Slashdot Mirror
Support For a Universal Basic Income Is Inching Up In Europe (qz.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Finland and the Netherlands are running modest pilots, and others are being considered by governments in France, Switzerland, and the UK, and by a host of nonprofits. To gauge public enthusiasm for the idea, Dalia Research, a Berlin-based market research firm, has been surveying Europeans' attitudes toward basic income since 2016. They've found a warm welcome. In a March survey, 68% of Europeans said they would vote yes in a basic-income referendum, up from 64% last year. The survey was put to 11,000 citizens in 28 European Union states and has a 1.1% margin of error. But not everyone is ready to see it implemented right away -- 48% said they wanted to test the policy first, while 31% advocated for adopting it as soon as possible. The 24% of respondents who opposed a UBI in both years were most concerned about the economic impact, including the expense, the risk of reducing the motivation to work, and the possibility foreigners would take exploit it. Those in favor of a UBI were most convinced by the promise of increased security and freedom, namely a reduced financial anxiety over meeting basic needs, more equality in opportunities, and the prospect of greater financial independence and self-reliance.
I suppose, it depends on how the question is phrased:
Would you like to be given money even if you do not work? Hell yah! Would you like to pay higher taxes so that some of it will be given to others even if they do not work? Hell no!In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm actually all for UBI, provided they kill the minimum wage and a bunch of social programs along with it. It would increase efficiency overall, be a boon to small employers and their employees, and raise the standard of living for the lower 50%.
The problem will be when able bodied people decide to live only on UBI and nothing else. That's detrimental to society and a mechanism should be put in place to prevent that.
Smoking pot in your parents' basement and collecting a check from the government to pay for your weed and doritos is not a valid occupation.
Well... yes, of course everyone generally wants free money, right? Of course they're going to vote for it.
But someone please correct my thought experiment here to understand who will pay for it:
Suppose our society is just 100 people. We're going to give everyone $30,000 in basic income, for example. Where does it come from? Everyone pays $30,000 in taxes to fund the pool of money that pays everyone $30,000 each? What would be the point of that?
No, it must be that people at the top of the income scale are taxed (in a sliding proportion up the scale of course) to pay for the people at the bottom of the scale who aren't making any income that can be taxed? The guy making $1M at the top of society gets taxed 50% to fund 16 people at the bottom who get the basic income and don't have income to be taxed. The 2nd guy making $900k gets taxed 40% to pay for 12 people earning the basic income, etc. etc. and down the scale.
How else would it work?
So this is basically a large wealth transfer (which all taxes in principle are), not some utopian new idea that somehow pays for itself, right?
What am I missing? The role of corporations? The internet? What makes this different from just another kind of tax and welfare system, or somehow magically paid for because of today's economic dynamics? Scale it to a country's population size, and all we're doing is saying that the very wealthiest at the top can afford to pay this tax, and they're a very small portion of the population, right? (this tax is all the more affordable to the general population, the more the income inequality curve is distorted from a flat distribution - in fact in a flat distribution you cannot afford to pay a basic income)
Or am I missing something?
I mean, if it's not universal, than it's not a Universal Basic Income.
I could see doing it on a regional basis -- but you'd have to be kind of a hard-ass about it and be fairly committed to it.
Restrict it to only residents of the region at the time it started. Actually dismantle that region's regular welfare system, so you know exactly what cost savings you are gaining. I don't see either of those as being easy or palatable.
Which seems to be the major problem with a UBI -- you can model the shit out of it and say it makes sense, but until you do it -- and make it Universal -- you don't know.
And it still leaves a lot of uncomfortable questions -- what about immigrants? How long are they there until they're eligible? Diverse welfare payments are easier in that situation, because you can say "well, immigrants should get housing and job training, but not actual unemployment payments" or however you slice it.
FWIW, I think a negative income tax type of UBI makes sense, especially if it allows for marginal, low-wage employment without completely eliminating UBI payments (they should get zeroed out by taxes, but only once income rises above some level greater than UBI itself). I think providing people an incentive to work, even at low wage jobs (ie, more total income) makes sense, and would have a lot of positive impacts on working conditions. Low wage employers wouldn't be able to treat workers like slaves because homelessness and starvation wouldn't be the alternatives.
Rich people tend to want to live in nice places, and generally have the extra money to pay for that privilege. Living in a place with good schools, good health care, and a good safety net creates the type of society where the wealthy and upper middle class want to live. The lower crime alone which comes from these services is arguably worth it.
You don't see too many rich people leaving for third world countries just because the taxes are lower. You may see some middle class people moving to Thailand to make their retirement money stretch, but those with real wealth paying most of the taxes tend to desire well countries with the powerful governments necessary to run a modern society. And they have the money to pay for it.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Until it runs out.... See Greece and Venezuela if you don't believe me.
OR...
Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Peter....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's always so much easier to decide how to employ other peoples labour
We lack the willpower to let those who mismanage their UBI payments die in the streets. Lots of people are poor because they lack the capacity to plan ahead. Not all, of course, but many. Those people are going to waste their UBI payments, and we will not be willing to let them starve or die of exposure. So, we will either add a new government program to spend their money wisely instead of letting them waste it, or we'll recreate the same old system of free housing and food stamps that we have now, just this time with higher taxes.
See that "Preview" button?
The difference is, back then one earner could provide a middle-class life for a family. Nowdays, two earners barely provide a working class life, and that's with at least one working 2-3 jobs.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.