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 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.
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!
Finland, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, and the UK already has systems in place to make sure that people doesn't starve or end up homeless.
The cost is already there. Switching to UBI doesn't necessarily require higher taxes. Especially since you no longer need government workers investigating who is entitled to extra support.
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
It doesn't make much sense to contribute to a plan that can't actually be implemented unless everyone has to contribute by law.The US will never have single payer healthcare for the same specious argument. So enjoy that bucket of crabs you're in.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Some of it is supposed to be paid for by eliminating the enormous welfare bureaucracy associated with the alphabet soup of individual welfare programs, the means testing, the monitoring, etc.
Just because $1 in tax money goes into a welfare program does not mean that $1 in benefits was received by a recipient. Much of that $1 went into the budgets, salaries and operations involved in running that program.
With UBI you eliminate all of that. You get a check and the progressive tax code decides whether it's net positive for you when your total income (UBI + wages) goes above the income level of benefits eligibility.
In fact, I think it makes sense if a person gets $25,000 UBI, makes $5,000 working that they should somehow net out something more than $25,000 and less than $30,000. We want people to have an incentive to keep working, and not losing all benefits because of *any* work goes a long way to providing that incentive. A big problem with many current welfare programs is the complexity of means testing and the games people play to get benefits though they don't qualify or to kill work incentives so they continue to get benefits.
I was born and raised in a country with "single payer healthcare" — USSR.
Well, that explains a lot. You even put it in quotes, suggesting even you can tell the difference between communism and what we're talking about.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Please tell me, what happens when half (or more) of the population is on UBI and the other half is taxed to the point of quitting and going on UBI.
Let's try this again.
At $50,000 of gross income, a 1-adult household takes home $40,106 today, and $46,671 under the Universal Social Security. A 2-adult, married household takes home $42,128 today, and $55,100 under the Universal Social Security.
At $200,000 of gross income, a 1-adult household takes home $144,620 today, and $145,626 under the Universal Social Security. A 2-adult, married household takes home $147,865 today, and $155,223 under the Universal Social Security.
At $25,000,000 of gross income, a 1-adult household takes home $15,138,261 today, and $15,134,880 (-$3,381; this is static after about $500k) under the Universal Social Security. A 2-adult, married household takes home $15,143,343 today, and $15,143,865 (+$522) under the Universal Social Security.
Are you suggesting single filers making over $200k will quit and live on the UBI because of a 0.67% peak increase in total income taxes (something I could buff out easily enough, but I got tired of tweaking the brackets); that single filers making $1M will quit because of a 0.34% increase in total taxes paid; that single filers making $25 million in total compensation will quit because of a 0.014% increase in total income taxes; or that married households making over $500k will quit because they only get about $500 of additional spending money per year?
Please specify.
Support my political activism on Patreon.