Slashdot Mirror

If there are 150M American adults eligible for this, and you pay them each $2000/month, that's $300B per month. Over a year, that's $3.6T.

No, its not going to cost that much because if you introduce UBI you raise income taxes so that, above a certain income threshold, what you gain in UBI you lose in tax. Preferably, you integrate UBI with the tax system so that most of UBI money never changes hands. The trick is tuning the tax system so that people in the transition from 100% UBI to 100% wages always have an incentive to earn more. But then (a) most countries already have a sophisticated redistributive tax system with various rates and thresholds and (b) existing welfare schemes already create "poverty traps" whereby people lose more in benefits than they would gain from a job, usually because of multiple, inter-dependent welfare schemes that suddenly cut off.

You're right, though - you can't just drop UBI into an existing system on its own and expect the invisible hand to sort everything else out - you have to consider the effect on everything - taxation, housing policy, healthcare, immigration, education. Lots of government intervention required - but then most countries (including the US) already have lots of government intervention, and it isn't going away. Remember - any government assistance to workers on low wages is an indirect government subsidy to businesses paying low wages.

NB: Welfare budgets are already a big chunk of GDP although its hard to find clear figures that unpick what we actually mean by "welfare". Certainly not your 20%, but that was a massive over-estimate anyhow. In the UK, this site puts "social security" at 6% GDP - that doesn't include the health service but might include other irrelevant things.

This gives a very different figure

http://www.ukpublicspending.co...

Pensions are not going into the pot - you've got to spread the welfare figure over the whole of the 18-66 age group; the local government figures are the ones that are still going to be spent - they don't make cash payments but are services to the elderly and disabled, which they won't be able to afford out of their basic income, and the fraught issue of housing; £280 is barely enough for rent in most areas, let alone to replace all welfare payments, but you're probably proposing half that from welfare deletions. To be fair you've got the impact of the disappearance of the income tax and capital gains tax thresholds, which might get you back up to £280 - but that assumes all welfare income recipients only receive basic income.

So that's why the Economist's figures are rather better than yours...

The joint strike fighter was actually an attempt to save money. Did you know that?

As to the next nine countries:
percentage GDP is what is relevant actually... and by those figures you can see the US isn't exceptional.

What is more, our military is effectively NATO, the military of Japan, the military of South Korea, the military of Australia, and also the military of Saudi Arabia and Israel which is kind of a fun combination.

Point is that you can't compare the US against non-hegemonic powers. And even if you do, as a percentage of our GDP it isn't remarkable.

Compare to this:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co...

That's what the British empire was spending around 1905 on their military:
68.1 million pounds.
which is hilariously about
4,878 million pounds in today's money. It was about half the crown's budget.

Compared to GDP:
Public Spending Chart
Fiscal Years 1905 to 1910Year GDP-UK
£ billion Population-UK
million Defence -total
percent GDP Total Spending -total
percent GDP
1905 MW gdp 43.080 3.49 a 17.82 a
1906 MW gdp 43.459 3.16 a 15.18 a
1907 MW gdp 43.840 2.89 a 14.44 a
1908 MW gdp 44.225 3.00 a 14.78 a
1909 MW gdp 44.613 2.96 a 14.73 a
1910 MW gdp 45.005 3.03 a 15.95 a

Or around 1905 they had spending around 3.5 percent of GDP going to "defense".

Comparing the US to Sweden's military budget in 2015 is stupid. Compare the US to Sweden when they kinda sorta had an empire and then make sure you compare by GDP and total tax base. You'll find the US's numbers are probably low compared to what Sweden was spending when they were actually responsible for anything besides meatballs.

97 million pounds is a pittance in a 731 billion budget. An Eurofighter Typhoon costs 110 million (marginal cost, not factoring R&D in).

Or transfer payments. Or whatever have a look into this: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html You will find: UK JSA payments = 5.9bn Social exclusion NEC 28.8bn http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2013/GB2013_Ch8.pdf States that this 28bn is welfare payments made to WORKING people, in the form of tax credits. From 2002 till about 2009 there was a scam going on, whereby if you worked less, the government effectively topped up your wages to almost but not quite the amount you would receive if you were working full time. As such from 2002-2009 there were tons of 16.5 hour jobs. A person working 40 hours vs 16.5hours the pay difference was £10 or £20. As a result millions of people went part time and their standard of living did not change. Working people can also claim housing and child benefits too. As a response corporations cut wages to the minimum realising that the state would top up the pay of its workers and very few jobs were more than 16.5h. This was intentional of course as the then government tried to create a client state.

Reality check: governments don't just spend money on domestic services. All corporation tax in the UK combined just about pays for the military - just. Alternatively, interest payments, but again, just barely.

I work for Google. Not in the UK but I'm a British citizen. I think it's easy for governments to emotionally manipulate people over tax. Look at those nasty tax avoiding immoral scumbags! Think about all the roads and hospitals they're cheating us out of! They're the reason we have to cut services!!!

But you know what, you could just as easily say, "Corporations are reducing their corporate tax bill. Perhaps this will force the government to spend less on invading other countries. Then they can keep frontline services AND we'll live in a more peaceful world. Win!".

Seriously. When was the last time the so-called Ministory of Defence actually defended the British Isles? World War 2? In recent times it's pissed away billions upon billions of pounds blowing up goat herders in Afghanistan, just to please the Americans. Look at the UK public spending. The government spent 33.5 billion on education (of which around a third is subsidies for university degrees that often lead to no employment), and 45 billion on war. Roads, by the way, were only 3.6 billion of spending but fuel tax receipts last year were 25 billion, so corporation tax rates could be cut to zero and roads would still be easily funded by taxes on those who drive on them!

You seem to have a short memory. New Labour under Blair and Brown were running an increased deficit during the boom, even after increasing taxes. There was no room left for the government to do something with the economy when the recession came.

On the contrary, I have a very good memory.

Government debt stood at 29% of GDP in 2002, and had increased to 37% before the crash in 2007, despite incredibly strong economic conditions. What exactly do you think was going to happen? That's why it's spiralled so quickly to 90% of GDP.

WRONG!
UK debt end 1998 : 410,2 G£, i. e. 46,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 1999 : 405,7 G£, i. e. 43,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2000 : 400,6 G£, i. e. 41,0 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2001 : 385,5 G£, i. e. 37,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2002 : 402,9 G£, i. e. 37,5 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2003 : 441,1 G£, i. e. 38,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2004 : 487,9 G£, i. e. 40,4 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2005 : 529,4 G£, i. e. 42,3 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2006 : 573,3 G£, i. e. 43,4 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2007 : 618,4 G£, i. e. 44,2 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2008 : 750,3 G£, i. e. 52,0 % of GDP (ONS)
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2010UKp_11s1li011lcn_G0t_UK_National_Debt_As_Pct_GDP

So where's the debt crisis? It oscillated around 40% during the recent "good" years. It only started growing in 2008 because of the freaking global crisis. There was NO reason for austerity. And the effects of austerity turned out to be self-defeating - the projections show that their effects on deficit are minimal.

Everyone preaching about debt should read http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393088774 . Go on, read it.

The current governments cannot afford fair wages instead of benefits unfortunately.

Governments claim lots of things. The problem is not a lack of money (one man's debt is another man's credit) but that money is increasingly being channeled towards special interests in every sector.

I certainly agree with that.

Social benefits, especially in Europe, is a huge factor in financing a country, second after keeping the financial industry alive.

Welfare in the sense of unemployment, disability and child allowances (excluding education) make up about 16% of the UK budget - and that's factoring in the huge inefficiencies made by contracting work out to state-capitalist organisations such as ATOS.

Unfortunately, that's only a small part of the total spend on welfare state related expenditures. That's not wrong, of course, having a happy society, explicitly including the persons currently without a job is what it is all about. But if you would employ all the people that receive welfare, well, that's certainly going to cost money. Lots and lots of it.

The way to handle unemployed, in my opinion, is to have them working on something that is usefull, but out of reach of the current budget. And there are oodles of things that can be done. Creating nicer neighbourhoods, creating new parks/forests, helping the elderly (supervised and voluntarily of course), helping with open source products, etc. etc. etc.

Do they have to look for work 8 hours a day as well, or are you suggesting that the government take back the responsibility for helping people find jobs (public or private sector)?

Paid workers and genuine volunteers already do the above things. If society cannot find enough volunteers but wants certain work to be done then it can cough up the money to pay people to do it. Again, there is not a lack of money, there is just ever-growing inequality. Put bluntly: the rich can pay higher taxes to pay the unemployed to make their community better. If we can force the poor to be "volunteers" then we can force the rich to be "philanthropists", right?

Of course not. That's why I said "mornings", I think you should read what is implied. And I don't even say each and every morning, and I would certainly exclude job finding activities or education. Current society is very individual, unfortunately, so finding volunteers is hard, and we just cannot pay for every nice thing.

you would end up with a communist kind of workforce, which is *not* a good thing.

What's good is what alleviates the suffering of the people in the short and long term. If your definition of "communist" (which I guess isn't the same as mine) applies then who cares?

See Greece. It's certainly not their only problem, but having a (huge) trade deposit and many people employed by the government certainly does not help.

It's not that I would not like for that to happen, you might be surprised that I'm quite left wing in my beliefs (heck, I'm even member of a left-wing party). However, if there are unemployed people out there doing nothing, well, that certainly does not help anybody, including themselves. So then you end up thinking of ways in which they create a possitive contribution, without endangering the economy or the - already sliding - state budgets.

Maybe it's the part of "handle the unemployed" part that sparked your ignition, but that was certainly not intended.

The current governments cannot afford fair wages instead of benefits unfortunately.

Governments claim lots of things. The problem is not a lack of money (one man's debt is another man's credit) but that money is increasingly being channeled towards special interests in every sector.

Social benefits, especially in Europe, is a huge factor in financing a country, second after keeping the financial industry alive.

Welfare in the sense of unemployment, disability and child allowances (excluding education) make up about 16% of the UK budget - and that's factoring in the huge inefficiencies made by contracting work out to state-capitalist organisations such as ATOS.

The way to handle unemployed, in my opinion, is to have them working on something that is usefull, but out of reach of the current budget. And there are oodles of things that can be done. Creating nicer neighbourhoods, creating new parks/forests, helping the elderly (supervised and voluntarily of course), helping with open source products, etc. etc. etc.

Do they have to look for work 8 hours a day as well, or are you suggesting that the government take back the responsibility for helping people find jobs (public or private sector)?

Paid workers and genuine volunteers already do the above things. If society cannot find enough volunteers but wants certain work to be done then it can cough up the money to pay people to do it. Again, there is not a lack of money, there is just ever-growing inequality. Put bluntly: the rich can pay higher taxes to pay the unemployed to make their community better. If we can force the poor to be "volunteers" then we can force the rich to be "philanthropists", right?

you would end up with a communist kind of workforce, which is *not* a good thing.

What's good is what alleviates the suffering of the people in the short and long term. If your definition of "communist" (which I guess isn't the same as mine) applies then who cares?

Some economists debate if the number should be 30 or 40%. Others look at historical debt levels and aren't that fussed (cf deficit levels, which every economist is fussed about). See here, for example: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

Re my other comment: just by tweaking what I wrote slightly, it becomes not an over-simplification but accurate:
"A national economy in which everyone, including the government, pays down debt and stops spending is an economy that is shrinking." becomes
"A national economy in which everyone, including the government, pays down debt and cuts spending significantly is an economy that is shrinking."

Austerity programmes shrink GDP unless very carefully handled. There are dozens of examples of this, including of it leading to more significant structural deficits as two things happen in tandem:
- GDP falls faster than debt levels
- Debt servicing costs increase as lenders worry about the fall in GDP

Nope. Not a FUD. Wanna bet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15653282 - trade is flagging,
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt - debt is growing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/31/business-confidence-lowest-for-30-months - business confidence craters.
Deficits are not significantly affected.

However, economy has slowed down into almost a double-dip so lost revenue growth over 10 years would be more than "savings" from austerity.

So, remind me, what austerity program tries to achieve? I distinctly remember words like 'business confidence' and 'spur the investments' - both have demonstrably failed to happen.

England's debt-to-gdp ratio has reached well over 200%, once to fund the industrial revolution, and again to fight WWII. And yet the grandchildren of the people in those times enjoy a substantially higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, etc.

So when have the predictions about grandchildren suffering because of national debt ever come true?