Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Continues To Explore Universal Basic Incomes (siliconvalley.com)
A Silicon Valley Congressman "is pushing for a plan that has been described as a first step toward universal basic income...a long-shot $1 trillion expansion to the earned income tax credit that is already available to low-income families." An anonymous reader quotes the Mecury News:
Stanford University also has created a Basic Income Lab to study the idea, and the San Francisco city treasurer's office has said it's designing pilot tests -- though the department told this news organization it has no updates on the status of that project... The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year -- more than three-fourths of the federal budget, said Bob Greenstein, president of Washington, D.C.-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Some proponents advocate funding the move by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it upward, exacerbating poverty and inequality, Greenstein said... Jennifer Lin, deputy director of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, is skeptical that basic income can do much lasting good in Oakland. What the city needs is more high-paying jobs and affordable housing, she said... The idea, [Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator] said at the Commonwealth Club, tackles the question not enough people are asking: "What do we as the tech industry do to solve the problem that we're helping to create?"
This summer Y Combinator is expected to announce a larger Universal Basic Income program, though the article also describes "small pilot studies" in the 1960s and 1970s in Canada and in several U.S. states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Indiana, where "Some studies showed improvements in participants' physical and mental health, and found children performed better in school or stayed in school longer. But some also showed that people receiving a basic income were inclined to spend fewer hours working."
This summer Y Combinator is expected to announce a larger Universal Basic Income program, though the article also describes "small pilot studies" in the 1960s and 1970s in Canada and in several U.S. states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Indiana, where "Some studies showed improvements in participants' physical and mental health, and found children performed better in school or stayed in school longer. But some also showed that people receiving a basic income were inclined to spend fewer hours working."
I'm not gonna quit my jobs, just stash it in a retirement account. Now where do i sign up?
...That will work flawlessly.
.
Right up until they run out of other people's money.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This is true, it would be a net loss for the poor.
Personally I'd vote for a Logans Run society, myself. I know that won't go over well here since 95% of Slashdot would have to die (including myself) but I think being old sucks.
allow this to happen since they want to force everyone to work, which is slavery.
Verses the Democrats that want to redistribute money from the people who work for it, against their wills, which is theft.
Perhaps instead of one line sound bites, we should look at the actual problems?
I just want to smoke weed and sit at home! Why can't the Republicans understand this man. 10K a year + food stamps and i'm set. Get me some of that good kush.
The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer.
The real problem is jobs being replaced by machines, A.I., etc. This should decrease the costs of those goods and services. But instead, it's making the rich richer and the poor unable to afford those goods and services because they're out of work.
#DeleteFacebook
Seems like a PR exercise to avoid a populist backlash.
Lots of us got tired of self-involved Billionaires trying to tell us they're the good guys while locating their offices in places where only multi-millionaires can have a decent lifestyle. And then claiming they can't find the talent they need when people don't want to go there and work 70-hour weeks and rent a shabby 1-bedroom apartment for $2500.
"Universal Basic Income" is just another trendy name for socialist policies, *unless* you're talking about redistributing income that's not generated by the labor of a human being in the first place.
In a futuristic, post-Capitalist economy, yes - a UBI could absolutely work. In that scenario, you're talking about technological advances getting all of us to the point where basic needs and wants are handled by automation. And the robots or machines doing the work are capable of repairing themselves too. Once that happens? Sure, you could come up with proposals like central governments utilizing excess capacity of the machinery used to supply food, clothing or energy to citizens, in order to create luxury items which get exported to other countries in exchange for currency. Then, those proceeds are redistributed to the citizenry as a UBI.
Essentially, currency would only be used for the extras in life - and those living in more successful nations would get the side benefit of more currency to spend on those luxuries.
But in the current economic environment? A UBI is just another mandated tax and wealth redistribution.
The price is so volatile it will be worth less than "real" money when people try to cash out, reducing costs for everyone.
The people of Alpha Centauri were happy to hear about this.
#DeleteFacebook
Grab a couple of roommates and pool that 10k into about 30-50k + $400 a month each in food stamps and you got yourself a party house.
Welfare is dysgenic. You're turning a genetic algorithm into a random search.
Universal basic income is welfare.
RIP any human population that tries this shit.
Okay this universal basic income is too generalized for what needs to be taken care of. It needs to be a specialized approach to be economically viable.
You can't just give money away, and let people spend it on ipads.
What you need is to take care of the most abundant things in the world, that tend to be the most lacking, that are the most essential and cover those.
Universal food program. Everyone is entitled to a certain amount of food per month.
Universal housing program. North america, massive land space, utilization is low, but somehow you can't find a place to live.
Universal transit - Public transit shouldn't have execs making huge bonuses, it should be a non profit system run by the government. Need it for work and getting around with huge stores pushing out stores to be spread instead of small towns having everything close by.
Universal utilities - Basic amount of energy and water allowed to people at no cost.
I give you - Universal essentials. Besides the transit, land is huge and cheap, food is tons, cheap, and tons thrown out, and renewables are driving down utility prices.
This works out way better as it puts in more effort at reducing the cost of these items, so the government doesn't have to spend a ton of money for someone to have the essentials while a company rakes in the profit. Maybe costs + 10% or something for items part of the program.
Want to do business in north america? Your company in these sectors will have to offer at cost prices for the basic amount for individuals. It won't take money from you. Your profit is on non essential items, premium items. People who choose to purchase beyond their basic allotted amounts.
Companies will go "Fuck you I'll go elsewhere since I won't make as much and you'll have no food etc!"
Go ahead, the more companies that leave, the more business for the ones that stay, so they'll still be quite profitable.
This. They want to force us to work. We shouldn't have to.
They should assuage their conscience the old-fashioned way, by becoming Catholic and going to confession. Much easier than figuring out how to create jobs in your own country. And when the pitchforks pierce your vital organs, you get to go to heaven!
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
I think UBI means no more food stamps.
#DeleteFacebook
>"Some proponents advocate funding the move by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it"
If it does not *replace* all the other social income and welfare programs, then what is the purpose? That is the only way it could even remotely be affordable; and even then, it is still questionable. Basic income is not based on need, it is based on equality- that everyone would get an amount of subsistence money, regardless of what they choose to earn or already have. A program with zero red tape, almost no overhead, and without trying to create standards for who supposedly "deserves" money. Otherwise, all we would be doing is starting another absolutely massive, unaffordable, unsustainable, unfair, corruptive social welfare program to add to the dozens that already exist.
So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote.
If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed). But if giving those handouts is the only way those who actually work can keep the political power, they need to keep the basic income high enough (or they'd be voted out again).
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Unless there is a mechanism to keep non-workers out of neighborhoods where workers live, there will be massive crime. We'll have a population of people who have the basics met, but who won't have extra money for luxuries (or whatever is a step up from basic) and who will also have all the time in the world on their hands. Resentment will build, boredom will take over, and workers will regularly come home to find their homes looted, with cops who will care less about it than even now. Sounds fun, man.
brwski
"Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''
Any 10K per year would entirely replace food stamps and all other welfare measures. Why would you have UBI and still have a foodstamp system? It should also replace the tax threshholds. UBI + flat taxes + no other welfare. That's how you make it work, because it simplifies (abolishes) a whole pile of existing programs that are designed to be redistributive and massively simplifies the tax system.
Greenstein misses the point, while a UBI does pay out to everyone, and you do get some back from eliminating newly redundant programs (not health, though, that needs to be expanded separately, not as part of a UBI), you also increase taxes as well.
If you make it a straight flat tax increase you can adjust the level of the UBI and the tax increase to set the income level where it's break even. The UBI for people above that level is just a tax refund.
Figure out, for example, what the effective and marginal tax rate is at various income levels with a flat tax of 50% and a UBI of $2000/month.
>>"If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits"
>"So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote."
I have often thought it should be that way (or, similarly, if one is accepting public assistance, he/she can't vote). But, alas, it goes contrary to the Constitution, and that is very unlikely to be changed.
But anyone who does make the mistake of doing work will be forced to work at least half the year to pay for the needs of non-workers.
Every bit of individual wealth, including stock/option ownership, from $100M and higher is taken over by the government and redistributed as money and social programs. Moving wealth outside the country to protect it means no longer doing business in the US. Besides, Europe might join in on this idea so this restriction could be well managed.
What does Silicon Valley think of this idea?
"that want to redistribute money from the people who work for it, against their wills, which is theft." - Which Republicans don't mind ONE BIT, so long as those "poor people" are actually billionaires and/or corporations outright. "Because Free Merkins!"
What's wrong with that? We already do that.
CAPTCHA: nrnmjbz. What the heck is up with that letter soup?
I really am tiring of this bs "against their wills" crap wingnuts keep espousing. You idiots keep wanting us to do stuff against our wills all the time, but if it benefits you thats ok? As the latest with Trump and Republicans show, their is no ceiling or floor to your hypocrisy.
1) I don't want my hard earned tax dollars spent on constant wars for oil or whatever, and yet conservatives see no problem with spending tax dollars "against our wills" on the military
2) I dont want my hard earned tax dollars spent on subsidizing old rich white men, but with all the loopholes in the tax code, they have a lower effective tax rate than working class slobs like myself. But you guys keep shoveling tax cuts in their direction "against our wills"
3) I dont think my hard earned tax dollars should be spent subsidizing private schools through vouchers but you guys keep shoveling tax money for voucher programs that are proven not to work or lead to better outcomes.
I think the only way to settle this once and for all, because I know higher level civilization is a concept wingnuts can't accept is to make everything fee-based, including the military. You want to thump your chest, yell Amurica and send troops to foreign lands? you pay for it, and dont force people who don't want that to pay taxes.
I finished reading "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" by Antonio Garcia Martinez. The author and his two engineers leave the startup they worked at to create a startup at Y Combinator to create a better version of the Digg toolbar (remember toolbars?) for Google advertisers in 2010. He sold his company and engineers to Twitter and jumped ship to Facebook in a three-way deal. The funny thing is that his engineers made out better than him in the end. As for Y Combinator, I've heard mixed things about their success rate.
Before anyone complains about a flat tax being regressive, a flat tax + UBI is actually progressive.
What I'do like to see is a flat tax plus VAT with a UBI. Split the entire budget (including the UBI) 50-50 between a flat income tax (personal and business) and a VAT. A spending bill is automatically a tax bill.
A UBI of $2000/month ($800 for dependent children), flat tax around 45-50% and VAT around 25% works out as a first approximation. A lot of adjustments would be needed, of course.
allow this to happen since they want to force everyone to work, which is slavery.
No, slavery is a system in which people are treated as property, i.e., one human being can legally own another. A system that Republicans brought to an end in the USA.
Being forced by the government to work (and get paid) may or may not be just, but it is not slavery.
We all should work if we can, but people should have the freedom not to work. Some simply can't, for legitimate reasons. But not working can have consequences, including an indigent lifestyle.
Disclosure: I am not a Republican.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
We could pay them to work, then it wouldn't be slavery.
Money = work. Make people work to earn it. Universal basic work. IE you can always get a job even if we have to hire people to do something silly like rebuild our infrastructure. All money should represent work. Giving it away devalues it and it has to come from somewhere (taxes) and that is theft.
1. Many Republicans have long been supporters of EITC.
2. It is the Democrats who are generally opposed.
3. EITC is means tested, and requires people to work, so it is pretty much the opposite of UBI.
Expanding EITC has two big advantages over UBI:
1. It is politically realistic.
2. It addresses a real problem rather than an imaginary problem.
EITC addresses inequality, which is a real problem, by applying a negative income tax (subsidy) to people earning low incomes.
UBI addresses the problem of jobs disappearing completely, which is imaginary since there is no evidence that is actually happening.
No. No. No.
A UBI is Universal by definition. If you change it for dependent children then it will be changed based on income levels and cease to be universal. If you want redistribution based on needs and ability, that is very different from UBI.
Slavery is either bad for all or not bad for anyone
You need food stamps because the people that receive them prove themselves to be incompetent to manage any money. You give them money and they still won't have food, hell most people that receive food stamps STILL manage to have their kids go hungry.
In my city we actually have a child hunger crisis, free breakfast and lunches in school and even during vacations. Why, BECAUSE corner and liquor stores accept EBT for cigarettes and alcohol all the while our food bank has curbside trucks (walk to the corner of the street and pick up free groceries) and tons of food rotting and spoiling in storage but the parents don't even bring their kids to the programs nor get the free food even though they're "unemployed", the programs are open 12h/day and the state pays their rent.
My significant other, when pregnant, actually managed to get $1200/month worth of groceries between food "checks" (which can be traded for specific items like eggs/milk, twice the trade value at farmers market and quadruple the value at food banks) and state and federal EBT. We actually got so much peanut butter, bread and cereal, they lasted about 6 months after benefits ended (she moved in with me and I make too much money).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
But, alas, it goes contrary to the Constitution, and that is very unlikely to be changed.
Well, there's world outside the US. I for one live on the right side of the puddle.
But as for the US, you raise an interesting issue. The body of your Constitution doesn't give any trouble, but a couple of amendments require careful reading:
Amendment XIV, section 2: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
This doesn't forbid such reduction, merely says dolists don't count. People ineligible to vote don't affect the vote in any way.
Amendment XXIV, section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
This indeed forbids any positive tax, but not the government giving money to you. All it takes is for the dole to be taxed. A quite pointless exercise as it puts back a portion of the money into the very coffer you just got it from, but matches the wording just fine. And probably also the spirit: it's not about you failing to pay the government.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
If we're going to pay people for doing nothing, we need to continue allowing immigration (legal or otherwise)... ... why?
Maybe they could take this hotheaded heathen and harvest his anger to pay for UBI.
Jackass.
Reality will never let this happen, because money doesn't grow on trees
Downside of that solution is that in any society, if the non-voters get too pissed, they start a violent revolution. The benefit of democracy is to allow social change without violence.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits"
That is not inevitable at all. Just lo9k at the here and now, there are quite a lot of red staters who receive government assistance who regularly vote for fiscal conservatives who often want to cut their benefits.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed). But if giving those handouts is the only way those who actually work can keep the political power, they need to keep the basic income high enough (or they'd be voted out again).
I'm pretty sure lobbyists, Congresscritters and special-interest groups for rich people, corporations and banks already live by that creed. They routinely "vote themselves money" and get "handouts" - though they would never call them that. It's the less-rich who cannot afford to buy their representation that get screwed.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"It is amusing that all of these rich people proposing this are not talking about using their own money..."
I see a comment like this pop up in every UBI discussion on slashdot and there's no truth to it at all. Any wealthy person talking about this is talking about using their own money by default because they pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. On top of that, given that these people are generally not dumb people, they probably realize that their taxes will have to go up to make UBI work.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Yes that's the point you get paid even if you won't work. Because you are a human you deserve it. All life is precious, man. It's totally sustainable that the people in charge of the robots won't see non-workers as resource leeches. Call it human instinct, like how parents provide resources to their offspring I am sure there is no way selfishness and greed can exist in anyone in charge of the machines.
In this case, they'd have to leave at least some portion unrobbed.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I have often thought it should be that way (or, similarly, if one is accepting public assistance, he/she can't vote).
I'm retired. My income consists of Social Security and compensation from the VA because I'm 30% disabled. (Service connected.) The compensation isn't considered income for tax purposes, and it's been at least a decade since I've even had to file a tax return. Does that mean that you think that I shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Once upon a time, only those who held property of some kind could vote. Hasn't been that way in awhile though.
So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote.
That is a very unstable situation that would destroy any moral legitimacy to government that attaches from making influence over it NOT dependent on your ability or your perceived value, but on your mere existence.
You'd basically convince people that you were bent on taking advantage of them, and historically, it has been used for abuses, so don't pretend there isn't any familiarity with the practice.
There's a reason universal suffrage has become the default. Restrictions breed problems.
If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits.
The biggest receivers of benefits from the government tend to be those at the top, not the bottom, the ones with influence, not the ones despised.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed).
Which should tell you, people can make up spurious quotes to justify anything.
But if giving those handouts is the only way those who actually work can keep the political power, they need to keep the basic income high enough (or they'd be voted out again).
Serving the people is the only way to keep political power, otherwise you get removed. By force, if necessary.
Why does this offend you?
Providing everybody with income for life seems shortsighted to me, and likely to create a dependence/poverty trap...
Suppose we made small payments to individuals during the first 16-18 years of life, such that by the time they were 18-20 years old, they would have accumulated a sum approaching 20k, or so?
This would mean that nobody is starting from literally nothing, thereby alleviating the worst of poverty, without "wasting" money, by giving it to people who don't really need it.
This would not eliminate the need for Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment, Housing assistance, Health insurance, or require a drastic re-engineering of the entire economic system.
45% of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. The richest 20% of Americans pay nearly 87% of all the federal income tax collected by the government. And what makes you think there should get a line item veto on every dime the federal government spends?
Almost all the problems the country faces can be laid at the feet of the legislative branch of government. Those knot heads probably can't balance their own checkbooks but they are allowed to manage over a $4 trillion dollar budget? But they don't have to worry about anyone scrutinizing their actions and incompetence because everyone is focused on the President. Every time the public starts questioning their activities they start up a new investigation. And do you know that members of Congress cannot be publicly investigated or be forced to answer for their actions in any investigation. The members of Congress have effectively made themselves untouchable. The only time a Senator or Congressman has been disciplined was when their actions were so egregious and already been made public that it was political suicide to not be scene as holding themselves accountable.
You need food stamps because the people that receive them prove themselves to be incompetent to manage any money.
All people who need food stamps are incompetent. Got it.
My significant other, when pregnant, actually managed to get $1200/month worth of groceries between food "checks" (which can be traded for specific items like eggs/milk, twice the trade value at farmers market and quadruple the value at food banks) and state and federal EBT.
Your significant other has received both state and federal EBT. Therefore, we must conclude, from your own statements, that you think she is really fucking stupid. That's what you are telling us, right? And then you let the stupid slut move in. Way to go, Einstein.
A system that Republicans brought to an end in the USA.
You mean abolitionists, some who were Republicans, some not, and none of whom are alive today. That is an important consideration, many people don't realize that a political party can change over time, and its members vary a lot over history.
Being forced by the government to work (and get paid) may or may not be just, but it is not slavery.
It is compulsion though, and that is a perilous road to travel.
But not working can have consequences, including an indigent lifestyle.
The ownership class will be upset with you if you pursue this.
Productivity has been sky rocketing for decades. Wages have not. That's to be expected. As workers produce more demand for their services declines. Massive changes in technology and society might fix that, but even when they do they take decades to happen. In the mean time the vast majority of people live in abject poverty for no other reason that greed and lust for power.
All that said, don't abandon you're poor. If you do, somebody like Trump (or Mussolini) will show up and mobilize them against you. They'll use them to take what you have from you. Socialists will keep you from owning 3 Olympic swimming pools and a pair of private jets. A fascist will keep you from owning bread.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it's about taking the rich's ability to decide who lives and who dies away from them. And make no mistake, anyone that controls your access to food, shelter, health care, transportation and education decides whether you live or if you die.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
if they got behind HR 676 (aka Medicare for all). UBI is still a complete pipe dream. If they care about the working class there's plenty they could do right now. Me thinks they don't because like Trump and other false populists they don't really care. It's easy to promise something that in the current political climate is basically impossible.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But as I am getting older I realize that giving people money isn't enough - you also have to give them purpose - a job.
UBI will be put into place but a lot of people are going to be jobless and homeless long before politicians get the message. The funny thing is, it's the people who are currently against UBI that are going to be the ones that are going to start calling for it because they have lost their jobs to automation. The only alternative outcome is a conflict on par with a civil war. Not even "make work" jobs are going to be able to stop UBI from happening because of the sheet amount of people that are going to be put out of a job.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"Programmed by fellas with compassion and vision..."
Don't let the poor be more than 50% or you are screwed in democracy, duh.
America has nowhere near 50% 'poor'. Guess you should redefine 'poor' again.
Historically, 2 out of 3 undisputed, self described fascist governments (Spain, Italy, Germany) were openly socialist, the third was Catholic religious and hostile to capitalism. You're going to have to distinguish more clearly.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
People get to elect the representatives that will decide the taxes they pay. The Founding Fathers didn't ralley to "No taxation", they rallied to "No taxation without representation."
Learn your history and pay your taxes. Libertarianism economics is nothing more than a sociopathic fantasy ideology espoused by the insanely greedy and the utterly stupid.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Before anyone complains about a flat tax being regressive, a flat tax + UBI is actually progressive.
No. You are ignoring the meat of the argument, just like last time. The poor spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes on necessities already. Then they get dinged all over again when it comes to sales taxes. UBI does nothing to change that situation, and a flat tax makes it even worse than it is already. No one should be taxed on their purchases of necessities, but there is no reasonable way to administer such a system, so instead we have a graduated tax rate, and nobody should be paying taxes at all if all the money they are collecting is the UBI, because that would be stupid. It just means that there is overhead in calculating and collecting their taxes, even if you never bother to send them the money and then make them pay it back to you. Much of the point of adopting UBI is to eliminate
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm quite sure my comment included the word "overhead" before the end.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>I'm retired. My income consists of Social Security and compensation from the VA because I'm 30% disabled. (Service connected.)
I wouldn't think retirement/SS would be considered "public assistance", since you put money into that system for just that purpose. I should think there is a large difference between retirement and someone who chooses not to work.
>"Once upon a time, only those who held property of some kind could vote. Hasn't been that way in awhile though."
True. And after that, only European American males. Neither was fair, however. In this case, those actively paying taxes (of any amount) are those contributing to the running of the country and should probably be the only ones with the power to decide where and how to spend that money. Seems reasonable.
solve a quadratic equation, earn the privilege to vote.
45% of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. The richest 20% of Americans pay nearly 87% of all the federal income tax
Not entirely correct. Based on the 2014 tax year, it's the top 25% who pay the ~87% of all federal income tax.
Also, the top 50% pay for 97% of all federal income taxes collected. People making as little as $38,173 are part of that 50%.
Automation.
I don't think pilot studies are worth much, because people will act drastically differently when given a guaranteed income for a few years, compared to a guaranteed income for life.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Add a couple zeroes, chief
Geek is 100% correct.
I was a desperate poor single young man wisely not having kids or getting married while I was shit poor, and I never qualified for EITC.
My equally poor divorced father stopped qualifying for it as soon as I moved out to go to college.
Mom is on disability so doesn't file taxes but I doubt a single woman not supporting a kid would qualify for it either.
There's a "family" of three desperately poor people not filing taxes together because we don't live together and none of us see a lick of this EITC.
A first step toward making a universal basic income would just be making EITC universal. Make poor people, not poor families, get the credit. Then, yeah, expand it from there and it makes a great start. Give every single taxpayer a tax credit of a fixed amount, tax every single taxpayer a fixed percent to fund it (a percent equal to the credit amount over the mean income would make it immediately revenue-neutral), and there you go, you have a universal basic income. Then make tax refunds paid out monthly instead of all at once (and allow tax payments to be made monthly too, to be fair about it) so people don't blow their whole basic income at once right after tax season.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Silicon Valley has a problem, the problem is that California is full of socialists. San Jose is a beautiful place, really, I walked from Castro street to Google HQ and from Google HQ to Castro street two weeks ago, it is nice, nobody else was walking interestingly enough. I have been all over the world, California is similar to many other southern vacation destinations, more or less clean, green, sunny. Unfortunately it is also choke full of people who are under the impression they both know it best how other people should live and they are willing to impose their ideology upon others. This of-course inevitably means and requires more government (centralized) oppression of everybody. The authoritarians within the the collectivists are so transparent, they are practically their only defining feature. Can these people come up with ideas that do not require mass oppression and repression or is this completely impossible?
MY OTHER COMMENTS
The problem with this is that a single person would have a hard time surviving on a UBI of 10k while a UBI of 50k would be more than a lot of families of 5 currently make.
You need food stamps because the people that receive them prove themselves to be incompetent to manage any money.
Well, some people are, yes, but that's including a lot of children, disabled, and seniors with cognition problems.
You give them money and they still won't have food, hell most people that receive food stamps STILL manage to have their kids go hungry.
And you know this because??
In my city we actually have a child hunger crisis, free breakfast and lunches in school and even during vacations. Why, BECAUSE corner and liquor stores accept EBT for cigarettes and alcohol all the while our food bank has curbside trucks (walk to the corner of the street and pick up free groceries) and tons of food rotting and spoiling in storage but the parents don't even bring their kids to the programs nor get the free food even though they're "unemployed", the programs are open 12h/day and the state pays their rent.
So let's see, you're alleging illegal activities by commercial businesses which aren't being prosecuted, and incompetent distribution of food by unknown parties. Yet your words don't indicate any effort on your part to take action.
You do know you are talking about a crime for the first one. The second one, perhaps they need to reconsider their purchase levels. Some wastage is probably unavoidable though.
My significant other, when pregnant, actually managed to get $1200/month worth of groceries between food "checks" (which can be traded for specific items like eggs/milk, twice the trade value at farmers market and quadruple the value at food banks) and state and federal EBT. We actually got so much peanut butter, bread and cereal, they lasted about 6 months after benefits ended (she moved in with me and I make too much money).
So your significant other, was apparently QUITE competent at handling the "money" and so were you, since you managed to skim the system for your own benefit. Huh. Going to turn yourself in?
FTFY.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wow, thanks professor. I sure wish people would just ask you things instead of testing them in the real world. It would save a lot of time.
"Fuck you, human, only your money matters."
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Productivity has been sky rocketing for decades. Wages have not. That's to be expected. As workers produce more demand for their services declines. Massive changes in technology and society might fix that, but even when they do they take decades to happen.
It doesn't take massive changes, it can be done incrementally. We might eventually get to a UBI but we are not ready for it. There is a much smoother transition. As you state, the reason that jobs are declining is because the supply of labor is greater than the demand for labor. The solution is not to put the people out of work on welfare. That really doesn't reduce the supply of labor as people still want good paying job. Instead of jumping straight from full employment to full idleness, it would be better to evenly distribute both the employment and the idleness. This can easily be done by reducing the work week. If we slowly reduced the workweek by say 5 hours a week per decade then as automation takes over, the number of hours each person works slowly drops to take up the slack. Eventually, we might get to the point where everyone only works 5 hours per week or noone works and everyone gets a UBI but we would have done it without creating two classes of people, the class that works and the class that lives on only what UBI provides instead everyone would still get the benefit of still working and everyone would still get the benefit of more leisure. This is a much smoother transition that trying to force UBI on people with the hope that it somehow magically solves poverty. It won't. But reducing the hours worked at high paying jobs by 5% should instantly create 5% more high paying jobs as those hours presumably still have to be filled by someone.
I suspect some will push a wrong flavor of UBI to better kill the idea.
I see two ways to do it badly: first, an UBI too low to live on it, which makes sure people still have to beg for any job that can pay the bills. In the end, employers will even be able to pay them less because they already have UBI. Such an UBI is a social subsidy for employers.
The other way to get it wrong is to make something without proper funding, and kill it as too expensive to be generalized.
Surely the point of an UBI is that the UBI is "enough" and that anything beyond that point should be taxed? Say 40% flat.
Earn $0, get $10k/year (UBI).
Earn $10k, get $16k/year ($4k taxes, $10k UBI = $6k net) = -60%
Earn $20k, get $22k/year ($8k taxes, $10k UBI = $2k net) = -10%
Earn $30k, get $28k/year ($12k taxes, $10k UBI = $2k tax) = 6 2/3%
Earn $50k, get $40k/year ($20k taxes, $10k UBI = $10k tax) = 20%
Earn $100k, get $70k/year ($40k taxes, $10k UBI = $30k tax) = 30%
Earn $200k, get $130k/year ($80k taxes, $10k UBI = $70k tax) = 35%
So the break-even in this example would be $25k. But it's not like most under $25k will burden the full amount, if you're working minimum wage you'll be paying over half of it yourself. Those who really cost money are those with no income, but they're probably on some program today, where you could for starters say that the first $10k of any program today is 100% taxed towards your UBI. That is if you get $30k disability pension today, tomorrow you get $20k disability pension, $10k UBI and keep adjusting the system from there. Every dollar you make, you keep 60 cents no funny limits or drops or brackets etc.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
But when the CiC can only speak in 1 line sound bites why should we expect the rest of the country to do more?
John
allow this to happen since they want to force everyone to work, which is slavery.
Verses the Democrats that want to redistribute money from the people who work for it, against their wills, which is theft. Perhaps instead of one line sound bites, we should look at the actual problems?
The so called republicans (really neo fascists now) have spent the past three or four decades redistributing money. To the wealthy. That's why there's a monstrous wealth disparity in this country. At least the democrats happen to throw the poor a bone every now and then.
What, you think you can squeeze more taxes out of the working poor? You really think the people on minimum wage working two jobs can double down so some Trumpalike can buy another building to throw them out of?
Taxes fund social order genius, and the wealth holders are the ones who have to pay the bill. You certainly can't expect people with no money to foot the bill.
I could be a bit grumpy about having to work to pay for somebody else's leisure time.
It seems to me that it should come with some accountability as to what the folks did with the time.
You can't have flat taxes with imbalanced wealth distribution. You're just going to nail the poor's balls to the wall.
I don't follow this at all. You said that people receiving public money shouldn't be able to vote, and then you say that the people in power need to curry favor with the people who can't vote to maintain their political power.
How's that work again?
There's no means testing when you pay less for children.
There will be eligibility requirements no matter what,whether it's citizenship, species, or age. Not paying anything for children is very punitive, paying the same as an adult would be too generous (if the UBI is actually adequate).
One thing I think is for certain.. a lot of the people complaining about people who will take UBI instead of trying to work, will probably be taking UBI to not work.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No. EITC is not paid to the employer. Most minimum wage workers do not qualify for EITC, because it depends on household income, not their individual income. In many cases, an employer will not even be aware of which employees are receiving EITC.
You'll probably be one of the first to take advantage and wreck it for everyone, because you already can't let go of the fact that others are getting something for free.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Why don't we start with food as a UBI instead? Just make a certain basket of foods, the basics - fruits, veggies, grains, etc., free to all.
We already massively subsidize farms. With the savings from eliminating SNAP and other related programs, we might not even need to taxes to do it.
He didn't say specify all people who receive food stamps. There are people who recieve food stamps and waste them. What does that have to do with his wife?
Oh the evils of taxation!
So you're an anarchist then right?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
That's a good idea, but that incurs overhead, which is what UBI is supposed to eliminate. Doesn't take a lot of administrators to have a machine cut checks to people.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
You don"t tax the UBI as income, of course, but exempting UBI from a VAT or sales tax isn't feasible.
Balancing the taxes between income and spending helps stabilize the economy and the revenue stream. So, the UBI is sufficient for you to live on, including any VAT for the necessities. Then you don't need the overhead and micromanagement of deciding what people "should" be buying, or how much.
A flat tax with a UBI is a progressive tax, e.g. with 45% and $24000, earning $55000 will have a tax rate of just under 1.4%, earning $80000 will be 15%, $100000 yields 21%, $250,000 is 35.4%. Even if you adjust that for a 25% VAT, spending an additional $4000 on $12000 for necessities, it's still progressive (it's as if the UBI amount was only $20000). So, at $55000 you're at 8.6%, $80000 at 20%.
I was more thinking we'd just give you drugs and prison instead.
He is not the one controlling job allotment, you imbecile
He didn't say specify all people who receive food stamps.
You need food stamps because the people that receive them prove themselves to be incompetent to manage any money.
In fact, he did. The evidence is on your screen now. "The people that receive them prove themselves to be incompetent." See it? (Speaking slowly, as you would to a young child) Not ... some ... people, ... the ... people.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed)
Kinda seems like you were trying to rack that quote to justify your seemingly unfounded opinion.
Here's the real quote from the real author:
âoeThe American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.â
â Alexis de Tocqueville
The root of the problem is not the common people, it's how they are handled by the higher classes. They are just hungry and confused and not particularly conscious.
Of course they are going to act on base instinct. Obviously they aren't organizing and hatching plans to "steal" "free" stuff from "hard workers". That's what the upper classes do. They organize to get more stuff. But when they do it most people tickle their balls with compliments and say they "earned" it.
The immediate problem isn't even the elite, it's the middle class. They have access to both worlds, but are utterly complacent with this resources, refusing to look into things for themselves and direct their own educations. Until the middle class stands up and revolts against the elite, every evil of the world will continue to proliferate.
So much for the people claiming that a UBI would replace our current inefficient and demeaning welfare system.
I'm not sure why Sam Altman is using the term "we" there. As far as I can tell, Sam Altman has not actually "created" much of anything: if you can even call Loopt a "technical contribution", it was so pointless that it didn't put anybody out of work.
Silicon Valley is a bubble that doesn't reflect the needs or values of the rest of the world, and that they have their arrogant heads shoved so far up their asses they will never realize it.
It would be nice if the government would live on collected taxes alone. BUT, there's deficit spending and on top of that, occasional money printing by the central bank to buy government debt. The debt increases won't stop until the system breaks. And no one knows where that is, but spending money helps senators and representatives hold onto their jobs, so they won't stop until they find out. Admittedly, US government debt is slightly over 100% of GDP but Japan's is up around 240 percent. Their historical chart is interesting. I suppose they'll find the limit before we do.
After the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and went to pure paper (fiat), the sky became the limit.
It does in the USA, but not in Canada.
#DeleteFacebook
technology can be a wonderful thing, allowing for much greater productivity with much less effort however it will displace many jobs eventually perhaps nearly all jobs so it is only right and fair that the people who now cannot make their own income because of this technology should be supported by it. large companies who use technology and as a byproduct displace many smaller companies should be willing to pay large amounts of tax to help support the nation's people, in fact as the workforce decreases and wages perhaps decrease as well and small businesses get displaced, the large monopolies maybe one of the few sources left of enough tax to support a country.
The tech industry should hold a challenge for the best indexation scheme. Indexation links everyone's incomes automatically to prices so that everyone's real income purchasing power remains the same no matter how high nominal prices go.
Since indexation eliminates inflation, because you can start thinking of the price of everything in terms of units of your real income purchasing power which is guaranteed to be maintained, we can then put a basic income entirely on the Fed's balance sheet at zero cost to taxpayers.
The Fed would be creating, say, $6 trillion a year in deposit accounts, at the Fed. $6 trillion is a fraction of what the private financial sector creates each year, according to a Bain & Company report (seev A World Awash in Money).
Playing with fundamental rights in order to get people to do things you want them to do, is always a worrisome proposition. It is a setup for corruption, and never a good idea. Regardless of the good intentions.
some people are on disability just for the healthcare part and if they work to much then they lose there healthcare covage. Also others don't want take the risk of taking a job and then having it not work out and then having to work the system for 6mo-2 years to get back on.
I have often thought it should be that way (or, similarly, if one is accepting public assistance, he/she can't vote). But, alas
That's a pretty fucked up view. Do you think you will never be in that situation? All it takes is one major health crisis to end up losing your ability to work. That's something totally beyond your control.
If what you need right now is to feel superior to other people, then I'm not about to take that crutch away from you. I do wish that you remain in good health and continue to prosper. I do hope, however, that you eventually learn a measure of compassion for people who through no fault of their own are not quite as fortunate as you.
Silicon Valley is one of the most expensive places in the US to live. That's not so much because it has to be expensive, but more because of stifling regulations about who can build what where. The rich in Silicon Valley don't want the poor living among them. They want them at arm's length, just close enough to do their work, just far enough to be out of sight. How about relaxing some of those regulations so people can actually afford to live there, instead of just handing out "free money"! (After all, we know that money grows on trees, right?)
&& love && javascript
The problem with UBI is that it's a big new income redistribution and as such a huge political problem. To cover the costs you need to raise taxes that creates a new big transfer of income from the rich to poor. Also since UBI is such a big change in the system, it’s likely to introduce a new set of problems (e.g. scenarios which it can’t handle or where can be abused). And there is no middle ground, you have to go all in to be able to get the benefits.
https://medium.com/rational-zo...
You may want to explain that to our PM. As he seems to think it does.
Following that to its logical conclusion, he is worse than a H1B smelly Hindu chimp.
Well, being an American doesn't have anything to do with your job status.
And then people in power could terminate employees they don't want. We saw it with blacks/Hispanics already, just with the demonization of marijuana and the war on drugs turning them into felons. Those are people that will never be able to vote to reverse that system, either.
As a former member of the military I have never been more ashamed of this country than reading all of the stupid shit that the stupids put online for the world to cringe at in shock of their basic grasp of democracy and the institutions that are supposed to protect it.
Amazing that so many people on Slashdot are super-paranoid about power grabs in tech, but don't see that the essential problem with UBI or other socialistic / communist policies is that... whoever gives you the money / benefits, has the power.
Because when you start blowing the UBI on hookers and cocaine, they will decide that you just can't be trusted to make your own decisions, and they will make the decisions for you. Then it will be yoga and oatmeal for you!
Crybabies to the fore. Just another scam to separate the fool from his money. There's a sucker born every minute, and it doesn't take much longer than that to fleece them.
"UBI addresses the problem of jobs disappearing completely, which is imaginary since there is no evidence that is actually happening."
The worry though is that we're not too far from massive job losses. As a single example, what happens when the trucking business doesnt need drivers anymore? That's a ton of jobs just there that pay reasonably well that will disappear into smoke and that's just a single advancement amoung many that seems to be just around the corner and threatens quite a few jobs.
It seems quite prudent to start a conversation about how we deal with this very significant potential problem and UBI is certainly a possible solution.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Eventually they'll realize that the only way for this system to work is to limit the population, and being too afraid to enforce Euthanasia for people who don't match the most favorable gene mixes, they'll have to come up with a way to weed out people after they've reached their full potential. Expect a Logan's Run scenario where at 30, you're set free into the wilderness to fend for yourself.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
You sound like a kindergartner. Waaah, he got to ride the slide twice and I only got to ride it once!
Your wages came from your employer, someone else. Your employer got it from their customers, someone else. Their customers got if from THEIR employers, someone else.
So how is it not someone else's money?
Just because you're a clueless idiot who is against it for ideological reasons therefore your ignorance and stupidity is the result of deliberate intent, it is still stupidity.
You keep making these broad statements of assumption as if they are facts and never back them up.
Balancing the taxes between income and spending helps stabilize the economy and the revenue stream.
How? Why? Where does this work now or has worked in the past in the way you describe?
the UBI is sufficient for you to live on, including any VAT for the necessities.
How? 2k per month minus 50% for tax which you claim is infeasible to separate leaves 1k. Assuming half goes to housing expenses then the rest will be hit with the 25% VAT. At the end of the month the actual usable UBI leaves just $875. Can you design a plan to live on $875 per month today? I live in the middle of the country and cheap apartments start at $700 per month.
A flat tax with a UBI is a progressive tax, e.g.....
Here you go off the rails. You already said it would be infeasible to not tax the UBI, yet claim it is progressive to do so by ignoring taxes on it and doing silly math on the rest. Earning 55k, minus 24k, and taxed at 45% indicates 14k in taxes or a 25% effective tax rate, not 1.4%. Where did that number even come from? It's 1/18th the actual amount using your own numbers and ignoring VAT. The actual real number using your plan would be much higher, as shown only $875 of that 2k per month doesn't return through taxation.
There just is no sense in your plan, no validity in your math, and there is no reasoning presented.
If you ask me, being a tax payer or not is another form of predudice and therefore a bad idea. We also need to get ready for the future where far less people are working and therefore probably won't have a taxable income. Sure, we might ban robots or new jobs might emerge but i don't see that at the moment.
No, I did not say it was "infeasible to not tax the UBI". I said you can't exempt the UBI from a VAT.
Federal Poverty level for one person is approximately $12000/year, so set that as a baseline for "tax free necessities". Some of those necessities won't have a VAT (e.g. rent, utilities), but even assuming all of it is subject to a VAT, that still leaves you with $750/month above the necessities ($600 after VAT if you spend it all on taxable stuff).
If on top of the UBI you also earn $16000, you'll keep $8800 of that, If you actually spend $1000/month on necessities (plus VAT), that leaves you with $17800 or $1483/month on top of the necessities ($1186 after VAT). Again, assuming everything you spend is subject to VAT. You're still getting more in UBI than you're paying in taxes (income plus VAT).
Let's say instead you earn $60000/year, close to the median, you'll keep $33000, with an effective tax rate of 5% (compared to current effective tax rate for a single person of 13.6% with only the standard deduction). The VAT on necessities brings the effective tax rate up to 10%. You're paying more than the UBI in taxes, but your tax rate is still lower than it is now. However, if you spend it all as fast as it comes in, and it's all subject to VAT, your effective tax rate does go up to 24%.
At $100000/year, with the VAT on necessities, effective tax rate is 24% (current rate is 18.2%), higher when you spend more of course.
At $150000/year, effective rate is 31% (current 21.4%).
Of course, with current tax code you have all sorts of complications such as AMT, marriage penalties, standard deduction vs. itemizing, and all of the other complications that keep tax lawyers and accountants employed. You also have, with the current welfare system, a financial incentive for people to remain unemployed.
A more efficient and permanent solution would be to start gassing liberals. Given that they generally have their hands in society's pocket and contribute little if anything to it, that would probably solve a lot of problems right there.
Personally I hope the 1% are stockpiling Zyklon-B, and are prepared to defend themselves against the leeches.
Earning 55k, minus 24k, and taxed at 45% indicates 14k in taxes or a 25% effective tax rate, not 1.4%. Where did that number even come from? It's 1/18th the actual amount using your own numbers and ignoring VAT. The actual real number using your plan would be much higher, as shown only $875 of that 2k per month doesn't return through taxation.
Why are you subtracting 24k?
You receive a UBI of $24000. In addition, you earn $55000, with a tax (45%) of $24750. 24000 + 55000 - 24750 = 54250, $750 less than the $55000 you earned, which is an effective tax rate of 1.364%, which I rounded to 1.4%.
If fascists are what it takes to finally get rid of the liberals, by all means, bring on the fascists!
BTW, I live in the Midwest as well, and I see available apartments for $400-500, even a bit less than that. With a UBI, you can actually move to places that are more affordable even if you don't have a job lined up there. If there's an increase in the number of people living in those areas, then there WILL be more jobs available there eventually, or you can start your own business, or be able to learn a new trade, without jeopardizing your ability to survive.
1. Expect a huge increase in illegal immigration. This alone would kill the program.
2. Expect demands that the basic income by increased to a "living income." $10,000 is not even close.
3. Expect an increase in alcoholism and drug addiction.
4. Expect a revolt from retirees. A middle class worker who contributes to SS for 35-40 years can currently expect $20-30,000/yr in benefits at retirement. Will that be reduced? If not, add that to the cost of UBI.
5. Removes motivation for a large segment of society.
6. I could go on all day.
COE
Truly rich people - the ones with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars - pay very little percentage wise in taxes. This is because they have a small army of accountants and lawyers that can set up everything as funds, trusts, businesses, capital gain and loss offsets, charitable donations, offshoring, etc.
Warren Buffet is an excellent example of how the rich avoid paying taxes - he has almost no 'income'. He has capital gains, but he abuses the charitable donations to accumulate billions in tax credits while actually only spending a few million to do it. Then he complains the taxes should be higher (but not HIS taxes, of course. They should be lower).
No, the disparity is due to tax cuts under the fiction of trickle down economics.
Obamacare reduced the increases in healthcare insurance. They grew FASTER before Obamacare came in and reduced afterward. If Obamacare is a horrible thing for increasing insurance costs, what was the further depths of horror that was the system before?!?!?
You can't say it will do that unless you have reason to believe it will. For example, YOU would demand that government step in and keep the other programs, and everyone you know (or the large majority) would would be some reason for you to think that.
But, no, you don't think that, you just fear it therefore insist it must be so, because for the rightwing, anything that can be bad must be feared as going to be bad.
No. You are ignoring the meat of the argument, just like last time. The poor spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes on necessities already. Then they get dinged all over again when it comes to sales taxes. UBI does nothing to change that situation,
Thing is though that flat tax is regressive, but flat tax + UBI is not really flat tax. Let's say you have UBI of $20k and a flat tax rate of 50%.
Someone earning 10k gets (10+20)*0.5 = 15k. That's an effective tax rate of -50%. Someone on 20k earns 20k, an effective tax rate of 0%. Someone on 80k has an effective tax rate of 37.5%, someone on 180k, an effective tax rate of 44%.
IOW, with flat tax plus UBI, people earning more pay a higher proportion of income as tax.
Then they get dinged all over again when it comes to sales taxes.
Are you talking about income tax or sales tax? They're different things.
and nobody should be paying taxes at all if all the money they are collecting is the UBI, because that would be stupid
Yes, but stupid things are sometimes easier to administer, making them cheaper. You could of course do the opposite in my example above, make UBI 10k, but not subject to the 50% tax. The net ersult is identical.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The concept of retirement is less clear cut in the US, as you have a multitude of concepts, so let's take a look at Poland: you pay a special tax ("ZUS") then, once you reach the retirement age, you receive money according to a formula somewhat based on the amount you paid. You don't have the option to take the money as a lump sum, once your monthly payout is set it can't "run out", your family doesn't inherit the rest if you kick the bucket early (or even before retirement).
This system has lots of unfairness: for example, some groups (miners, policemen, etc) get to retire at a very early age yet receive far bigger pay, farmers are special-cased as they pay a ridiculously low tax ("KRUS") yet receive as much money as the rest, women get to retire 5 years earlier (despite living 8 years longer on the average) yet get the same monthly payment despite having paid less and receiving it 13 years longer, the retirement pay depends on politicians' good will (they always promise massive increases before an election, then universally don't deliver), and so on. But the general concept is simple.
It is obviously not a form of public assistance -- you get back some money you paid for. And in fact, it's a tiny share of what you'd get had you put that tax's worth into a proverbial sock.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
>"That's a pretty fucked up view. Do you think you will never be in that situation?"
I can see myself as in that situation. And in such, I would certainly understand that since I wasn't contributing I wouldn't be able to vote, and I would be fine with that. It is not a matter of compassion but logic.
Since you think it is about compassion, do you think people convicted of felony should be able to vote? Do you think non-citizens should vote?
There's an infinite of things we "could" test. However, the problem is there's a limited amount of time and a limited amount of money so we have to focus on things with a chance of working.
A true UBI test would include choosing people across the income spectrum and tripling the working people's taxes. I'm certain that such a test would immediately prove UBI to be a non-starter. I don't feel like losing my home to pay for some druggies universal income.
If the shoe fits...
It requires a lot of changes, but picture this scenario:
1. Everyone get X dollars per month, regardless of income.
2. All other welfare programs (unemployment, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc) stop, and all attendant bureacracies are closed.
3. Minimum wage is repealed.
In other words - we all get this allotment from the government, and that's it. No need to means-test. No work requirements. You want to blow it on candy bars - you go with your bad self.
The other side is - every penny you work for is worth same. It's not like unemployment where getting work decreases your benefits, so there is a certain swath of jobs where it is more benefical NOT to work. All the perverse incentives are gone. And, as close to 100% of the money you spend on social welfare as possible actually GOES to social welfare.
Employers have made it clear that they don't want to pay a living wage, so we make the government do it. Now, if you want to hire peopel at 25 cents an hour, and you can find people to do it, go for it. Labor costs fall through the floor.
Now you are in the range where this might make some sense.
Remember that there were multiple taxes paid on income. Besides the federal income tax, there are payroll taxes and social security.
Basically, people may not pay one, but may be still pulling their weight.
when some cheap ass monkey takes your job due to outside factors that you can't control, you'd be good for one thing - to train that monkey before you get thrown out.
Suicidal society gets invaded by fucking chimps.
To be fair, it's what he was voted in for.
I don't agree with a lot of it either, but it's exactly what he promised to get elected.
aka, gilded age 3.0.
fuck that and fuck you.
Show me a quote where he says his taxes should be lower.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
for a good fucking reason
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
more useful on-topic commentary by the heavy cream. "here is a weird book i read - pay attention to me - mom - mom - mooooom - moooooooom!!!! pay attention to me"
throw me the ball! why won't you include me in your game???? i'm gonna spew garbage till y'all are only talking about ME!!
thats a recipe for a revolution from your newly created right-less permanent underclass.
"brilliant" idea.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Oh look, it's the drunken brigade. If you don't like my posts you are free to go to another site. I am here to discuss my life and things I read include my life. If you don't like reading about being content with hardships, go to a Website for Nerds and discuss your nerd stuff there. Now off with you, I have to refactor some amateur page scraper. I just learned that word and I need to use it in a sentence many times to remember it.
Was taxation without representation. That was revolution. Now it is representation without taxation!
you wouldn't hit personal tax rates all that much higher for the average person but you should/would take a big bite out of rent based income.
The UBI would be great news for Silicon Valley and businesses everywhere: They could slash their wages by the same amount as the UBI, turning it into a massive business subsidy.
who the fuck mods this bullshit informative?
it is not only illegal for EBT to be used towards alcohol and cigarettes, but the computerized system behind the cards physically prevents it by denying the purchase.
UBI is a horrible and cruel idea. Money is not a natural resource like air, water, or dirt. It's the product of man made effort. *Somebody* has to work in order to create wealth.
Besides, the politicians will never go for this. They create welfare programs in order to control people!
You have to literally double the amount of money the state gathers to break even on this.
You don't have a choice. You must double or triple everyone's taxes for the math to work out.
Not such an attractive option once someone has to pay for all this, is it?
And I may as well explain my joke to you: our new bills aren't made of paper.
#DeleteFacebook
Wtf is with this casual racism?
UBI is more then doable. Its inevitable.
Think of a "poor" person 60 years ago. Dirt floors, kids literally starving to death. Few possessions.
Today that same poor person (equivilent strata) has a small flat, internet, cell phone, maybe even an old car.
Someone needs to make an info graphic comparing the material benefits of the top, middle and bottom starta from 100 years ago compared to today.
Anyway, if you follow the development to its logical conclusion UBI is an inevitable next steo.
He still thinks it grows on tree's....
We get the behavior we incentivize. If we pay women to have babies they can't otherwise afford, and then pay those babies not to work their entire lives, we end up with a society full of tribbles who do nothing but consume and reproduce, expecting it all to be paid for by someone else. That won't work folks, as the people who do work and pay the taxes to support all the tribbles will either give up and become tribbles themselves, or vote with their feet and escape. Either way, eventually the country will be a grain bin full of dead tribbles.....
This country was founded on "no taxation without representation". The corollary should be true, "no representation without taxation".
Your overall point is stop on and one I keep making again and again, but your math is a little off. You don't give the UBI then tax income+UBI, you just tax income then give UBI. So for a tax of x and an UBI of y each person's take-home is (1-x)*income + y.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
This country was founded on "no taxation without representation". The corollary should be true, "no representation without taxation".
This! You got my idea into one concise phrase, thanks! My kingdom for a sock puppet with mod points :)
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I really am tiring of this bs "against their wills" crap wingnuts keep espousing. You idiots keep wanting us to do stuff against our wills all the time,...
Nice assumption, but totally wrong. I lean libertarian, so I am more of the "Do what you want but you are on your own" mentality. But nice try.
You're just an ignorant, plebeian sucker.
There is no ignorance like willful ignorance.
And you god damn, ignorant, motherfucking libertarians are the absolute stupidest, most hypocritical pieces of shit on the earth. I used to be one, when I was young and stupid, then I grew hair on my balls.
So now you have a lot more experience being stupid! Congratulations!
People get to elect the representatives that will decide the taxes they pay.
The overwhelming majority of both parties support term limits. Many people have run on term limits and been elected. So where are they?
But when the CiC can only speak in 1 line sound bites why should we expect the rest of the country to do more?
The irony of the above fitting on one line... ;)
I think Silicon Valley officials need to check the water supply for lead contamination, because obviously this Congresscritter is suffering froma severe lead-poisoning-induced cognitive deficit; either that or he's in the back pocket of some foreign national that would like to destroy the U.S. economy. So-called 'Universal Basic Income' will not work on anything other than a tiny scale! Anyone with a 4-banger pocket calculator from a dollar store can figure out in about 10 seconds why it won't! Why can't people get this simple concept through their thick heads? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH, DAMNIT!
remarkably stupid.
If they're going to insist on some retarded-ass 'pilot program', then SIGN ME UP, I'd love to live for FREE and just spend my days training on my bike and in the gym for road racing, not having to go to an actual JOB five days a week. After all I guess I'm a Special Snowflake and deserve to not be required to earn a living, right? Besides which being Gen-Y I won't live long enough to see the inevitable economic collapse UBI will cause so why should I give a damn? It's the Millennials' problem not mine, right?</sarcasm>
The so called republicans (really neo fascists now) have spent the past three or four decades redistributing money. To the wealthy. That's why there's a monstrous wealth disparity in this country.
And they were doing this with a Democratic House, Senate, and President? Damn! They sure are good!
I would certainly understand that since I wasn't contributing I wouldn't be able to vote, and I would be fine with that.
Contributing what? Time? Blood? Money? Help me understand. What is it that people are not doing that you think they should be and why that should affect their ability to vote.
Since you asked, yes, I think felons should be allowed to vote. I might be convinced that they should lose that right while behind bars but certainly once they get out they should have all the rights of other citizens. And no, obviously I don't think non-citizens should be able to vote.
If fascists are what it takes to finally get rid of the liberals, by all means, bring on the fascists!
Read up on the girl who swallowed a fly...
Thing is though that flat tax is regressive, but flat tax + UBI is not really flat tax.
Yes, yes it is. It is simply flat tax with a universal tax credit tacked on.
Someone earning 10k gets (10+20)*0.5 = 15k. That's an effective tax rate of -50%. Someone on 20k earns 20k, an effective tax rate of 0%. Someone on 80k has an effective tax rate of 37.5%, someone on 180k, an effective tax rate of 44%.
That's not the debate. We are not debating the effective tax rate. We are debating what percentage of one's income one spends on taxes on necessities.
Are you talking about income tax or sales tax? They're different things.
Yes, no shit. It's obvious to anyone with a grade school reading level that I understand that, since I deliberately mentioned them as a separate thing. You just put that in to sound smart.
The point is just what I said, no one should pay taxes on necessities. In fact, no one should pay sales taxes on necessities, either. But again, since we can't reasonably administer such a system, we simply use a graduated tax scheme to make the system as far as possible without the massive overhead that is involved in giving people a rebate for every necessity.
stupid things are sometimes easier to administer, making them cheaper.
YES! That is why we use a graduated tax scheme! Finally, you've got it!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I guess you never got to the second line... The one that said blaming "the other party" is not a solution because that logic works both ways. I was trying to say that we need to look past the surface and try and find the real problems that we share! ... And you can not read past the first line... (I think we found the problem!)
unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote.
I think you may have hit on the thing that apparently I didn't see: Perhaps this is all a plot by (ironically) conservatives, to disenfranchise the masses; only the rich would be allowed to vote? Seriously, every time this UBI nonsense comes up I keep looking for the reason why ostensibly intelligent, sane people would think it's possible, and that just might be it. The logical extension of the idea would be that they'd actually put barriers up against people getting jobs (need a Masters degree, for instance) to keep people from being allowed to vote.
TIL that Bush Jnr, Snr and Reagan were all Democrats. Who knew? They hid it well.
Yep. If UBI ever replaces other social programs, that will stop the first time CNN runs a human interest story about a kid starving because one of its parents blew all their UBI money on drugs/alcohol/the casino/etc... Then it'll be "Why do we let people spend this money on drugs/alcohol/gambling when they should only be allowed to spend it on food/housing?" Then we'll be back to where we started: food and housing assistance programs.
Show me a quote where he says his taxes should be lower.
I think it is implied when he hires an accounting firm to do his taxes.
So, why does he not just take a pile of his money and fund it himself for Silicon Vally for a year and show the work the results? Or is it a little expensive when he does not have my money too? (As opposed to Bill Gates who wanted to fix education and then wrote a check.)
Why don't we make it simple and just eliminate democracy altogether? It's not like there aren't plenty of countries doing nicely without it, and in any event, even where it's implemented, the elites somehow manage to avoid delivering on what they where elected for. All western nations are actually run by huge bureaucracies. All democracy accomplishes is avoiding accountability.
No king has ever done to his country what "democratic" governments have done to theirs. I'd certainly rather be ruled by some random descendant of George Washington's than Barack Obama or Donald Trump.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
What you're leaving out there is that those at the top are at least contributing something back to society, unlike the ones at the bottom. I'm not particularly a fan of General Motors or Goldman Sachs, but at least they create jobs and provide useful goods and services in return for their subsidies. What do the ones at the bottom provide besides a burden to those that are actually doing something useful?
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Yep... It went form Reagan to Bush, to Bush, to Trump with no one else in that office...
You don't give the UBI then tax income+UBI, you just tax income then give UBI.
I gave both examples :)
At the end I mentioned that you could instead make UBI 10k given untaxed, with identical numbers.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
My, how they rationalize
Yes, yes it is. It is simply flat tax with a universal tax credit tacked on.
I assume you're now talking about necessities as a measure of regressiveness? If UBI (after tax) is at the level where it just covers necessities, then you'd get the necessities as part of the UBI and any excess is taxed.
That's not the debate. We are not debating the effective tax rate. We are debating what percentage of one's income one spends on taxes on necessities.
That wasn't exactly clear. But I don't see how that supports your point. People with higher income are always going to be spending on average less on necessities. But the UBI income level is generally considered to do that otherwise what's the point?
Yes, no shit. It's obvious to anyone with a grade school reading level that I understand that, since I deliberately mentioned them as a separate thing. You just put that in to sound smart.
Not sure why you're so annoyed. There's lot of threads and a lot of context here. What's clear to youis not necessarily clear to your readers.
The point is just what I said, no one should pay taxes on necessities. In fact, no one should pay sales taxes on necessities, either. But again, since we can't reasonably administer such a system, we simply use a graduated tax scheme to make the system as far as possible without the massive overhead that is involved in giving people a rebate for every necessity.
OK, so I did the math, because I happened to want to know this for an unrelated point. If you take the graduated tax system of the UK, and compute what proportion of people's wages they pay as tax you find that overall it's pretty similar to if there was a 30k UBI and 45% flat tax, except that under our system, people on the lower end pay much more tax.
Here's some awk code to plot the two side by side:
https://pastebin.com/3MUDNvUz
it's income tax only. NI isn't plotted.
YES! That is why we use a graduated tax scheme! Finally, you've got it!
No, you've completely ignored the overhead in things like unemployment benefits, means tested housing benefit, winter fuel allowance, making sure employers actually pay the minimum wage etc etc. One of the arguments is that with UBI you can also scrap all of those hugely expensive programmes because they are no longer necessary.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
He plays in the system that currently exist for everybody. One billionaire paying more in taxes isnt going to make a meaningful difference in US tax revenue so why be the one person who pays more.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Because that would cost him a shit ton more money then if his taxes went up.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
No, they couldn't. Did you forget that people who are working will be using their UBI to pay the UBI tax?
In a capitalist system, dollars are ration units for most people (workers, not owners) -- and those ration units are used to get what the person needs or wants from the market. Given difficulties in centralized planning processes, it is unlikely to be more efficient in meeting most people's needs for the government to decide in advance what to make rather than let market forces meet those needs (assuming the market is regulated for externalities and risks). Maybe that may change someday as governments become more responsive and better planners via networked computing, but it does not seem where the USA is now.
That said, a real society is made up of a mix of subsistence, gift, exchange, and planned interactions (as well as some theft that is hopefully minimized). Every society is going to decide on the balance of those five types of transactions based on its unique history and culture. So it is not wrong to think about how government planning could be done better -- as long as we think about how planning fits into that larger mix.
I discuss that in more detail on my website and in this video:
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Heads on pikes, historically speaking.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Perhaps by sneaking into their houses and stealing their shoes—workers of the world untie, and all that.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
>"Contributing what? Time? Blood? Money? Help me understand. What is it that people are not doing that you think they should be and why that should affect their ability to vote."
Not being on public assistance while also not paying taxes. I don't think anyone contributes time or blood to the government (except as part of a paying job). You ask why should it affect their ability to vote? That is the whole thread of conversation- because there are people who barely work or not at all, suck tons of money from the system, and contribute nothing to the payment or running of the system. And yet they can vote for more public assistance, more welfare, and more benefits for themselves (and certainly do vote that way when they bother to vote). And those monies are paid to them by guess who?...?.... The people who ARE paying taxes. I can see where it would be a slippery slope, but it is not all that far fetched. Do you think you should be able to vote as a stockholder of a corporation without paying for and owning stock? Same concept.
>"Since you asked, yes, I think felons should be allowed to vote. I might be convinced that they should lose that right while behind bars but certainly once they get out they should have all the rights of other citizens."
Well they don't in our current system in most areas. Once a felon, they can typically never vote again, unless they go through extraordinary measures to try and get that right back again (and it is usually pretty hopeless).
>"The concept of retirement is less clear cut in the US, as you have a multitude of concepts"
That is true, because Social Security is not just a retirement system. It is also a quasi welfare system that can and does pay out benefits for various disabilities, loss of parents, loss of spouse, and other situations. And the money is taxed as income, too. At least, unlike your Poland example, in the USA the normal age is set for everyone equally and the benefits (other than the quasi-welfare stuff I mentioned) are somewhat based on what was contributed (it is more based on one's final contribution levels, not lifetime contributions, which would make more sense and why total monies paid out of the system is always more than what was put in).
Just to put it in perspective, there are over 650,000 applications PER YEAR for "disability" alone. Right now there are almost 9 MILLION people getting "disability" benefits!!!!! An increase of 33% in just the last 10 years. And only around 100 million people actually pay income taxes/Social Security right now (out of a population of 325 million people).
OK, thanks. I think I now understand what the fear is, and I think you can rest easy. One thing I don't see is politicians being unduly influenced by poor people. What I see in reality is something quite different.
It doesn't matter if they know who qualifies. People take low-wage jobs in part because of tax credits make it possible for them to eke out a living. If those credits weren't available, low-wage earners would be more likely to hunt for jobs that pay an extra buck an hour, and employers would eventually be forced to pay more if they wanted to actually have workers. So in a very real sense, the EITC effectively subsidizes those employers by making it possible for them to pay below-market wages. Of course, the same could probably be said about a basic income.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Make it a crime to not be able to support yourself or your kids without welfare for more than 6 months. If you are on welfare for more than 6 months you would be considered a criminal (without prison-time) and lose the right to vote for the duration of the welfare-payouts.
Also, consider it child-abuse to not be able to support yourself or your child(s) , so parents that gets 10 kids and expect free housing and monthly handouts will lose their children.. It's not a right to have a child, it's a privilege that you should make sure you can finance yourself before putting yourself into that situation.
If on welfare you should not have the right to decide where you live either.. It's a lot less expensive to live on the countryside than in a big city.. If you have been unemployed and on welfare for more than a few months you would be offered another cheaper place to live, and if you refuse to move you lose your welfare.
Same was said for the industrial revolution and look what happened.
If robots are used for producing goods that nobody can buy then the goods will not be produced in the amounts where it makes financial sense to use robots.. For small batches of anything it's always more effective to use a human employee to produce the goods..
It may take a bit of time before the system stabilizes, but if the government would start UBI or similar things that would just cause the system to stay in flux and never stabilize and require constant changes for a really long time.
If you don't have money to buy food - find a place where you can grow it yourself.
If you don't have money to buy a house - find a place where you can build it yourself.
If you don't have money - don't force the government to steal it from other people just so they can give you a cut.
Then you should have gotten a good insurance that would pay for it in case you become disabled/unemployed etc.
The only difference between me and you here is that you think the government should be the insurance-company, and pay your fees by taking money out of other people's pockets.
And btw, i'm fine on having higher taxes on companies that uses the country's infrastructure (and causing a cost).. If you are a huge trucking company that causes 10% of the wear on the roads you should cover 10% of the maintenance cost of the roads..
My point is that pushing responsibility to the government has never resulted in any type of optimal way of doing things and increased the overall cost for everyone..
Government should only be there to set rules, and be impartial, that everyone needs to abide by.. And for that to happen i think it should be made illegal for any politician to accept donations and all new laws must be backed by factual studies that shows how to improve things.
Taxes should only be to finance the governing body, police/judicial system and military. Possibly also for financing common infrastructure that may take 50-100 years before it's paid back.
Maybe that is because that without government interference they would be better off and not have to rely on benefits?
Just look at the rules and regulations you have... Remember reading an article about someone that had electricity connected to his house, but the city required him to also have a connection for gas.. He did not have anything that used gas in his home.. He could not afford the fee for the gas connection he would not use, but the city insisted so he was forced to sell and move out of his home.
I don't think anyone should be forced to pay for a service they don't use....
Remember the Axis of Evil? For some odd reason Venezuela was put on that list.
The USA has been trying to cause Venezuela to fail. And they're succeeding. The failure is not their socialism, since the interference of the USA is the simpler and more direct explanation.
So the mantra is that progressive taxation disincentivises working harder because earning more is taxed more.
But that presumes that the job is harder the more you earn, otherwise it isn't a detriment to get 50c off the dollar extra your hard work earned. But tell me how much harder the work of a CEO who gets 7 million a year is over a steelworker earning 100k?
And if you're talking lower down, where you get promoted from team leader to department head and the scope of the management increases, two things
1) It's not THAT much harder than your earlier work. It's mostly the same thing done but with a bigger impact if you fuck up.
2) That job still needs to be filled. So if a promotion to that post is taxed on the difference enough to make insufficient people apply for that job, it has to be filled and the wages for the job will increase until someone thinks the extra responsiblity (not really work, though it does lead to stress if you're conscientious) is worth the pay, despite the tax.
So until there's no extra work needed or it's taxed at 100%, there's no disincentive to earn more if you want more money to spend.
But to get back to the hidden context of the meme: "more pay means it's a harder job", please tell me how share dividends indicate hard work. So they should be taxed higher? How much extra hard work is done if you inherit? 100% tax there is no disincentive to inherit. Indeed it would remove the possible desire to kill someone to get the inheritance early, a trope of many a murder mystery. And the extra work is irrelevant when you get higher up the worker food chain, it's just the same work at a different salary. So taxes should be made on how far from the low level you are, not the pay?
was that it was generally the male earning, and usually even then the man earned more than the woman and for longer (men not getting pregnant and all that), but women still needing one house and one person's meals, therefore if it had at the time been set at the same rate as men, women would have starved. And the later time is because older women would be less likely to earn a wage and when they do get a lower one. If women (or, indeed men) could be counted on getting employed at 58 if they'd been unemployed for a few years before, and remaining employed longer than men, then the retirement age could be increased and some extra payment for state pension could be accrued.
But if you are less likely to be rehired, more likely to be "let go" and will earn less from 60 to 65, it makes no difference if the retirement age is moved from 60 to 65, it only means that instead of state pension you get unemployement benefit.
Which is no net change for the government welfare at all.
So for, what, two weeks, the Democrats had the senate and the presidency.
For how long over the period since the 70s have the Democrats held all three?
For how long have Republicans done so?
"They're both doing it!" but one is doing it 90% of the time. False equivalency, and a lie. Plus hypocrisy too. Remember, the claim was Democrats did it to a claim Republicans do it, because you thought it was wrong to claim when there was a tiny fragment of time where the Democrats had a filibuster proof (by one vote, an "independent", Joe Biden) majority. Yet you did the same yourself, to a larger degree.
Either you should be shitting all over yourself for it or not worrying about the minor fragment of someone else's broad brush stroke.
>"OK, thanks. I think I now understand what the fear is, and I think you can rest easy. One thing I don't see is politicians being unduly influenced by poor people. What I see in reality is something quite different."
Most politicians seem to simultaneously promise more services and spending to those with less money and less taxing to those with more money. Of course this is impossible to resolve, but they promise it anyway. Candidates who do not promise more or continued "free" services to those not paying much in taxes, will typically not win.
In reality, year after year, we have more spending AND more taxing, with the government growing ever and ever larger and more powerful. So many people work for it directly or indirectly it is now impossible to reign under control. Meanwhile we have a huge polarization between the poorer and the richer. A system designed to continue to support bad behavior and decisions like dropping out of school, having children out of marriage and way too young, not having to work for things, not rehabilitating law breakers AND at the same time on the other hand also rewarding the rich with overly strong and hostile patent and copyright laws, tax loopholes, and favors for money.
This is not sustainable. We need actions that will reduce government AND dependence on the government; things that require people to work, that reduce corruption and waste (like a flat tax), that honor and follow the Constitution, that seek a strong but not out-of-control military, that limits illegal immigration, that punishes actions that erode personal liberty and privacy, that keeps religion out of politics. No party does this, and no party will because we also have a horrible, primitive voting system that prevents any third-parties or innovation.
My fear is the ultimate implosion caused by all this dysfunction.
Every taxpayer pays into public assistance programs. Those payments are called taxes. People on public assistance are using a government service that they paid for.
Does contributing $0.01 in taxes entitle one to $1 in services? $10 in services? $100? If you think that most people on public assistance paid for that service, you are sadly mistaken. Most might have paid for 0.01% of it, or 0.001% of it.
Some proponents advocate funding the move by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it upward, exacerbating poverty and inequality, Greenstein said.
Both programs would see reduced costs because the sudden infusion of an additional $10K/yr would bump a significant number of food stamp, Medicaid receipients income to high, knocking them out of the programs...
Oh, I'm sorry, are we NOT going to consider UBI as 'income' for government assistance programs?
Ken
Every taxpayer pays into public assistance programs.
Agreed, obviously.
Those payments are called taxes.
OK...
People on public assistance are using a government service that they paid for.
Whoa, you skipped a step, where you claim that "Every person on public assistance is, or has been a taxpayer"... I'm not willing to just gloss over that implied statement.
When a teenage mom collects government assistance for her dependent child while living in public housing with her mother who collects welfare, I have a hard time spotting the 'taxpayer' that 'paid for' their 'government service'...
Ken
There's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning as your statement is written: "Forcing everyone to work" is not slavery.
.... want to force everyone to work..." is your way of implying that they're slaveowners and we are all their slaves, which is totally incorrect by any meaning of the word.
People are "forced" to work to live, just like any other creature on this planet must do... That is not slavery, that's called surviving, or "making your own way", or whatever responsible people call "living life" or "making a life for yourself". By saying that "Republicans
Slavery effectively is the claiming ownership of a person's life and labor, without due compensation. If you pay someone to work a due compensation (sorry, but "due compensation" is inferred to be a fair wage for the job, not some Chinese sweatshop type situation...) for said labor, then it's a contract between the worker and the employer, not slavery. Claiming ownership of someone's life, in any circumstance however, is actual slavery.
Stop being a BernieBot and think for yourself.
wait, is this for people who don't pay taxes or for people who receive public assistance? There's overlap, you know.
320 Million people is the entire population of USA. I bet 1/3 of this population is under 18, which should not get the UBI. Roughly 2.2T.
I assume you're now talking about necessities as a measure of regressiveness?
Specifically, tax on necessities, whether that tax is collected as income tax or sales tax.
People with higher income are always going to be spending on average less on necessities. But the UBI income level is generally considered to do that otherwise what's the point?
The point is, giving people money they're going to spend on necessities and then taking part of it back is stupid and senseless and unnecessary and wrong.
There's lot of threads and a lot of context here. What's clear to youis not necessarily clear to your readers.
Readers have actually read what was written.
you've completely ignored the overhead in things like unemployment benefits, means tested housing benefit, winter fuel allowance, making sure employers actually pay the minimum wage etc etc. One of the arguments is that with UBI you can also scrap all of those hugely expensive programmes because they are no longer necessary.
What are you talking about? Of course I'm not ignoring all of that. I talk again and again about how a big part of the point is to eliminate inefficiency. But that's also not the only point. The other point is to reduce torches and pitchforks and guillotines.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When these fucking liberal asshats wanna take YOUR tax money to fund more lazy ass, useless people? Not ONE of these morons understand basic human nature: if you take care of people like that, the LARGE MAJORITY of them will never work. However, if they are starving, that's another story.
I'm not funding another fucking mooch with my tax dollars. If SV wants to use their profits for this, then by all means. Otherwise, STFU, sit the fuck down and let the adults fix all the shit you liberal twatwaffles have fucked up.
Pax Vobiscum
* With a poor person i refer to someone that is unemployed and broke or receiving welfare.
And why does a poor person *need* to live in a flat in a city? Would not a room in a collective be enough?
And why does a poor person *need* a cellphone? Either a landline or pre-paid flip-phone would be enough ($20-40 per year should be more than enough)
And why does a poor person *need* a car? Public transportation works perfectly in most places.
Why does every "poor" person think society owes them a decent living without requiring them to perform any type of work or service? In case some type of UBI should be implemented it should be based on a "guarantee work" where they are guaranteed to always get a minimum-salary day-job where they clean the streets or helps out at a soup-kitchen or other type of tasks that are in need for the community you live in. You could even offer a self-study "job" to study to be able to provide a service that is in need in the workforce. (see it as a tiny scholarship, paid for by the companies that are in need)
There are few things that a poor person needs... Water, food and a warm dwelling.. If the person has to work (bringing in wood for heating etc) to keep the dwelling warm should be quite normal and nothing that other people should have to pay for.. If you don't have a job you have a minimum of 8 hours a day to spend on things like that.. The name for this is "Homesteading".
If you don't have a job you are free to go to the countryside and get a *cheap* place (there are many) where you can grow your own food (as much as possible) and gather wood for heating.. Or spend on renovating the house (You can do it dirt-cheap if you just spend your own time on recycling from demolition-sites etc.)
Some examples:
https://www.thisoldhouse.com/i...
https://www.landcentury.com/un...
I work 50+ hours a week. Why should i pay for your food/shelter/transportation without you performing any type of work? Find a service employed people wants/needs and perform that for whatever salary that pays... And fine, if you are completely worthless we can find a basic shelter you can stay in and and put some food in your stomach.. But i will not pay you for doing nothing.
There's a better solution: make receiving a basic income contingent on paying taxes. Working around your proposed restriction would be trivial: do a job that pays $1 per year on which you owe a few cents in taxes and you can vote.
I found a place where I could build a house: Problem is, someone else owns the land...
Have you ever been to California? That's all the politicians in California do is cater to poor people. They don't actually have a desire to help anyone, they just know appearing "caring" helps them get elected.
It's like the guy I saw last night, either buying drugs or soliciting a prostitute in his Prius with a "coexist" bumper sticker. The driver knows what's viewed as acceptable. He just does it for appearance's sake.
"No king has ever done to his country what "democratic" governments have done to theirs."
I'd say about 3/4 of most history books are dedicated to just that- Kings ruining countries.
Because that would cost him a shit ton more money then if his taxes went up.
Which was my point. The rich guy needs more of my money to make his plan work. No.
Facts, stubborn facts...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
so the store sells you ten dollars worth of "eggs", and hands you five dollars worth of beer....
While money is a big issue with massive automation, everyone keeps ignoring the obvious: What the hell will people do? Ever been unemployed for a long stretch, or known someone who has been. You get weird, too much time to think, every day becomes a chore, etc. It's murder on the soul.
If you think the person who receives the cash is the actual beneficiary then I have several bridges you might be interested in buying.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He's free to donate more if he's so inclined.
You make me laugh. Odds are you make fuck all compared to him.
Furthermore, everyone has to pay taxes that goes towards things they don't like, from the far left to the far right. You not being happy paying your fair share for a social program doesnt mean a thing beyond what your prefer.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Alright, since you're dense I'll repeat myself.
"One billionaire paying more in taxes isnt going to make a meaningful difference in US tax revenue so why be the one person who pays more."
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I was unemployed for 6 months after the tech crash at the end of the 90s. It was fucking awesome. While I wanted to go back to work as soon as possible so as to rid myself of financial unknowns and so I could afford luxuries again it was really great hiking, reading, gaming, and just living life with friends and family. I never have enough time to do as much of that as I would like working 40 hours. I would definitely be one to want a job under a near future UBI as I'm materialistic enough to want one but I'm jealous of the lives people will live one or two hundred years from now if things go in a socially just manner.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.