The Economist provided figures, just expressed as percentage of GDP, which translate straight into figures if that's what you want, but serve its purposes far better by illustrating why the figures won't add up.
Pensions are not going into the pot - you've got to spread the welfare figure over the whole of the 18-66 age group; the local government figures are the ones that are still going to be spent - they don't make cash payments but are services to the elderly and disabled, which they won't be able to afford out of their basic income, and the fraught issue of housing; £280 is barely enough for rent in most areas, let alone to replace all welfare payments, but you're probably proposing half that from welfare deletions. To be fair you've got the impact of the disappearance of the income tax and capital gains tax thresholds, which might get you back up to £280 - but that assumes all welfare income recipients only receive basic income.
So that's why the Economist's figures are rather better than yours...
This is an interesting proposal to address the alleged lack of demand in some economies, notably the Euro and Japan, but there is no such issue in the USA or the UK. There's some interesting research that a slug of money is often used very wisely in serious poverty striken communities in the Third World.
However your core failure is to distinguish stock from flow. Stock is the amount in the tanks, flow is what's going in or out. Helicopter money is a change in stocks; basic income is a change in flow to people.
" Thus, giving each working-age American a basic income equal to the poverty line would cost $2.14 trillion.Cutting all federal and state benefits for low-income Americans would save around a trillion dollars per year, so there would still be a significant gap to be closed by revenue increases"
Yeah right. That's really going to be found. Note that much of medicare would still be necessary unless you think health insurance is affordable on $10k.
The Cato link seems to be mainly about EITC, very different critter.
To get those jobs done, the workers will have to be paid more - though only enough to want to carry on doing it. Whereas people who seriously enjoy their jobs will be paid less - or rather won't receive wage rises when the prices of many items rise to create the incentive to get them created / done.
The demand for eggs is unlikely to rise, and the incentive to produce will be far less, so that's probably a commodity whose price would rise in a basic income world to ensure that the farmer COULD be bothered to get up in the morning. However your point about education is mostly valid, except that the belief in certificates as the way to prove you can do a job is probably overdone.
Clearly the rate of pay for those basic jobs would rise substantially, and many would disappear; automated checkouts and robots in fast food restaurants. Probably some people would be willing to work a couple of days a week at more complex, if uninspiring tasks (cleaning springs to mind) to raise them above the absolute basic. And some people will value the status of job even if they don't NEED it. Pensioners offer this response. And the impact of forcing higher rates of pay for basic jobs would a valuable move to reduce wage inequality.
All those tasks already need to be done, and there are plenty of healthy pensioners who could be doing them. They don't, for the most part. The belief that the mass of the population would be more community inclined seems... optimistic.
Venezuela made an attempt at a control economy and belly flopped when the oil revenues ran out. Greece's problem was more subtle - ultimately a failure of the tax man to collect what was owed in the context of a generally free market system. Both got into trouble when the money ran out, but not for the same reasons.
It identifies the costs of government and adds them to the proposed proportion of average income that basic income should provide, and offers the necessary average tax rate as the consequence. This is the equivalent of establishing why the plane won't fly from first principles, rather than saying 'well, this size of plane flies, so so will this one'.
I'm sure you'll be happy when the vigilante mob burns down your house because your wi-fi was insecure and a neighbour or someone sitting in a car outside used it to do the deed.
If I carry out an action sitting in the UK that has serious effects in America, the USA will attempt to extradite me, and the UK courts won't raise a jurisdictional issue. So the conclusion is that it's the location of the server that constitutes the location of the crime. For accessing child porn, it will be the local jurisdiction - where the material is viewed - that will have jurisdiction. So yes, there is an established location even if the crime is 'over the internet'.
If a person murders someone but a state court can't be enticed into convicting them, a federal case for 'depriving the victim of their civil rights' can be generated to bring some degree of justice into the situation. Clearly here the FBI and NSA have committed this offence; the question is whether a Grand Jury has been empanelled to consider these offences, with the aim of punishing the criminals who authorised the behaviour.
Yeah - ok - we're talking the USA here, not some well regulated democracy with a rule of law...
"He wrote in the blog that that lead counsel for the Sanders campaign told him that Garvey, Schubert, Barer sent the demand letter without any consultation with the Sanders campaign."
If that's the quality of advisers that Sanders is attracting, he's got a problem with his ability to identify good staff.
Let's try and be positive here; this guy won't make that mistake. And lots of other people will have been encouraged to think about their backup scenarios, which will be a GOOD THING. Overall I think it's been positive, though less than elegantly so!
Cheap posturing by a country where it makes no difference. Now for West Germany to have chosen to nuclear free during the cold war - THAT would have been impressive, and stupid. But NZ? I can conceive of no scenario where nukes would have help protect NZ. But nukes for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Great move...
Wow - no wonder the USA is messed up. In the UK our ministers get a chauffeured car - and that's it. Disrupting the traffic - especially because it's so bad anyway - is the way to lose elections over here. I remember seeing Obama go past in a 50 car cavalcade. WHY?
Seems like this has potential as a campaign issue.
If you own hardware or software that is securely encrypted, then you will be committing an offence. That's how they get round that problem. Whether that's sustainable in court is up to debate - doesn't it constitute free speech? - but it will keep a few people cowed.
The local government agency I used to work for was forced to pay a 'market supplement' when, after they carried out a 'job evaluation scheme', their staff disappeared at the height of the last boom. On the whole governments pay peanuts, and 'fail to recruit the most highly skilled'. So they end up paying for mess ups like this. Unfortunately telling legislators that they need to pay their skilled staff properly is something that most governments aren't good at...
If they - and all other tech companies - impose a duty on government purchasers of their products to reveal any security breaches, then if the government fails to do so, it doesn't get any more toys until it conforms to the requirements of the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
The Economist provided figures, just expressed as percentage of GDP, which translate straight into figures if that's what you want, but serve its purposes far better by illustrating why the figures won't add up.
This gives a very different figure
http://www.ukpublicspending.co...
Pensions are not going into the pot - you've got to spread the welfare figure over the whole of the 18-66 age group; the local government figures are the ones that are still going to be spent - they don't make cash payments but are services to the elderly and disabled, which they won't be able to afford out of their basic income, and the fraught issue of housing; £280 is barely enough for rent in most areas, let alone to replace all welfare payments, but you're probably proposing half that from welfare deletions. To be fair you've got the impact of the disappearance of the income tax and capital gains tax thresholds, which might get you back up to £280 - but that assumes all welfare income recipients only receive basic income.
So that's why the Economist's figures are rather better than yours...
This is an interesting proposal to address the alleged lack of demand in some economies, notably the Euro and Japan, but there is no such issue in the USA or the UK. There's some interesting research that a slug of money is often used very wisely in serious poverty striken communities in the Third World.
However your core failure is to distinguish stock from flow. Stock is the amount in the tanks, flow is what's going in or out. Helicopter money is a change in stocks; basic income is a change in flow to people.
" Thus, giving each working-age American a basic income equal to the poverty line would cost $2.14 trillion.Cutting all federal and state benefits for low-income Americans would save around a trillion dollars per year, so there would still be a significant gap to be closed by revenue increases"
Yeah right. That's really going to be found. Note that much of medicare would still be necessary unless you think health insurance is affordable on $10k.
The Cato link seems to be mainly about EITC, very different critter.
To get those jobs done, the workers will have to be paid more - though only enough to want to carry on doing it. Whereas people who seriously enjoy their jobs will be paid less - or rather won't receive wage rises when the prices of many items rise to create the incentive to get them created / done.
The demand for eggs is unlikely to rise, and the incentive to produce will be far less, so that's probably a commodity whose price would rise in a basic income world to ensure that the farmer COULD be bothered to get up in the morning. However your point about education is mostly valid, except that the belief in certificates as the way to prove you can do a job is probably overdone.
Clearly the rate of pay for those basic jobs would rise substantially, and many would disappear; automated checkouts and robots in fast food restaurants. Probably some people would be willing to work a couple of days a week at more complex, if uninspiring tasks (cleaning springs to mind) to raise them above the absolute basic. And some people will value the status of job even if they don't NEED it. Pensioners offer this response. And the impact of forcing higher rates of pay for basic jobs would a valuable move to reduce wage inequality.
All those tasks already need to be done, and there are plenty of healthy pensioners who could be doing them. They don't, for the most part. The belief that the mass of the population would be more community inclined seems... optimistic.
Venezuela made an attempt at a control economy and belly flopped when the oil revenues ran out. Greece's problem was more subtle - ultimately a failure of the tax man to collect what was owed in the context of a generally free market system. Both got into trouble when the money ran out, but not for the same reasons.
It identifies the costs of government and adds them to the proposed proportion of average income that basic income should provide, and offers the necessary average tax rate as the consequence. This is the equivalent of establishing why the plane won't fly from first principles, rather than saying 'well, this size of plane flies, so so will this one'.
Simply doesn't work at the moment http://www.economist.com/news/...
I'm sure you'll be happy when the vigilante mob burns down your house because your wi-fi was insecure and a neighbour or someone sitting in a car outside used it to do the deed.
If I carry out an action sitting in the UK that has serious effects in America, the USA will attempt to extradite me, and the UK courts won't raise a jurisdictional issue. So the conclusion is that it's the location of the server that constitutes the location of the crime. For accessing child porn, it will be the local jurisdiction - where the material is viewed - that will have jurisdiction. So yes, there is an established location even if the crime is 'over the internet'.
If a person murders someone but a state court can't be enticed into convicting them, a federal case for 'depriving the victim of their civil rights' can be generated to bring some degree of justice into the situation. Clearly here the FBI and NSA have committed this offence; the question is whether a Grand Jury has been empanelled to consider these offences, with the aim of punishing the criminals who authorised the behaviour.
Yeah - ok - we're talking the USA here, not some well regulated democracy with a rule of law...
"He wrote in the blog that that lead counsel for the Sanders campaign told him that Garvey, Schubert, Barer sent the demand letter without any consultation with the Sanders campaign."
If that's the quality of advisers that Sanders is attracting, he's got a problem with his ability to identify good staff.
It's been a quiet day
Let's try and be positive here; this guy won't make that mistake. And lots of other people will have been encouraged to think about their backup scenarios, which will be a GOOD THING. Overall I think it's been positive, though less than elegantly so!
So this is a 65 fable building? That's pretty fabulous...
Cheap posturing by a country where it makes no difference. Now for West Germany to have chosen to nuclear free during the cold war - THAT would have been impressive, and stupid. But NZ? I can conceive of no scenario where nukes would have help protect NZ. But nukes for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Great move...
Wow - no wonder the USA is messed up. In the UK our ministers get a chauffeured car - and that's it. Disrupting the traffic - especially because it's so bad anyway - is the way to lose elections over here. I remember seeing Obama go past in a 50 car cavalcade. WHY?
Seems like this has potential as a campaign issue.
If you own hardware or software that is securely encrypted, then you will be committing an offence. That's how they get round that problem. Whether that's sustainable in court is up to debate - doesn't it constitute free speech? - but it will keep a few people cowed.
The local government agency I used to work for was forced to pay a 'market supplement' when, after they carried out a 'job evaluation scheme', their staff disappeared at the height of the last boom. On the whole governments pay peanuts, and 'fail to recruit the most highly skilled'. So they end up paying for mess ups like this. Unfortunately telling legislators that they need to pay their skilled staff properly is something that most governments aren't good at...
Why bother with a visa? Just arrive, and then disappear into the undocumented community. Too much like hard work the other way. No benefit.
That you should be so lucky
Back in my day we had to crawl on hand and bare feet over glass to get to school....
If they - and all other tech companies - impose a duty on government purchasers of their products to reveal any security breaches, then if the government fails to do so, it doesn't get any more toys until it conforms to the requirements of the contract.