UBI
- Thread starter ~IRWT~
- Start date
I agree. I think it is a well thought out idea. I am not sold on it for a couple reasons.
1. 1k a month is dogshit.
2. No matter how low or high you set the min. amount it cones back to my argument with a min wage increase. You inflate the economy artificially and prices will adjuat so ultimately everyone at the 1k level is still dirt poir and thw middle class has less purchasing power.
I am open to be convinced though.
They do make valid, and important, points though regarding automation and how it's going to impact jobs in the future.
I agree. Add to that the massive increases in transportation outside of pupulation cebtera when vehicle automation grows. Its an ugly thought.
The 1K a month is not meant to make people rich. It's meant to help alleviate the majority of America's economic anxiety of living paycheck to paycheck or being traumatized by a big unexpected bill. My family does pretty well for itself but an extra $2k a month would certainly have its impact. Even if that just goes into a college saving account.
The only inflation we see is in housing, healthcare, and education. That is because there isn't a mechanism to keep those prices in check. This would not hurt the competitive economy because it still needs to remain competitive...and increasingly tech advances are reducing overhead. Things are actually getting cheaper in many cases. Yang claims that the increased spending power would leads to more vibrancy in the economy.
It relies on a lot of assumptions and good triumphing greed. The latter is 100%. It’s great in theory, but practically it’ll fail.
Nope. It's universal. It would be your right as a citizen regardless of income. If you are already getting income assistance you would get the balance.
If it is truly 1k per adult regardless of income I need to rethink what was said in the video. I still belueve that if you increase everyones income by some artificial means it will also artificially affect inflation and hurt the people it is supposed to help.
I wouldnt call it punished but I believe SS would replace your UBI. As it stats, this is for "basic income". SS would be basic income. I assume if there would be a balance if your SS doesnt hit $1k. I honestly have no idea what SS pays since I am a long ways off from those days.
Ignioring economic concerns and extra 2300 a month for my household would be awesome. I still have to think about big picture though.
I have a family member on SSI disability and she gets about 725 a month. I think if I work till 65 or whatever the basic age is I would be looking at about 1300 a month roughy.
Just FYI. Not endorsing or criticizing the plan. From the website.
Those who served our country and are facing a disability as a result will continue to receive their benefits on top of the $1,000 per month.
Social Security retirement benefits stack with UBI. Since it is a benefit that people pay into throughout their lives, that money is properly viewed as belonging to them, and they shouldn’t need to choose.
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is based on earned work credits. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a means-tested program. You can collect both SSDI and $1,000 a month. Most people who are legally disabled receive both SSDI and SSI. Under the universal basic income, those who are legally disabled would have a choice between collecting SSDI and the $1,000, or collecting SSDI and SSI, whichever is more generous.
Even some people who receive more than $1,000 a month in SSI would choose to take the Freedom Dividend because it has no preconditions. Basic income removes these requirements and guarantees an income, regardless of other factors.
So, some government assistance/benefits would still be paid on top of the 1k.
And taxes would be increased on the middle class and up to pay for the UBI...You can't give everyone in the USA $12k a year and not have it funded by tax increases. If they increase corp. taxes, prices will adjust accordingly to pay for it. I can see a lot of meth and heroin addicts having a lot of fun with the additional $1k a month on top of what they could steal.
I'm hearing it the same way. If you are receiving $2500/month in social security benefits, you would still receive that same amount. You would not get the UBI payment of $1k/month on top of that. If you were receiving $700/month in food stamps, you would only get an additional $300/month to increase your benefit to $1k/month.
I'm sure there are downsides. I do think he sells the idea very well though. He's obviously put a ton of thought into it.
As for $1k/month not being enough to really support a person, I tend to agree. I don't think you want to make it an amount that will support a person though. That's how you try to force the productivity concern. You still have to go out and find a way to make enough on top of that to make ends meet, at a minimum. The sales pitch he gives to CEOs is a good one. Basically, it adds to their tax burden, but that money is coming back in the way of more aggregated purchasing power for consumers.
I like the guy. He's obviously a thinker. He makes his point very well. I'm not saying I'm convinced, but I'm less skeptical than I was initially.
My top concern is the same as with a static minimum wage. If the value doesn't adjust on some reasonable automatic scale, you get diminishing returns to corporations who have to support this.
Also, this will be a political football in the future. Someone will run on raising that $1k to $2k. Someone else will run on cutting that $1k to everyone to $1k to people below some income line. Another will say that retirees should get the $1k in addition to social security. The beauty of our system is that it is a dynamic system - you can change things as you see fit within the limitations of the Constitution. With things like this, that can reveal the ugly side of our system too.
He lays out a fairly good plan to pay for this, going of the money we are currently spending on low income folks and retirees. That's already part of the $1k/month, and that's currently about half what he's claiming this program will cost. He's adding $800 billion through a 4% VAT - not saying that's good or bad, just how he's funding it. He's probably playing a guessing game in terms of savings from some other things - cost of incarceration drops due to fewer criminals, for example.
The addicts are addicted, They are going to spend money to get their fix by hook or crook. That's $1k that they don't have to steal or swindle (assuming the worst case addict here). That's a reduction in property crimes and assaults, and policing, trying, and punishing those has a cost to the tax payer. Some addicts might use that $1k/month to help fund rehab.
I'm not saying that you're wrong to be skeptical. You're not, and I'm skeptical as well. I'm simply playing devil's advocate.
That really depends on what specific benefits we are talking about. Some stack. See the post I made above.
Jailed people would forfeit the dividend. Could be a deterrent. Taxes would come at the expense of automating tech companies who will control grossly absurd share of wealth and are the reason for the displacement. Not a knock on them but this is too help to curb a widening dystopia due to accelerating tech advances. It’s a real problem and we are only on the fringes. Wait until it hits across industry. Man is trying to get in front of a really serious generational issue.
Good point on addicts and let’s not dictate US economic policy based on what meth heads will do. This isn’t about them. It’s about what might help the other 90% who aren’t drug addicts or millionaires.
I didn't see it until after I posted. I don't disagree. That's not what I took away from Yang's description in the video, but even I have been known to make a mistake.
I agree he lays it out well. His plan to pay for it sounds good but I think he might be a bit optimistic about how current entitlements would cut oout such a large portion of the bill. A VAT is a pretty big deal too. That would hit liwer to middle class pockets harder. Of course the 1k per person helps them more.
.I thought Yangs description on the video is a lot different than what IRWT and Boomerwv have presented but it was only a 15 minute video.
If the VAT is as low as 4%, the number drawn from Yang's example ($800 billion earned off $20 trillion in commerce), that $1/month swallows up to $25k in VAT paid on purchases. That also obviously shows that the VAT can't pay for the whole stipend (for lack of a better word).
me too, just like everything else in life, if you give someone a 1k a month they will blow it and still expect the other free subsidies to pick it up. Healthcare is a perfect example. Obamacare was supposed to cut total healthcare costs by getting those who need it the most (diabetes and hypertension) to get access to preventive care. Guess what, they never engaged and still used the ER for acute emergencies instead of managing a very manageable chronic problem. This will be no different.
wishful thinking. If you think someone will suddenly find the light for 1 k a month, you are sorely mistaken. I would venture that it will increase crime for the most in need. If they know the skinny old lady gets a $1k on the 5th of the month, they will be robbed by the 6th.
So let’s just gather round the camp fire and direct our economy on what might happen in the hallows. Police yourselves.
I think the argument about reducing crime is partly about reducing recidivism. Once someone is released from prison, finding legal income is difficult. This would be a jump start to that.
In terms of people robbing the little old lady because she gets her UBI check is not valid. She's already getting her social security check once a month. This is no more incentive to rob her than that.
Earlier, you mentioned to me that you thought people would just blow the money and want more help. Those people are already doing that. I can't say that I'm in total disagreement with this concern though. That was part of what I was thinking earlier when I discussed possible pitfalls, and how this could be another political football. Your concern would be a possible driving force behind that move.
Since the dawn of man there has always been crime on the fringes of society. Nothing will change it. Be it amongst the poor or white collar. That is what police is apparently for. Can’t dictate policy based on the fringe.
Im not gonna say a VAT doesnt or cant work but it is another tax on goods and services. With the advances in automation maybe it makes sense since companies will save on workforce. I jist dont know.
It’s a really good point you raise and his idea, while haven’t changed my mind, certainly has me researching this topic more. Thanks for bringing it to the board. I still feel like it will be wrought with abuse like other well intentioned and poorly executed programs.
If anyone thinks that a VAT tax and a national basic income is going to save America, we should just become a socialist country and be done with it. There has already been a couple of pilot programs in Europe and CA doing exactly this and it did not deliver the outcomes that they wanted.
This is basically the NGD, only for income. Taxing people and giving it back in the form a salary is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth scheme. On top of that, VAT taxes will impact the poor worse than than the better off, as most of their income will eaten up with a tax. Some VAT taxes are as high as 25% in some countries, which would in essence just recycle money but have no real impact.
When will this great society be initiated by the robots? I will venture to say that when the time comes that machines do the majority of the work in 1st world countries, the 3rd world countries will be effectively become slave societies or wiped out due to war.
This is basically the NGD, only for income. Taxing people and giving it back in the form a salary is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth scheme. On top of that, VAT taxes will impact the poor worse than than the better off, as most of their income will eaten up with a tax. Some VAT taxes are as high as 25% in some countries, which would in essence just recycle money but have no real impact.
When will this great society be initiated by the robots? I will venture to say that when the time comes that machines do the majority of the work in 1st world countries, the 3rd world countries will be effectively become slave societies or wiped out due to war.
Why are we so resigned to robots taking all the jobs? Sounds like the same scare tactics people have been using for decades or longer. Technology is always rapidly advancing making economies more efficient, creating new/better opportunities. Sure some industries and workers will be displaced, but overall we will be better.
Within 20 years we could easily see a major shift in where manufacturing is way more automated than it is today. Hell, I've even seen videos of robot brick layers. Between sharks with lasers, robots could be out walking our dogs, making our lunch and satisfying mule's sexual needs.