Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in His Harvard Commencement Speech (fortune.com)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has become the latest major tech figure to call for universal basic income as a solution for inequality, joining a growing chorus from Silicon Valley. From a report: "Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his commencement speech at Harvard University. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things," he said. Zuckerberg told the class of 2017 that he was able to pursue his passion in Facebook because he knew he had a safety net to fall back on.
UBI has been getting more press lately and it's a little hard for me to see how it makes sense. It seems like welfare for everybody, regardless of need. IMHO it tries to solve the problem from the wrong direction. One of the most important things for human mental health is to have something to do. UBI does nothing to address that, and without opportunity the money will just be used for drugs far too often. Programs like the New Deal make a lot more sense. Paying people's expenses while they are in training also make sense. Blank checks require more personal responsibility than you can expect out of the population at large.
I read the internet for the articles.
... to let people starve in the streets, why not?
We run these patchworks of programmes to try to approximate the effects of universal basic income. Lost your job? Unemployment insurance. Chronically unemployed? Food assistance, welfare, etc. Homeless? Housing assistance / public housing / shelters. Too old to work? Pensions / social security, and in the US, Medicare. Too poor for health insurance in the US? Medicaid. Physically can't work? Disability. Job wouldn't pay enough to afford basic expenses? Minimum wage. On and on.
Isn't it about time that we just simply accept what we're trying to approximate, and just do it directly? Then scrap the patchwork of programmes that try to approximate it, and all of their overhead (ex: all of them), market distortion (ex: minimum wage), and perverse incentives (ex: trying not to earn too much to avoid losing benefits). People can reasonably differ about the amount that defines "basic needs", how much if any to boost people who "permanently can't work" vs. those who simply don't have a job for whatever reason, how to deal with dependents, etc. But it certainly simplifies the debate versus having a whole complex and inefficient patchwork to argue over.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
Perhaps he can take $60 billion of that and fund 10 million people with a $6,000 UBI all by himself? He'd still have that massive $3 billion to live on and feel guilty about...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
He doesn't need unskilled workers he can make slave away for pennies, knowing that their option is to either work 20+ hours a day for you or starve to death!
The world is going to come to an end if we actually had to pay people to flip burgers, stock stores and bag your groceries enough money that any person with a sliver of self respect would do it! If we cannot press people to slave labour anymore, our way of life is going to come to an end. People will have to bag their own groceries, like those Euros where minimum wage exists and you can't afford baggers!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Facebook are one of a number of companies that have a habit of using exotic international tax vehicles to move profits from countries where corporation taxes are reasonable to countries where they are super-low. As a result of this, personal taxation in the countries where Facebook export their profits have to be higher. Which pushes down the standard of living for citizens in those countries.
I get that this speech was more about marketing and PR than actually intending to do anything useful, but in the event that Mr Zuckerberg would like to make a positive start to inequality, can I respectfully suggest that he pays taxes where they are due, and makes a declaration that Facebook will no longer use "international tax vehicles" to move profits around and thereby avoid paying taxes.
If Mr Zuckerberg and/or Facebook aren't willing to do that, then can I respectfully suggest that he is full of ####.
There are a lot of proposals, but the fully costed ones I've seen for the UK set the UBI rate at about the same as the current tax-free earning allowance. They then raise each of the tax brackets' rates by a few percent, and introduce one extra one for people earning more than £100K/year. The last one I looked at would leave me about £1000/year worse off, but people on minimum wage jobs better off. It would also be likely to bring a lot of people back into part-time work, as they wouldn't face losing unemployment benefits if they worked a little bit (and would be paying tax on that income for every pound that they actually earned, though at a low rate). It seemed like a pretty good deal for me.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I think he knows it all too well.
First of all, please stop confusing economy and finance. At no point in history those two were further apart then today. Economy is about people doing and making things for each other. No money is needed for economy. If you need an example, look at any parent who raises a child.
Finance, on the other hand, is all about money. That money used to involve work, but the financial sector found out long ago that automatic gambling machines yielded more than actual work. The fiat money of today can be (and is) conjured out of thin air by banks and central banks. During the recent crises, central banks have made up more money than ever before, to stabilize their "hopes and dreams".
Alas they spent it on the wrong people. The European Central Bank, for example, buys "financial products" from internationals without ever caching them, they cant: it is their way of getting money into the virtual economy and caching would take it out again. In short, multinationals already DO have a Universal Basic Income. If you know that, why on earth would it be good to give it to multinationals and bad to give it to real people? Hint: real people might be lazy and greedy, but multinationals are guaranteed to be!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
And how do you do "millions of dollars worth of sales each year"? How can a single individual make so much money? There's a problem with that. Somebody in your supply chain is getting royally screwed so that you can get so much profit.
Your "hard earned" money is nothing of the sort. There's only 365 days in a year, 24 hours in each one. There's people out there working 60+ hours weeks and they'll never earn even a fraction of what you make.
That one person can earn that much is a problem. That you think it's "hard-earned" is another problem.
#DeleteFacebook
A medicore realtor could manage that.
HELL, in Silicon Valley a realtor could manage that with a single home sale.
Now home sales are a pretty trivial thing. But there are far more interesting (life saving) activities you would discourage with your communist nonsense.
You're probably sabotaging your own cubicle dweller corporate job with that kind of nonsense.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
And how do you do "millions of dollars worth of sales each year"? How can a single individual make so much money? There's a problem with that. Somebody in your supply chain is getting royally screwed so that you can get so much profit.
At a concert, 30,000 people buy tickets to see a single entertainer. It's a good show and the fans leave happy. Who is "getting screwed" when the entertainer gets 6 figures for a few hours work?
You know, I am sure there are dozens of comments like this in this thread, basically saying "I bet he doesn't want to use his money for it!" You do realize that by calling for government action that he knows will require taxing the hell out of the rich, he IS offering his money. Right?
Ergo, my reference to the gun point, which is how all taxes are collected...
Let me ask a question. When you receive your electric bill or winter gas bill or water/sewerage bill, do you call it a forced bill "at gun point" from the utility company? Or do you just pay it because you're paying your fair share of bills for what you used?
Taxes are just our bill for our fair share of government and government services. It pays for military defense, a court system to allow you to file greviences against neighbors businesses or even the government itself, roads and bridges and other infrastructure, inspectors that ensure our buildings are constructed to code and food is safe to eat, and way more than I can list here. You use plenty of government services every day and don't even realize, so yes, you need to pay your bills for those services.
Now you could argue that our taxes are not always used wisely. I'd personally love to see our taxes go more to domestic programs rather than more middle eastern wars. And you might argue government is wasteful, and sometimes it is. But then I have a news flash for you, have you ever worked at corporate? Corporations are *at least* as wasteful as government services in many circumstances, so it's not particularly unique to government. If you'd like to see changes and waste cut, contact your representative and vote against them next election if they do nothing, that's why we're a democratic republic, we can vote and change things. At least you can do that, with private corporate control you have absolutely no say about what the CEO does.
So, of course, "UBI" and other attempts to forcibly "spread the wealth" to address the non-problem of "income inequality" are foolish and oppressive.
If you've never been poor I suppose you don't understand inequality, so let me give you a brief overview. Income is a huge part of it, but not all. Neighborhoods gentrify and rent increases meaning you must leave your long time neighborhood since you can't find a better job, because you don't have free time between 60+ hours a week job at several stores or money to attend college to get new skills. You might ask why they don't just buy a house. Good question! When your income is that low, you don't have the credit necessary to buy. Except landlords need to make money off of you, so their rent is almost by definition *more* than a typical mortgage (it has to be more than the mortgage to make a profit, right?). So you have to pay a lot and need more jobs. Many jobs are not on bus routes in my area, so you need a car. You get a cheap one at a used car lot, but since your credit is low, you don't get the typical 2 or 3% interest middle class gets, you get 8 or 10% interest, again having to pay *more* than middle class. But it's used car so you can make small payments over time so you try to make it work out. Then you get to work and your boss tells you to go home. They found someone new, or just plain don't like you, and they fire you on the spot. They can do that in many states because "right to work" really means employers have the right to fire you at any moment. Or even if you're not fired, it's a slow day, so he sends you home. Now you're short a day of pay, and your bills are stretched thin, so you can't make the car payment until the next paycheck. Now you're late and have penalty interest, and they possibly come to repo your car if you wait too long and they don't want to work with you. Or, you decide to take a payday loan on your next paycheck so you can have the money now rather than waiting two more weeks, so you pay your bills, but your payday loan was at obnoxious 25%+ and has to be paid back immediately at the next paycheck, which of course you don't have, so you sink into more debt. Which means your credit score dips lower, you have to pay even higher interest rates, now you don't even qualify for car loans and even rental units star
It is a completely different game once you bridge a serious gap in the market. there are 3 kinds of houses in the US:
1) Homes people buy because they need to live somewhere and they can afford to buy this house here.
2) Homes in which nobody who could afford them would live there (rental only, think slumlord to casual investor to real-estate get-rich sucker)
and
3) Ultra premium. Houses so far above the cost of living for an area that you cannot buy it if you work for a living.
These all have wildly different real-estate agent behavior, and most people will only ever deal with #1, and maybe #2 #1 are 6% commissions with realtors who will be a realtor for an average of 5 years, any "staging" they do will be cheap or free, and mostly your commission is paying for their time. #2 are square-foot checklists, repair lists, inspections, and flat broker fees. An agent might list on MLS and coordinate with inspectors... nothing really outside of that. #3 People have no imagination, and they simply won't buy a premium/high-end house if it isn't staged. They aren't buying a house because they have to live somewhere. a 10 million dollar+ house will be staged with a half-million dollars in furniture, art, dishes, towels, etc most rented, some owned by the realtor or their group. Any drawer, closet, or cabinet that might be opened, will have items in it that convey a luxury lifestyle. Leather-bound books on the book cases, electronics, toiletries, everything.
They might even hire a chef to put freshly made food in the refrigerator to be thrown away after a showing. I am dead serious.
They might learn that a buyer likes purple and replace all the flowers in the landscaping with purple pansies.
They will definitely put fresh cut flowers, fresh fruit, etc out before every showing. Spending hundreds of dollars on disposable goods every time they unlock the front door.
I worked in risk assessment for in the real-estate industry for years. Once for a listing in Malibu I had a 6 million dollar insurance policy go through my system... covering JUST THE ITEMS USED FOR STAGING. It included a Ferrari... Used for staging a garage.
I like Mark's comments and ideas. We just have to separate the means, the ends, and the values.
Mark is describing the ends. It's a vision for a new social structure of the future. It has a lot going for it - if we ignore for a moment how we pay for it, everyone here (I hope) will agree that it would be a Great Thing if everyone had food, clothing, shelter, quality education, and good health care. That's a good basis for a great society. If we had the choice, why would we choose to have hunger and starvation, homelessness, under-education and people dying of preventable and curable problems?
But we have to pay for it. UBI was one idea to investigate (and that's pretty close to his wording). The global worth of mankind's output is growing - mathematically, the average standard of living of the world should continue to rise over time (I see no limit in sight).
Much, much more importantly - we also have to figure out a value system around it. Mark's ideal here is a safety net to let people climb higher. That's a great thing. It can also be viewed as a motivation to not climb at all. That's a terrible thing. All social programs struggle with this fundamental issue. It doesn't mean the goals are bad. It means that when society gives, some people give back, and some people take. The ideal society happens when everyone gives and everyone gives back. Society collapses when everyone takes and nobody gives back.
Giving to the poor and needy is risky. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a higher society than one that invests in the poor and needy.
Side note: I see no better way to handle the moral issues here than in our own lives and our own homes. Do we give back when we take? Do we teach our children the value of work, progress, ambition, and selflessness? Are setting the right example ourselves and teaching others?
We can't have that utopian society unless we have utopian people to put in it.
Other side note: I'm a wealthy, small-government conservative who hates paying interest, taxes, and poorly managed, poorly used social programs. I also believe I have a responsibility to meaningfully help those who have a tougher hand to play than I do. And I struggle (a lot) to find good ways to meaningfully help.
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
Yeah, yeah. "Everybody knows".
People like your alleged relatives are also pretty useless as workers and tend to bounce in and out of jobs even without welfare. That's assuming that they are actually deadbeats and not simply people who for one reason or another cannot work a decent job and think you're an asshole for sitting on your high horse like God's Own Favored.
Of course, if you make people be "worthy" of welfare by yanking it the minute they try to get ahead, that's not much incentive to do anything BUT sit around all day. The point of UBI is that there are no strings attached, so they can use it as a base and it's up to them whether to aim higher or not.
When you get a "Hand Up", you're enslaved. You do what The Hand says, or you get dropped.
When you get a "Hand Out", you're free. It's your own personal responsibility whether you make something of it or not. Whether you use this largesse for good or for ill.
That's what UBI is about. Freedom.
Ah, the Warren Buffet canard. First of all, Mr Buffet isn't making billions. He holds assets that represent unrealized capital gains in the several tens of billions (primarily shares of Berkshire-Hathaway; if BH were to go belly up tomorrow, his holdings there become worthless). His company pays him a salary of about $100,000 each year, and he "earns" a few million dollars every year in interest and dividends. This income, plus his salary, and whatever CGs he may realize, is what he pays taxes on, much of which is taxed at the lower capital gains rate rather than income tax rate. Quoting his tax rate, based on CG rates compared to his secretaries, based on income tax rates (and not at his or her *effective* income tax rate, at that) is apples and oranges.
Mr Buffet takes full advantage of the tax system to minimize his taxes. He has accountants and tax lawyers. He has clearly structured his affairs to minimize his taxes, as, for example, when he established trusts for his children.
It is further worth noting that when Mr. Buffet and his friends Bill & Melinda Gates set out to figure out how to improve the world, they created the tax-exempt foundation and donated billions of dollars to the foundation, rather than simply letting the government have that money. We have to ask why? Didn't they trust to government to do the "right thing" with that money?
Finally, note that both Gates and Buffet, when they donated to the foundation, did so by giving away appreciated shares of their respective companies, thus garnering for themselves the largest tax break possible--not only did they not have to pay GC taxes on the gains (substantial they were, too), but they get to claim the *appreciated* value as a deductible charitable contribution. So, if WB had been granted one share of BH when it sold for $1000, he would owe income taxes on on the $1000. But if he held that share until BH sold for $200,000 per share, he would owe income taxes on the $1000, and CG taxes on the $199,000 difference. But by donating the share to the foundation, he still owes income taxes on the $1000, pays no CG taxes, and gets to claim $200,000 charitable donation (which can go a long way to offsetting any other income he has).
Buffett told [interviewer Charlie] Rose his 2010 adjusted gross income was $62 million. He implied that most income came from long-term capital gains and qualifying dividends currently taxed up to 15%. Only a small portion of his gross income – a few million dollars for Buffett – is ordinary income, like wages and interest income, taxed at higher ordinary income tax rates currently up to 35%.
Buffett [said] that he uses the maximum 30% charitable contribution deduction each year – for appreciated property – and he has a $10 billion carryover of charitable contributions for subsequent use too.
Buffett’s 30% charity tax deduction offsets his entire ordinary income, and next it offsets his lower long-term capital gains income. Hence, he pays approximately 15% long term capital gains tax rates only, and – as he likes to say – it’s a lower tax rate than others in his office pay.
Buffett also avoids nasty alternative minimum taxes (AMT) of 28%. Charity is a powerful tax savings tool to avoid income, AMT and estate taxes.