (and I might be just being paranoid). What happens to long term ACC people if the UBI works out less.

And does a UBI replace the ACC or add to it.
 
cullennz said:
I actually think that if you could earn as much money with a job as you like while having a UBI, most people would still work.

Purely out of boredom more than anything else.
Click to expand...

Lol no. But they would work for the extra income, certainly. Does anyone work out of boredom? They can just take up a hobby they enjoy.

The issue then though would be (I know posters disagree) inflation on everything when everyone has more money.
Click to expand...

If MMT (by the book) gets simultaneously implemented, then conventional tax receipts get destroyed, which would be a deflationary offset to the inflationary effect of monetizing the UBI funding. On the other hand, the "debt ceiling" would go away, and the US Treasury would become an even more profligate spender than it already is. I guess you're from NZ. I presume it would work similarly, although I don't know if NZ has a debt ceiling. I'm guessing that given Jacinda Ardern is PM the answer is no.

As far as I know, this lunatic is one of the few politicians mentioning MMT, and she definitely supports UBI:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says the theory that deficit spending is good for the economy should 'absolutely' be part of the conversation
 
dirtywick said:
I think inflation is the reason why UBI couldn’t be enough to sustain a household alone without most people continuing to work. However I think it’s a good economic boost people could use on luxuries when employed and a solid safety net to get over the hump in tough times.
Click to expand...

MMT and UBI pretty much have to be joined at the hip, because of the ensuing inflation, and the government will have to cut spending/raise taxes either way to the degree that UBI equals more net welfare.

On the flip side, I think it's marginally better for the government to just hand people money to spend on the private sector, as opposed to more failed government programs. For example, the infamous Nazi Donald Trump signed the MISSION Act which basically gave Veterans money to spend on private healthcare and enabled them to avoid the failing Veteran's Administration under certain conditions. It worked well.
 
Tippit said:
Lol no. But they would work for the extra income, certainly. Does anyone work out of boredom? They can just take up a hobby they enjoy.



/QUOTE]

I know a couple of people who work just purely for non boredom. Own their own houses, no mortgage etc, have rentals.

Personally would be bored ****less on the dole without some sort of regimen and brain stiimulous from a job.

Admittedly they don't tend to work full time.

Personally have a feeling I would just become a right pice of *****, if I had nothing kicking me to be awake every morning.

But then I could just be a weirdo.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If I had UBI as a base, I would have kept on writing, which would have definitely been more rewarding, if not more lucrative than my career path which left me with some personal investments, a decent IRA, a bad back, and worn out hips and knees. The employment-related health issues may well drain my investments, despite a slightly better than decent insurance package.

If anyone ever offers you a seemingly attractive management position, but then informs you it would require "some" physical involvement, run like hell while you still can.
 
Tippit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Left-wing people never complain about the inequalities created by capitalism? How confident, on a scale of 1-10, are you of that assertion?
 
TomB said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've changed from talking about people working two part-time fast food jobs to talking about full-time social carers.

Yes, the price of some services will have to go up. Those effects will be market-wide, and don't amount to a much higher cost of living compared to before the introduction of higher wages.

So if it's true that traditionally lower-paid jobs will start paying more, then the net result is still positive, especially for the people at the bottom of the ladder.
 
Tippit said:
Maybe they figure the costs of clawing it back through the tax code are cheaper than the costs of trying to figure out who qualifies in the first place.

I just wonder what happens to the real economy when millions of workers all over the globe decide that it's better to live off the teat. I have a friend who is a regional manager of a large restaurant chain in the US (Hooters). He says that the restaurant business is in chaos. Costs are skyrocketing, there are chicken and other shortages, and it's very very difficult to find help, in between the stimulus payments and the unemployment bennies. His workers that are left are working insane hours under difficult conditions.
Click to expand...

A quick google indicates that Hooters pays low wages (as most server positions do), has horrible working conditions, bad management, and has been known to violate wage laws meaning that when not in a position to earn tips staff are still paid at a rate that is supposed to be topped up by tips.

Honestly, when there are millions out of work in a country where economic insecurity is rife and a certain business finds it hard to attract staff the question shouldn't be "what's wrong with the population?" but "what's wrong with the job?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom