The same point it is for all those other cars that have mechanisms to make it easier for humans: to make it easier for humans. I mean, you ARE aware, I hope, that many other cars by now have auto-cruise control and such? Why do they have it? Because it's easier to not have to maintain the same speed with your foot pressing the pedal the whole time. As usual, with ALL things that get automatised for the end-user, and that end-user uses it, it's because it gives more comfort.
The point, as of yet, is to *assist* the driver; it doesn't absolve the driver from driving, nor from his responsibility to pay attention. Maybe instead of 'autopilot', one should call it 'auto-assistance'; that way, pedantic whiners would have less to whine about it.
BTW, no-one is forcing to use the autopilot. If you don't want it, you can drive manually. But if you do use it, and then get careless about it, don't blame your own lack of awareness on the manufacturer. If you can't handle the extra comfort it gives, then don't use it.
Human chess champions ALSO learn myriads of chess games from the past, and often base themselves on those. In reverse, current high level chessprograms also 'calculate' a position and give a certain amount of points to certain moves, and take the best out of those. You even have those that actually *learn* from their own play, and some who offer some randomness when they have two options that are equal, making them far more unpredictable, even when in the exact same situation.
Now, I know what you want to say: a computer prog can't really 'understand' the game like we do, and in a certain way, this is true; look at Deep blue versus Kramnik in 2006 during some games. Sometimes, the computer just doesn't realise he's being defeated until the very end. But, of course, that's because some minor things have been overlooked in its programming, like positional advantages of the pawns while standing at the kings' wing. One could say that, if the same 'education' was overlooked with human players, they would exhibit the same thing. Only, humans have more ways of learning things (as of yet), so 'overall' there is less they would have omitted in their chess-education.
Just like you, I used to think it's that 'awareness' that makes the difference, but truth be told, it's not. I realised some time ago that, within the domain of chess, it doesn't really matter *how* you get that awarness; ultimately, the computer/program will be able to simulate awareness of chess that equals or surpasses everything a human can do. That's because it continues to learn and be 'educated', without limit, while a single human can't.
In essence, the single human isn't loosing to the computer, but to the gathered knowledge and effort of thousands of grandmasters and dozens of programmers.
Of course, in the end, it's the computer delivering it.
So one can as well argue it is, or it's not, 'loosing against the machine'. But loosing it is, and the more it becomes self-learning, the less the difference makes any sense anymore. It's just that a human can learn less, and has less time and had less 'educators'. A human also bases himself on other games, only his 'database' is a million times smaller than that of a chess-computer, he also calculates moves and positions, but he does it a million times slower, and he also is self-learning, and there he's still a bit in the lead. But won't be for long.
So, I'm not sure their is an intrinsic difference anymore. It becomes a bit of semantics. When is one 'smart'? In fact, if I would beat you in chess, am I then 'smart' and you not? that would depend on how you measure 'smartness'. Idem with the computer and man debate. But as far (and only) the domain of chess goes, one can as well acknowledge the computer is better at it by now.
And so will it go with every domain.
and the last domain for an AI, will be what we call 'self-awareness', and there you'll have the same discussion in the far future: is it really self-aware, or does it give a perfect imitation of self-awareness?
And there too, one will come to a point where it doesn't matter anymore. If you can't distinguish anymore between the imitation and the real thing, the point becomes mute.
People should give all this hyperbole and pent-up claims a rest.
The Brexit will be a bit of a re-adjustment for a couple of months, especially after (finally?) invoking article 50, but all in all, it'll just be a footnote in history. In 5 years time, no-one will even remember what the fuss was about, and things will continue to run as they did before.
But I *DO* expect the politicians to keep their word and brexit. They said they would abide by the referendum, well, the people have spoken, whether one likes it or not. If you're not going to keep yourself to the referendum when the outcome doesn't suits you, you can as well hold no referendum at all, then. that remains true, EVEN with the absolute deplorable and saddening - and despicable, in fact - behaviour of the top 'Leave'-advocates, who now seem to curtail and do everything to *not* leave the EU. It's incomprehensible. What kind of cowardly fucktards are they? I actually think they were right to leave, but for gods' sake, what a bunch of wussies, once they've won.
Point is, the referendum was clear. The remain lost. Deal with it. Now whining for yet another referendum doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, let's say the other side gets 52%, then. What then? Can the 48% of the populace then not ignore the outcome too, and don't they then have the same right in demanding yet another, third referendum? Ad infinitum.
No, the outcome was clear, the people have spoken... leave the EU. And do it now, not in 6 months. It'll already take 2 years to negotiate the departure as it is, and Junkers made it clear there were to be NO negotiations *before* article 50 ws invoked.
"b) We don't have hundreds of years of experience with plastic. Or many oil derivatives. Or electromagnetism in devices held next to your head. And yet all the same scaremongering bollocks applies to those too."
This is untrue. What you describe there, is akin to saying "we don't have hundreds of years of experience with modern medicine neither". Indeed, we haven't. And as we've seen, sometimes it *DOES* go wrong. The difference there, that, once it did, we were fairly easily able to withdraw that medicine and make sure it was nowhere to be had anymore. Once you stop production, you stop the product, period.
Not so with living organism - including GMO's, of course. Say something went wrong with a GMO, let's say it came into contact with some wild variant, it becoming a hybrid with its seed or pollen gotten poisonous. Now, try 'recalling' that. You can't. As long as the hybrid has a Darwinian advantage it will and will REMAIN in nature, even if it's ecological disastrous for other plants and animals, humans included.
Now, one can say how unlikely this is, but you can never say it's impossible. Especially when transferring inter-species genes, we simply do not know the long term effects, when it comes into contact with wild variants, spreading over several generations, with all possible mutations in it accounted for. Yes, mutations happen in nature too, but at least in nature there won't be swapping of whole gene-sequences of completely different species, like that of insects and plants. This does not mean it's inherently dangerous or unethical or whatever, but it does mean we have no clue what it will do and how it will interact 'in the wild' in any long term way. We just don't know.
Which means, we don't know IF there's going to be a long term ecological effect because of it. Which in turn means, if there is such an effect, it's near impossible to put the genie back into the bottle, because - contrary to your plastic, oil derivatives and electromagnetic devices - you can not simply reset everything by calling the products back.
In fact, it's quite easy to se the danger, and the more 'volatile' something is, the more apparent the danger is. Imagine Monsanto is expanding its domain and it's not only researching and manipulating plants anymore, but bacteria and viruses. So they create some air-born viruses that they proclaim are very beneficial to, say, the muscle growth of cows and pigs. They proclaim their tests show it's safe.
But are you then REALLY going to trust wide spread viruses, which are airborn and prone to mutations to be released in the wild, knowing that humans are not cows or pigs, but mammals nevertheless?
I think NO-ONE would allow that, and with good reason. And this is regardless of how much Monsanto says it's conducted research to show how safe it is. It's because it's obvious the RISK is too great. And once it's out there, you can't put it back in the lab.
Now, the same principle applies to plants and animals. Yes, it's less prone to mutate into something dangerous, and it's less likely to cause direct harm to humans, but there is still a risk, especially for an ecological impact - after all, we can already see the impact of (natural) exotes coming into another ecological niche with devastating consequences, sometimes. The main problem remains: IF something goes wrong, it's near impossible to get rid of it entirely anymore afterwards.
Recently, I (re)stumbled upon an article called "Environmental Heresies". A good and interesting read for sure, but, like with all these kind of articles, the author (futurologists, they are called, I believe) makes the same basic mistakes as all his predecessors. I'll give some rebuttal and criticism:
His first point, about slowing demographics, is not very much disputable: it is as it is, and if it's in decline, it's in decline. However, whether we will level out completely, or go down, or up again, is not as clear cut as he seems to portray. The author gives as main reason that people go to cities, but I think this explanation is inadequate, and certainly not enough to explain the changing demographics.
It should be noted, for instance, that, during the middle ages, the amount of children born in cities were no less then those on the countryside. What *did* change, though, is the empowerement of women (most notably in matters of procreation) and social and medical advancements. THOSE are the real reasons why demographics change. It also follows that, if, by some disaster or serious economic and scientific decline we would degrade into former levels of welfare and reduced possibility for women to control any family planning, demographics would go up again. It is therefor not an absolute certitude that the world-demographics will continue to decline...this is only true as an extrapolation, if everything remains more or less the same. However, it is exactly the danger of this sort of extrapolation that the author is (also) lamenting against.
As for genetically modified (GM) crops, I fear he really simplifies the subject too much to be useful in making a rational decision about the pro's and cons. Basically, he over-optimistically only conveys the pros, while barely mentionning any of the cons - as if they were unimportant.
It should be noted however, that with living organisms, you can not simply test it out in the wild, and then expect to be able to put the genie back in the bottle when things go wrong. Once you contaminated a natural area, and the contamination has a sufficiently advantage (in a darwinistic sense) to stay around in the genepool, there is no way in hell you can get rid of it completely, when it turns out it is damaging humans, or other species and ecological systems.
Now, his counterargument that those won't survive in the wild seems rather weak. In effect, some GM genes *already* have contaminated other 'wild' crops, and it didn't sizzle out in the wild, on the contrary (a prominent example of that are some strains of GM corn in south-america). So... it may be that some GMs will not survive in the wild, but you can bet some *will*, however. And he, nor anyone else, can garantuee that such GM or hybrid crops can't be damaging or unhealthy to the ecosystem or local species, including humans.
Also, the reductionistic view of "we're not doing anything else then what people have been doing for centuries" is somewhat misleading too. Yes, people have been breeding crops, and cultivated crops are not 'natural' in the sense that they occur in the wild...but it's an unfair analogy, because one is comparing oranges with apples. For instance, with GM, it is perfectly possible to make genemodifications between two completely different species of plants. In effect, this trans-species swapping of genes with GM, can be done between animals and plants. In all those centuries that "we have always done this" I would like to see any example where this has actually been done before.
No; this is a totally new technique, with new possibilities, certainly, but also new consequences (which we don't know anything about) and new dangers. You can't just shrug those of with claiming, falsely, that we've been using those techniques for millenia. And you can't just merrily test it out in the wild, and see if anything happens.
Apart from that, even purely economically, I doubt it has all those beneficial effects the author claims it has or will have - but more
This is the wrong approach, and it suffers from the same things I said earlier. For instance, it would presume the government, in all its wisdom, know which technology it should support with heavy subsidies, and which not. I haven't seen compelling evidence, not even in the last 200 years for such innate wisdom... did you? Saying: 'thanks to that, prices came down'... If you heavily subsidised electric Revolving Ice Cream Cones, no doubt the price will come down too. But so what? The point I've made several times now is: if it's REALLY a far more efficient, advantageous technology, it WILL conquer the (free) market, whether you subsidise it or not. It make take a few years longer, but it will also save billions out of peoples' pockets. In a few circumstances, it might not break through otherwise, but even then: choosing the government as the wise, decisive factor in what is economical the most worthy, is bullocks. So for each sporadic lucky-shot the government had that wouldn't have made it on the free market anyway, you'd have 9 othrs where were fiasco's, costing us billions and billions. So no, thanks: the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.
Solar panels and windmills are, in effect, one of the *least* efficient power/electricity providers, if your goal is to have a stable energy for your society.
The truth of the matter is, it's basically one giant waste of taxpayers' money, for no good reason, *but* to provide a bonus to the rich...scuze, me: to 'lower cost'. And where all all these low-cost solarpanels - subsidized with our money - gone to now? Exactly: China. And that's also the main reason (>80%) of why the cost has come down. It's NOT because the rare metals used for it came down, as some seem to think. (In fact, those are sharply rising, due to the demand). It's cheap labor. In China.
So... is that what our own taxmoney is best used for: to kickstart other economies abroad? I don't think so.
"We" didn't get a 'strategically important industry' : the Chinese have. And we paid for it indirectly, through our taxes.
But the point I made was that would happen with or without the 3000 euro bonus one gets for a Tesla. Thus, that the adoption of Tesla's (or electric cars in general) is not particularly stimulated by such a thing, n is merely a bonus to the rich, and by the time it would become a stimulance to buy one or not (for people where 3000 euro actually matter in buying it or not), the subsidies are always cut.
If your devils-advocate-theory would be right, it wouldn't get cut, because you still have all the advantages you proclaim, only massively more so. So it's highly doubtful these kind of bonuses are put out with such a goal.
The second counter is, if it doesn't really stimulates nor deters any additional adoption of those cars at that price-class, you could as well save your money for it. Say everything you say is true: if with the bonus you (well, the government) virtually get as much cars as without it, than save the money and leave it out. Maybe hold it back to where it comes near a point where it WILL make a difference in broad adoption.
But it does mean "entity1" shouldn't have a holier-then-thou attitude. After all, a thief complaining someone else steals from him never makes a very ethical-compelling case, and is being rather hypocritical.
They are not subsidies strictly spoken, but I guess one could call it financial advantages, though. That said, it's not specifically for Tesla, and it's not Tesla that is asking for it; it's just the government that is doing it. So one can hardly blame Tesla for it.
But it's not specially for Tesla, nor is it Tesla's fault the government subsidizes it. It's the governments' fault. And in a democracy where the government is chosen, it is, thus, the citizens' fault. Basically: it's your fault.;-)
Well, ok, I'm sure you voted for the good guys who never give out subsidies, but still...
Point being, the parent poster was specifically calling out Tesla, and thus implied they were getting some sort of unfair and unethical advantage. But it's not limited to Tesla, and it's debatable whether it's unethical. If the government gave you a taxbreak so you'd only have to pay half your taxes, would you refuse because you thought it unfair? I very much doubt it. I know I wouldn't.
So... is it necessary and a good thing the government masively subsidises stuff like electric cars, solar panels, windmills, etc. Hell no. It costs loads of money and often just keeps non-profitable companies afloat with taxpayers' money. Not saying it's always the case, and maybe Tesla would survive without the subsidies, but that's what it boils down to most of the time.
However, the ones to blame is the government allowing, nay, stimulating such squander. NOT the companies who just make use of the money that is thrown at them.
In my country they're starting subsidising electric cars too, now. It's foolishness. Getting 3000 euro or not for a 50000 euro Tesla for instance, will not deter or stimulate a person rich enough to buy one. I mean, if you're rich enough to buy one in the first place, and they want one, they will buy one, regardless of whether they get a 3000 euro reduction. This is just an added bonus to the rich, which don't really need them. so the theory that it's need to 'stimulate' innovative technologies so they break through on the market, is basically bull. It doesn't really help, and it costs the populace dearly anyway.
When an electric car will go down to 15-20000 euro, and becomes viable for ordinary citizens, THEN it would matter in deciding to buy one or not. But at that time, they'll undoubtedly stop giving subsidies, as they always do. Because it's beginning to cost too much, and the rich elite (many of whom are the same politicians that voted for the subsidies in the first place) has already got one anyway. Of course, the official explanation by then is that 'the goal has been achieved' and thus no more subsidies are necessary.
It's all crap. If a new technology is better than old technology, it will manage to break through with or without taxing your citizens, including the poorest, to pay for a sweet bonus for the rich. There are very few technologies that have inherent advantages, and yet that need heavy subsidies to stay afloat, certainly for longer than a few years. After that, it just becomes a monetary black hole where you pour in taxpayers' money endlessly, so a company which isn't competitive stays afloat while we're paying for it - often doubly so.
It's a distortion of the free market, and I believe the disadvantages of such a system are far bigger than the occasional advantage of having a new technology that might or might not have broken through without it, for the simple reason that most WOULD have broken through eventually anyway, if they're really that good and better than old technology.
The 850 was the UBI, right? I thought you said: "We institute the new UBI program, paying you, like everyone, $12.5k/year."
It's a bit confusing if you first talk about your own numbers, but than switch to mine.
But that was the minor point.
My hypothetical example is brought closer to reality, but still smaller in scope so one can get a good look at how things are going to turn out. With the part of 'inactive', about half is currently getting nothing or very little (childsupport, housewifes, etc.) , and half is around the median (prepension, pension, CASP, etc.). As you can see, with the actual distribution better followed, we get:
"They make (1500*140+10000*2)*12 = 2.76M/year altogether, so the mean income is 2.76M/183 = 15081/year. 850/mo is about 67,6% of that. So you need to collect 67.6% of everyone's money to pay for that."
Agreed?
Well then!!
That means, we're already WAY over what we pay for taxes now (45-50%). And, more-over, we only have the taxes calculated just to deal with the UBI, now. All is souped up with the UBI...so what about the rest of the expenses a state makes? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, what about social buildings, what about military expenses, what about subsidising stupid windmills, what about ALL THE REST that costs money to the state?
I've looked that up for you too. My country spends 19,7% on social security (aka, the current welfare-system). Which means that *80%* is still going to other expenditures. So, unless you want to refuse to spend anything on infrastructure and such anymore from that point on, you *STILL* have those other costs. Which STILL have to be paid for, which STILL has to come from the taxpayers.
Adding 80% to already hefty 67,6% that we already need for the just the UBI, makes it a whopping 110,88%!!!
As I've said numerous, numerous times now; a nation-wide UBI makes things prohibitively expensive and can't be sustained just out of the blue. I've used your own calculations, so I hope you've finally realised your system isn't going to work.
I've responded to your last post as well, using more actual percentages to reflect reality better.
You'll soon note that using more realistic numbers for the whole populace and for the more realistic income of the top 10%, your UBI system is going to become increasingly (over)expensive.
wait.. why is it 10200? Didn't you say they would keep the FULL UBI? You explicitly said so. So they would get 12500 a year, no?
But regardless; this is obviously only a measurement of WORKING vs UNEMPLOYED people.
However, an UBI is meant for EVERYBODY, right?
So, I've checked the numbers for my country.
Working populace: 4.499.293 Unemployed: 421.390 INACTIVE population: 2.360.095 (this includes things like people on medical services, CPAS, pensions, etc.)
This means, translated to our example:
unemployed (bums): 11 median earners: 110 top earners: 2 inactive: 60 (rest of the populace who isn't working, but who's income won't be higher than the median (a pension is often lower, obviously)
Also, I've been overly generous creating one supperrich for every 30 median incomes; this is far from the truth. I've checked the numbers (for the USA this time), and I read that the top 10% earns about $113,799/year, which is about (a bit less then) 10000/ a month.
Well, saying 'some keep 100% of their UBI, and other get nothing', *would* lead to misunderstanding, since you actually meant to say everyone receives the UBI. But soit, no use crying over spilled milk or wrong wording.
As long as you don't keep wording it wrongly, that is. Because now you say: "most of them easily paying for it out of the UBI itself". That's nonsensical. It's like saying you can move a car by pushing it from the inside.
Look, you should start simple and far more concreet. That way you'll be able to see the problems of what you suggest more clearly too. Instead of a country of millions, let's say you have a country of 183.
10 persons are lazy bums and do nothing. They get 850 euro from the state. (8500 total) 170 persons are an employee or civil worker and earn the median, around 1500 euro/month, say. (255000 3 persons are CEO of a factory that makes.. I dunno... Tesla's and such. They earn 50000 a month. (150000)
Then you have the current state, which, to aid the lazy bums (and to cover other costs too, of course) asks for 50% of the second group, and progressively 50-60-70% of the third, with an average of, say, 60%. The state uses that money for it's expenses (infrastructure, etc.) and, of course social security (aka, the bums) too.
Now we get you system.
10 persons are lazy bums and do nothing. They get 850 euro from the state. (8500 total) 170 persons are an employee or civil worker and earn the median, around 1500 euro/month, say. +850 (399500) 3 persons are CEO of a factory that makes.. I dunno... Tesla's and such. They earn 50000 a month. + 850 (152550)
Note that you now say; that's not a problem, because the 'taxpayers' pay for it. But the expenses for the state in regard to social security have clearly risen. They went from 8500 to 155550; thus, more than 20 times!
It's clear to see it's IMPOSSIBLE to maintain that 0% for most, and 44% for the top, is enough: even now they're already paying more for it, and the costs are a 1/20th of what it would be with an UBI! It DOES NOT help, saying 'the UBI is paid for by the UBI itself', because you first *need* the money to pay for the UBI in the first place!
Furthermore, even if you crank up that percentage, the main problem remains that the top 10% will provide a disproportional amount for this kind of welfare. They'll may stick around with a percentage of 60% on average, but certainly not if that reaches 75% or more. And the moment they leave, you'll not loose 10% of your income for sponsoring the UBI, but more than half of it.
Try your esoteric and theoretical framework in the case that I described above, and use those examples. Show me, in that country of 183, who would get what and has to pay how much, and let's see then, if you can cover the costs with nobody paying anything, except the very top with between 19-44%. One look at it, shows how implausible your suggestion is: the amount that has to be paid already exceeds what the top can pay. Even if you augment the tax % for the median incomes to a popint where they only have 500 euro left of the UBI (as you said), it still means the top will have to pay around 90% of the costs, what I already said in my former posts.
So, ok, let me see your applied UBI on the case above. I'm curious.
Probably because you said: "Only people making nothing at all would get to keep 100% of their UBI, as they have no income to tax." while you're now saying everyone gets to keep 100% of their UBI, only the ones that earn more get taxed more. Which, btw, is already happening now (at least in the EU); the more you earn, the more you get taxed. However, if *everyone* gets 100% of the UBI, it still amounts to the same problem: paying for it.
Yes, yes, your partial reduction of overhead. I find that overly optimistic. Maybe it'll reduce things with 15-20%, but certainly not 60%-100%. In contrast, however, since all the working force will get an UBI too, this means an augmentation of (in my country at least) of about 100% (going from 3 million to 6 million). Taxes now are at about 50%. Basically you now say: ah, but they will pay it with their taxes, but since it's an increase of at least 80% (even with overhead reduction), this would mean an increase of taxes of 80% too. Which would come close to 90% total. There is no fool in the world who would work beyond the UBI, if everything you earned more would be taxed at 90%. Ah, you say, but with my system it's relative benign taxes, until you get to the top 25%. It's only those that will pay 70-90+% taxes.
Fine. I'll repeat my question: who is going to pay for it, when, obviously, that top 25% doesn't want to be taxed at 75%-99%, and leaves the country?
But this will not help in predicting long term effects of higher amounts of money.
Let's say one starts of with 100 dollar. Nothing happens for the next year. 200 dollars. nothing happens for a year. etc. You reach 800 dollar, but then start to note negative influences which actually started around 400 dollar, but only now become apparent.
Ok... but at that point, you're 8 years into the program, and all your citizens have been made accustomed to getting money for nothing, maybe have made loans with the taught of the UBI in mind, and you're whole populace has become to see it as an acquired right (which always happens when you give a benefit long enough).
Is there any political party that would dare to revoke or starkly reduce this UBI, and still hopes to be re-elected? I don't think so.
As I said, it's a pretty damn dangerous thing to do for a country, and if it really goes awry, it could destroy your national economy. And even when using mitigating methods, like small amounts, etc., you'll never be fully sure whether you'll not end up with huge consequences if something goes wrong, but only shows up in the long run.
And with small scale experiments, you'll never get a fully valid extrapolation for a nation-wide UBI.
So, for me, I have nothing intrinsically against a nation trying out a general UBI, but I'll prefer it to be ANOTHER nation doing it first, while we wait 10 years, and see how it goes.;-)
Even with all the theories floating around here on slashdot (everyone is an expert again, as usual), my personal estimate is, that a true UBI, country-wide implemented, and within our current neo-liberal capitalistic free-market system, has only a 20% of success. The main problem is and remains: who is going to pay for it all? Some seem to think a countries' economy is a closed loop, and you simply can re-use the money endlessly. Well, it's not. So it can't be just by 'taxpayers' (at least, not at the level of current taxes, which are huge as it is in the EU). Some say: "take it from the rich'.. but tax the rich too much, and they'll flee to another country. The same for big companies. and the most heard one is: it will pay for itself, because of reduction of administrative overhead. Which is BS, or, at least, a stupendously optimistic view on how much (cost)reduction it will bring. In the best of cases, it would be around 15-20% of the total costs, not 60%, let alone 100%.
As of yet, I didn't see a clear, concise and valid system (and certainly not something with numbers and calculations and other hard data) of who, what and how much exactly such a nation-wide UBI would be sustained long term.
Look, I'm beginning to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. The fact that I do not call it a real UBI is not because (whether or not) you calculate it at the average, and that the average is (would be) 24%, but for this fact (which you explicitly said yourself in one of your posts):
"Only people making nothing at all would get to keep 100% of their UBI, as they have no income to tax.
People making the median income, of around half the mean income, would only get to keep half of their UBI (about $500/mo) after taxes; the rest would go right back into funding the UBI program.
People around the 75th income percentile, who make about the mean income, would neither get nor pay anything in net, obviously.
Only around the top 25% of incomes would actually come out at a loss for this, and most of them would still pay only a nominal percentage of their income as the higher income brackets get smaller and smaller very quickly (i.e. most of the top 25% still don't make much more than the mean income themselves).
Only the absolute richest of the rich would end up paying even close to the nominal tax rate, and you would have to make literally infinite money to actually pay the nominal tax rate."
So what are you blabbering about, now? You're completely contradicting yourself, first saying some people will get nothing, now saying everyone will get 1000 dollar. CLEARLY, if ONLY the persons 'making nothing at all' would get the full UBI, and people with the mean income would GET NOTHING, then you ARE NOT giving a fixed sum, and YOU ARE NOT giving the same amount because of the CONDITION of their income. I don't care HOW you calculate their taxes; it's the fact that (the amount of) your semi-UBI is dependent on their income WHICH MAKES IT NOT AN UBI.
If anyone, it should be me saying; please get it through your thick skull.
"Not at all. I'm proposing that everyone gets the same, uniform, amount (set to some fraction of the average income)"
I think you fail to see the contradiction of the first part with the last part of your sentence there. If your amount is dependent on your income, than, by it's very nature, the amount you get is not the same for everyone anymore.
While in effect, an UBI is a uniform AMOUNT which is FIXED. "An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen's income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income ; note the 'unconditional' and 'sum' in that definition there).
So I wasn't 'ranting' under a misconception, but rather was spot on with what I said. Whether you want to see it or not, the fact that some get it 'full', others half, and others not at all IS differing it in groups (groups of different income) and IS making it conditional, and therefore it's not an UBI anymore. The fact that it can be calculated by simple math doesn't change anything to it, and still means that, compared to an actual UBI, your welfare-system is going to have more overhead.
I'm not sure what YOU think an UBI is, but I think I made it clear what I think it is, and what the definition of it is. And any UBI-amount/sum of money which is dependent on one's income (aka; a condition for the amount one will receive) by definition is no true UBI. As I've said plenty times by now. I think it's you who are confused what an actual UBI is, thus.
Anyway, we've gone on about this for long enough now. I'll grant you that your system would be simpler than the current patchwork - but the original welfare-system was simpler than what we have now too, and you did not alleviate or counter any of the objections I raised in my former post about it. The reason I asked for who's going to pay for it (a true UBI) is because, as you say yourself - such a thing is not feasible if taxpayers have to pay for it equally. However, if you say "people with a higher income", you're basically saying what I wrote in my first posts; 'take it from the rich' as a way to subsidise it, which I think is unrealistic in getting any succes, if the tax is too high. The difference with your welfare-system is, that the cost in total will be less, since you give less to those that earn more. But that ain't an UBI anymore. And while it prolongs itself by being less costly, it doesn't solve it. A tax-rate for the supperrich which approaches their nominal income: you really think that is going to fly? It's fairly realistic to think that they'll flee the country long before it gets that high. In your system, the 10% pay for the brunt of the system, however (because those with median incomes will not really supply your welfare-system with enough money to keep the rest afloat, at least not if you consider the fact that our current 'patchwork' soups up already 50% of the median incomes. Saying your (partial) reduction of overhead will compensate for it, is very unlikely.
Also, note that you can't infinitely 're-use' your money. It's not like a closed system, where you have a set amount of money, divide it to the people, which spend it on goods, which are then 100% recuperated by the sellers and makers of the goods, which then get taxed, which then provides income to the state to give to the citizens to buy again, etc. Such a vision would be simplistic, and I'm sure you're aware of this too. A country, especially with a trade-deficit, always *loses* some money. And you can't recuperate all your money, because it's not a closed system - if that were not the case, the solution would be simple: the state should make us all civil servants, doing (almost) nothing, and paying us all 2000 dollar/month. Ah, the increase in expenditure! The increase in e
errata; several months = several years. and some other things, but I'm getting sleepy and start to make too much spellingmistakes, so I'm going to leave it at this, for tofday.;-)
A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions. The reduction of overhead there, thus, is that you do not try to have it progressively increase or reduce according to your income. It greatly simplifies matters, by not having to calculate any deductions. the same goes for a true UBI, which *IS* meant to be universal and the same for anyone. And this too, would avoid having to calculate the diminishing factor of an UBI related to income (+ have the additional advantage of not actually needing to check any income), contrary to what you propose. Which, I repeat, is more akin to our current welfare-system than an UBI.
I guess you could call it a regressive UBI if you want, but it goes against the principles of what a real UBI is supposed to be.
In essence, what you propose is a welfare-system like we have now, but one that tries to replace the different ones we already have no; do you agree or not?
I've already stated the pragmatic problem with this: our current welfare-system didn't start out to be this complex from the get go, no; it used to be much simpler when it just started. The problem is exactly the progressive and/or regressive nature such welfare-systems (and taxes). That is, because in essence, you're making exemptions for it; one says 'this group with this income gets this much', 'this group gets only so much', etc. It's easy to see, once you already established such a system, that under the slightest political and social pressure, additional groups and/or with additional levels of % will be added. That's exactly what happened with our welfare-system, which was relative simple and limited in the 50'ies and '60ies, but then took off into directions and branched out to so many domains, groups, and different % levels, that we ended up with the patchwork you're now speaking of.
I don't see how you would avoid the same. Even if you managed to impose such a thing, history will only repeat itself, and you'll end up again with extra additions to your progressive/regressive system.
One can't even exclude this with a real UBI and flattax, but at least there you have the advantage of simplicity and clarity, it's more 'pure' (and thus, more difficult to subvert with added complexity) just *because* it's a black-or-white situation: you either have a true flattax, or you don't. And you either have a an nation-wide UBI (the same for everyone), or you haven't. There are no distinctions being pre-made, nor progressive reductions of an UBI introduced, so it's far harder to make such straightforward systems devolve into a chaos of welfare-patches again.
With your system, it's rather going back where we came from, but I don't see how it will survive additional complexity being added, and thus overhead being added. And you already *have* more overhead than with a real UBI, at least partially to begin with.Even in the domain you insist it's reducing overhead. For instance, with your "he overhead of figuring out how much money people made and collecting some of it from them / sending something back to them". Well, exactly. And, for instance, if such a person was deemed to be in a higher income-level, but for the last two months he fell into a lower class, then that means your UBI-reduction wasn't quite correct neither. So any mistake in income - whether made by the person or by the TAX-administration, will need to re-evaluate the UBI, and when too much has been reduced, will need to be paid back. so, in essence, you've gained no administrative reduction, at least not in principle. You STILL need to pay money back if your calculation was wrong.
In contrast, with a real UBI, you just pay each the same amount. It doesn't matter what his income is, so one doesn't need to deal with (mis)calculating it, and thus one doesn't need to send money back (or ask for more), if there is something wrong with his income-representation. Worse: with your system you'd still need to have a control and sanction-system too, to combat fraud by wi
No, if you read the papers dealing with UBI's (and flattax, for that matter) they almost ALL claim one of the big advantages is almost no administrative overhead anymore. If you replace overhead of other programs with overhead of your own program, it still means you have overhead, which you would NOT have if you didn't have to check every persons income each time to see if they're still eligible for an UBI.
As said, that's actually not an UBI anymore. The word says it itself: it should be a Universal Basic Income. Per definition this is meant that EVERYONE gets the same BASIC income. What you're describing is another form of welfare like we already know and have, but one that tries to replace the current welfare-systems. No doubt if you would succeed (but note that such welfare systems with checks always get more complex, not less), you would gain something, but it's clear as daylight that an UBI and real flattax where you DO NOT have to check income and such has LESS overhead than your welfare program and semi-flattax, where you DO have extra administrative overhead in checking things out. That we currently already have such a checking mechanism is just my point; an UBI and flattax is supposed to get rid of that.
"You're not doing any more income-checking than you already are just in the process of collecting taxes."
Exactly, so the advantage of reduced administrative overhead (that could even largely pay itself back, if you believe proponents) of an UBI and flattax is lost.
Slashdot Mirror
The same point it is for all those other cars that have mechanisms to make it easier for humans: to make it easier for humans. I mean, you ARE aware, I hope, that many other cars by now have auto-cruise control and such? Why do they have it? Because it's easier to not have to maintain the same speed with your foot pressing the pedal the whole time. As usual, with ALL things that get automatised for the end-user, and that end-user uses it, it's because it gives more comfort.
The point, as of yet, is to *assist* the driver; it doesn't absolve the driver from driving, nor from his responsibility to pay attention. Maybe instead of 'autopilot', one should call it 'auto-assistance'; that way, pedantic whiners would have less to whine about it.
BTW, no-one is forcing to use the autopilot. If you don't want it, you can drive manually. But if you do use it, and then get careless about it, don't blame your own lack of awareness on the manufacturer. If you can't handle the extra comfort it gives, then don't use it.
Human chess champions ALSO learn myriads of chess games from the past, and often base themselves on those. In reverse, current high level chessprograms also 'calculate' a position and give a certain amount of points to certain moves, and take the best out of those. You even have those that actually *learn* from their own play, and some who offer some randomness when they have two options that are equal, making them far more unpredictable, even when in the exact same situation.
Now, I know what you want to say: a computer prog can't really 'understand' the game like we do, and in a certain way, this is true; look at Deep blue versus Kramnik in 2006 during some games. Sometimes, the computer just doesn't realise he's being defeated until the very end. But, of course, that's because some minor things have been overlooked in its programming, like positional advantages of the pawns while standing at the kings' wing. One could say that, if the same 'education' was overlooked with human players, they would exhibit the same thing. Only, humans have more ways of learning things (as of yet), so 'overall' there is less they would have omitted in their chess-education.
Just like you, I used to think it's that 'awareness' that makes the difference, but truth be told, it's not. I realised some time ago that, within the domain of chess, it doesn't really matter *how* you get that awarness; ultimately, the computer/program will be able to simulate awareness of chess that equals or surpasses everything a human can do. That's because it continues to learn and be 'educated', without limit, while a single human can't.
In essence, the single human isn't loosing to the computer, but to the gathered knowledge and effort of thousands of grandmasters and dozens of programmers.
Of course, in the end, it's the computer delivering it.
So one can as well argue it is, or it's not, 'loosing against the machine'. But loosing it is, and the more it becomes self-learning, the less the difference makes any sense anymore. It's just that a human can learn less, and has less time and had less 'educators'. A human also bases himself on other games, only his 'database' is a million times smaller than that of a chess-computer, he also calculates moves and positions, but he does it a million times slower, and he also is self-learning, and there he's still a bit in the lead. But won't be for long.
So, I'm not sure their is an intrinsic difference anymore. It becomes a bit of semantics. When is one 'smart'? In fact, if I would beat you in chess, am I then 'smart' and you not? that would depend on how you measure 'smartness'. Idem with the computer and man debate. But as far (and only) the domain of chess goes, one can as well acknowledge the computer is better at it by now.
And so will it go with every domain.
and the last domain for an AI, will be what we call 'self-awareness', and there you'll have the same discussion in the far future: is it really self-aware, or does it give a perfect imitation of self-awareness?
And there too, one will come to a point where it doesn't matter anymore. If you can't distinguish anymore between the imitation and the real thing, the point becomes mute.
People should give all this hyperbole and pent-up claims a rest.
The Brexit will be a bit of a re-adjustment for a couple of months, especially after (finally?) invoking article 50, but all in all, it'll just be a footnote in history. In 5 years time, no-one will even remember what the fuss was about, and things will continue to run as they did before.
But I *DO* expect the politicians to keep their word and brexit. They said they would abide by the referendum, well, the people have spoken, whether one likes it or not. If you're not going to keep yourself to the referendum when the outcome doesn't suits you, you can as well hold no referendum at all, then. that remains true, EVEN with the absolute deplorable and saddening - and despicable, in fact - behaviour of the top 'Leave'-advocates, who now seem to curtail and do everything to *not* leave the EU. It's incomprehensible. What kind of cowardly fucktards are they? I actually think they were right to leave, but for gods' sake, what a bunch of wussies, once they've won.
Point is, the referendum was clear. The remain lost. Deal with it. Now whining for yet another referendum doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, let's say the other side gets 52%, then. What then? Can the 48% of the populace then not ignore the outcome too, and don't they then have the same right in demanding yet another, third referendum? Ad infinitum.
No, the outcome was clear, the people have spoken... leave the EU. And do it now, not in 6 months. It'll already take 2 years to negotiate the departure as it is, and Junkers made it clear there were to be NO negotiations *before* article 50 ws invoked.
http://responsibletechnology.o...
"b) We don't have hundreds of years of experience with plastic. Or many oil derivatives. Or electromagnetism in devices held next to your head. And yet all the same scaremongering bollocks applies to those too."
This is untrue. What you describe there, is akin to saying "we don't have hundreds of years of experience with modern medicine neither". Indeed, we haven't. And as we've seen, sometimes it *DOES* go wrong. The difference there, that, once it did, we were fairly easily able to withdraw that medicine and make sure it was nowhere to be had anymore. Once you stop production, you stop the product, period.
Not so with living organism - including GMO's, of course. Say something went wrong with a GMO, let's say it came into contact with some wild variant, it becoming a hybrid with its seed or pollen gotten poisonous. Now, try 'recalling' that. You can't. As long as the hybrid has a Darwinian advantage it will and will REMAIN in nature, even if it's ecological disastrous for other plants and animals, humans included.
Now, one can say how unlikely this is, but you can never say it's impossible. Especially when transferring inter-species genes, we simply do not know the long term effects, when it comes into contact with wild variants, spreading over several generations, with all possible mutations in it accounted for. Yes, mutations happen in nature too, but at least in nature there won't be swapping of whole gene-sequences of completely different species, like that of insects and plants. This does not mean it's inherently dangerous or unethical or whatever, but it does mean we have no clue what it will do and how it will interact 'in the wild' in any long term way. We just don't know.
Which means, we don't know IF there's going to be a long term ecological effect because of it. Which in turn means, if there is such an effect, it's near impossible to put the genie back into the bottle, because - contrary to your plastic, oil derivatives and electromagnetic devices - you can not simply reset everything by calling the products back.
In fact, it's quite easy to se the danger, and the more 'volatile' something is, the more apparent the danger is. Imagine Monsanto is expanding its domain and it's not only researching and manipulating plants anymore, but bacteria and viruses. So they create some air-born viruses that they proclaim are very beneficial to, say, the muscle growth of cows and pigs. They proclaim their tests show it's safe.
But are you then REALLY going to trust wide spread viruses, which are airborn and prone to mutations to be released in the wild, knowing that humans are not cows or pigs, but mammals nevertheless?
I think NO-ONE would allow that, and with good reason. And this is regardless of how much Monsanto says it's conducted research to show how safe it is. It's because it's obvious the RISK is too great. And once it's out there, you can't put it back in the lab.
Now, the same principle applies to plants and animals. Yes, it's less prone to mutate into something dangerous, and it's less likely to cause direct harm to humans, but there is still a risk, especially for an ecological impact - after all, we can already see the impact of (natural) exotes coming into another ecological niche with devastating consequences, sometimes. The main problem remains: IF something goes wrong, it's near impossible to get rid of it entirely anymore afterwards.
Gazing the future
Recently, I (re)stumbled upon an article called "Environmental Heresies". A good and interesting read for sure, but, like with all these kind of articles, the author (futurologists, they are called, I believe) makes the same basic mistakes as all his predecessors. I'll give some rebuttal and criticism:
His first point, about slowing demographics, is not very much disputable: it is as it is, and if it's in decline, it's in decline. However, whether we will level out completely, or go down, or up again, is not as clear cut as he seems to portray. The author gives as main reason that people go to cities, but I think this explanation is inadequate, and certainly not enough to explain the changing demographics.
It should be noted, for instance, that, during the middle ages, the amount of children born in cities were no less then those on the countryside. What *did* change, though, is the empowerement of women (most notably in matters of procreation) and social and medical advancements. THOSE are the real reasons why demographics change. It also follows that, if, by some disaster or serious economic and scientific decline we would degrade into former levels of welfare and reduced possibility for women to control any family planning, demographics would go up again. It is therefor not an absolute certitude that the world-demographics will continue to decline...this is only true as an extrapolation, if everything remains more or less the same. However, it is exactly the danger of this sort of extrapolation that the author is (also) lamenting against.
As for genetically modified (GM) crops, I fear he really simplifies the subject too much to be useful in making a rational decision about the pro's and cons. Basically, he over-optimistically only conveys the pros, while barely mentionning any of the cons - as if they were unimportant.
It should be noted however, that with living organisms, you can not simply test it out in the wild, and then expect to be able to put the genie back in the bottle when things go wrong. Once you contaminated a natural area, and the contamination has a sufficiently advantage (in a darwinistic sense) to stay around in the genepool, there is no way in hell you can get rid of it completely, when it turns out it is damaging humans, or other species and ecological systems.
Now, his counterargument that those won't survive in the wild seems rather weak. In effect, some GM genes *already* have contaminated other 'wild' crops, and it didn't sizzle out in the wild, on the contrary (a prominent example of that are some strains of GM corn in south-america). So... it may be that some GMs will not survive in the wild, but you can bet some *will*, however. And he, nor anyone else, can garantuee that such GM or hybrid crops can't be damaging or unhealthy to the ecosystem or local species, including humans.
Also, the reductionistic view of "we're not doing anything else then what people have been doing for centuries" is somewhat misleading too. Yes, people have been breeding crops, and cultivated crops are not 'natural' in the sense that they occur in the wild...but it's an unfair analogy, because one is comparing oranges with apples. For instance, with GM, it is perfectly possible to make genemodifications between two completely different species of plants. In effect, this trans-species swapping of genes with GM, can be done between animals and plants. In all those centuries that "we have always done this" I would like to see any example where this has actually been done before.
No; this is a totally new technique, with new possibilities, certainly, but also new consequences (which we don't know anything about) and new dangers. You can't just shrug those of with claiming, falsely, that we've been using those techniques for millenia. And you can't just merrily test it out in the wild, and see if anything happens.
Apart from that, even purely economically, I doubt it has all those beneficial effects the author claims it has or will have - but more
This is the wrong approach, and it suffers from the same things I said earlier. For instance, it would presume the government, in all its wisdom, know which technology it should support with heavy subsidies, and which not. I haven't seen compelling evidence, not even in the last 200 years for such innate wisdom... did you? Saying: 'thanks to that, prices came down'... If you heavily subsidised electric Revolving Ice Cream Cones, no doubt the price will come down too. But so what? The point I've made several times now is: if it's REALLY a far more efficient, advantageous technology, it WILL conquer the (free) market, whether you subsidise it or not. It make take a few years longer, but it will also save billions out of peoples' pockets. In a few circumstances, it might not break through otherwise, but even then: choosing the government as the wise, decisive factor in what is economical the most worthy, is bullocks. So for each sporadic lucky-shot the government had that wouldn't have made it on the free market anyway, you'd have 9 othrs where were fiasco's, costing us billions and billions. So no, thanks: the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.
Solar panels and windmills are, in effect, one of the *least* efficient power/electricity providers, if your goal is to have a stable energy for your society.
The truth of the matter is, it's basically one giant waste of taxpayers' money, for no good reason, *but* to provide a bonus to the rich...scuze, me: to 'lower cost'. And where all all these low-cost solarpanels - subsidized with our money - gone to now? Exactly: China. And that's also the main reason (>80%) of why the cost has come down. It's NOT because the rare metals used for it came down, as some seem to think. (In fact, those are sharply rising, due to the demand). It's cheap labor. In China.
So... is that what our own taxmoney is best used for: to kickstart other economies abroad? I don't think so.
"We" didn't get a 'strategically important industry' : the Chinese have. And we paid for it indirectly, through our taxes.
But the point I made was that would happen with or without the 3000 euro bonus one gets for a Tesla. Thus, that the adoption of Tesla's (or electric cars in general) is not particularly stimulated by such a thing, n is merely a bonus to the rich, and by the time it would become a stimulance to buy one or not (for people where 3000 euro actually matter in buying it or not), the subsidies are always cut.
If your devils-advocate-theory would be right, it wouldn't get cut, because you still have all the advantages you proclaim, only massively more so. So it's highly doubtful these kind of bonuses are put out with such a goal.
The second counter is, if it doesn't really stimulates nor deters any additional adoption of those cars at that price-class, you could as well save your money for it. Say everything you say is true: if with the bonus you (well, the government) virtually get as much cars as without it, than save the money and leave it out. Maybe hold it back to where it comes near a point where it WILL make a difference in broad adoption.
But it does mean "entity1" shouldn't have a holier-then-thou attitude. After all, a thief complaining someone else steals from him never makes a very ethical-compelling case, and is being rather hypocritical.
They are not subsidies strictly spoken, but I guess one could call it financial advantages, though. That said, it's not specifically for Tesla, and it's not Tesla that is asking for it; it's just the government that is doing it. So one can hardly blame Tesla for it.
But it's not specially for Tesla, nor is it Tesla's fault the government subsidizes it. It's the governments' fault. And in a democracy where the government is chosen, it is, thus, the citizens' fault. Basically: it's your fault. ;-)
Well, ok, I'm sure you voted for the good guys who never give out subsidies, but still...
Point being, the parent poster was specifically calling out Tesla, and thus implied they were getting some sort of unfair and unethical advantage. But it's not limited to Tesla, and it's debatable whether it's unethical. If the government gave you a taxbreak so you'd only have to pay half your taxes, would you refuse because you thought it unfair? I very much doubt it. I know I wouldn't.
So... is it necessary and a good thing the government masively subsidises stuff like electric cars, solar panels, windmills, etc. Hell no. It costs loads of money and often just keeps non-profitable companies afloat with taxpayers' money. Not saying it's always the case, and maybe Tesla would survive without the subsidies, but that's what it boils down to most of the time.
However, the ones to blame is the government allowing, nay, stimulating such squander. NOT the companies who just make use of the money that is thrown at them.
In my country they're starting subsidising electric cars too, now. It's foolishness. Getting 3000 euro or not for a 50000 euro Tesla for instance, will not deter or stimulate a person rich enough to buy one. I mean, if you're rich enough to buy one in the first place, and they want one, they will buy one, regardless of whether they get a 3000 euro reduction. This is just an added bonus to the rich, which don't really need them. so the theory that it's need to 'stimulate' innovative technologies so they break through on the market, is basically bull. It doesn't really help, and it costs the populace dearly anyway.
When an electric car will go down to 15-20000 euro, and becomes viable for ordinary citizens, THEN it would matter in deciding to buy one or not. But at that time, they'll undoubtedly stop giving subsidies, as they always do. Because it's beginning to cost too much, and the rich elite (many of whom are the same politicians that voted for the subsidies in the first place) has already got one anyway. Of course, the official explanation by then is that 'the goal has been achieved' and thus no more subsidies are necessary.
It's all crap. If a new technology is better than old technology, it will manage to break through with or without taxing your citizens, including the poorest, to pay for a sweet bonus for the rich. There are very few technologies that have inherent advantages, and yet that need heavy subsidies to stay afloat, certainly for longer than a few years. After that, it just becomes a monetary black hole where you pour in taxpayers' money endlessly, so a company which isn't competitive stays afloat while we're paying for it - often doubly so.
It's a distortion of the free market, and I believe the disadvantages of such a system are far bigger than the occasional advantage of having a new technology that might or might not have broken through without it, for the simple reason that most WOULD have broken through eventually anyway, if they're really that good and better than old technology.
Yes...well... hypothetical impossibilities tend to do that. Doesn't help one bit in reality, though.
?
The 850 was the UBI, right? I thought you said: "We institute the new UBI program, paying you, like everyone, $12.5k/year."
It's a bit confusing if you first talk about your own numbers, but than switch to mine.
But that was the minor point.
My hypothetical example is brought closer to reality, but still smaller in scope so one can get a good look at how things are going to turn out. With the part of 'inactive', about half is currently getting nothing or very little (childsupport, housewifes, etc.) , and half is around the median (prepension, pension, CASP, etc.). As you can see, with the actual distribution better followed, we get:
"They make (1500*140+10000*2)*12 = 2.76M/year altogether, so the mean income is 2.76M/183 = 15081/year. 850/mo is about 67,6% of that. So you need to collect 67.6% of everyone's money to pay for that."
Agreed?
Well then!!
That means, we're already WAY over what we pay for taxes now (45-50%). And, more-over, we only have the taxes calculated just to deal with the UBI, now. All is souped up with the UBI...so what about the rest of the expenses a state makes? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, what about social buildings, what about military expenses, what about subsidising stupid windmills, what about ALL THE REST that costs money to the state?
I've looked that up for you too. My country spends 19,7% on social security (aka, the current welfare-system). Which means that *80%* is still going to other expenditures. So, unless you want to refuse to spend anything on infrastructure and such anymore from that point on, you *STILL* have those other costs. Which STILL have to be paid for, which STILL has to come from the taxpayers.
Adding 80% to already hefty 67,6% that we already need for the just the UBI, makes it a whopping 110,88%!!!
As I've said numerous, numerous times now; a nation-wide UBI makes things prohibitively expensive and can't be sustained just out of the blue. I've used your own calculations, so I hope you've finally realised your system isn't going to work.
Yes, I've seen you made an errata afterwards.
I've responded to your last post as well, using more actual percentages to reflect reality better.
You'll soon note that using more realistic numbers for the whole populace and for the more realistic income of the top 10%, your UBI system is going to become increasingly (over)expensive.
wait.. why is it 10200? Didn't you say they would keep the FULL UBI? You explicitly said so. So they would get 12500 a year, no?
But regardless; this is obviously only a measurement of WORKING vs UNEMPLOYED people.
However, an UBI is meant for EVERYBODY, right?
So, I've checked the numbers for my country.
Working populace: 4.499.293
Unemployed: 421.390
INACTIVE population: 2.360.095 (this includes things like people on medical services, CPAS, pensions, etc.)
This means, translated to our example:
unemployed (bums): 11
median earners: 110
top earners: 2
inactive: 60 (rest of the populace who isn't working, but who's income won't be higher than the median (a pension is often lower, obviously)
Also, I've been overly generous creating one supperrich for every 30 median incomes; this is far from the truth. I've checked the numbers (for the USA this time), and I read that the top 10% earns about $113,799/year, which is about (a bit less then) 10000/ a month.
How are your numbers holding up now?
uh-huh.
So, from the view of the state which has to pay for the UBI, you have:
1)a cost of 10200
2)another cost 3288
3)a gain of 9000
The match is indeed simple, but the fact you do not see a problem with this, is still astonishing.
Well, saying 'some keep 100% of their UBI, and other get nothing', *would* lead to misunderstanding, since you actually meant to say everyone receives the UBI. But soit, no use crying over spilled milk or wrong wording.
As long as you don't keep wording it wrongly, that is. Because now you say: "most of them easily paying for it out of the UBI itself". That's nonsensical. It's like saying you can move a car by pushing it from the inside.
Look, you should start simple and far more concreet. That way you'll be able to see the problems of what you suggest more clearly too. Instead of a country of millions, let's say you have a country of 183.
10 persons are lazy bums and do nothing. They get 850 euro from the state. (8500 total)
170 persons are an employee or civil worker and earn the median, around 1500 euro/month, say. (255000
3 persons are CEO of a factory that makes.. I dunno... Tesla's and such. They earn 50000 a month. (150000)
Then you have the current state, which, to aid the lazy bums (and to cover other costs too, of course) asks for 50% of the second group, and progressively 50-60-70% of the third, with an average of, say, 60%. The state uses that money for it's expenses (infrastructure, etc.) and, of course social security (aka, the bums) too.
Now we get you system.
10 persons are lazy bums and do nothing. They get 850 euro from the state. (8500 total)
170 persons are an employee or civil worker and earn the median, around 1500 euro/month, say. +850 (399500)
3 persons are CEO of a factory that makes.. I dunno... Tesla's and such. They earn 50000 a month. + 850 (152550)
Note that you now say; that's not a problem, because the 'taxpayers' pay for it. But the expenses for the state in regard to social security have clearly risen. They went from 8500 to 155550; thus, more than 20 times!
It's clear to see it's IMPOSSIBLE to maintain that 0% for most, and 44% for the top, is enough: even now they're already paying more for it, and the costs are a 1/20th of what it would be with an UBI! It DOES NOT help, saying 'the UBI is paid for by the UBI itself', because you first *need* the money to pay for the UBI in the first place!
Furthermore, even if you crank up that percentage, the main problem remains that the top 10% will provide a disproportional amount for this kind of welfare. They'll may stick around with a percentage of 60% on average, but certainly not if that reaches 75% or more. And the moment they leave, you'll not loose 10% of your income for sponsoring the UBI, but more than half of it.
Try your esoteric and theoretical framework in the case that I described above, and use those examples. Show me, in that country of 183, who would get what and has to pay how much, and let's see then, if you can cover the costs with nobody paying anything, except the very top with between 19-44%. One look at it, shows how implausible your suggestion is: the amount that has to be paid already exceeds what the top can pay. Even if you augment the tax % for the median incomes to a popint where they only have 500 euro left of the UBI (as you said), it still means the top will have to pay around 90% of the costs, what I already said in my former posts.
So, ok, let me see your applied UBI on the case above. I'm curious.
Probably because you said: "Only people making nothing at all would get to keep 100% of their UBI, as they have no income to tax." while you're now saying everyone gets to keep 100% of their UBI, only the ones that earn more get taxed more. Which, btw, is already happening now (at least in the EU); the more you earn, the more you get taxed. However, if *everyone* gets 100% of the UBI, it still amounts to the same problem: paying for it.
Yes, yes, your partial reduction of overhead. I find that overly optimistic. Maybe it'll reduce things with 15-20%, but certainly not 60%-100%. In contrast, however, since all the working force will get an UBI too, this means an augmentation of (in my country at least) of about 100% (going from 3 million to 6 million). Taxes now are at about 50%. Basically you now say: ah, but they will pay it with their taxes, but since it's an increase of at least 80% (even with overhead reduction), this would mean an increase of taxes of 80% too. Which would come close to 90% total. There is no fool in the world who would work beyond the UBI, if everything you earned more would be taxed at 90%. Ah, you say, but with my system it's relative benign taxes, until you get to the top 25%. It's only those that will pay 70-90+% taxes.
Fine. I'll repeat my question: who is going to pay for it, when, obviously, that top 25% doesn't want to be taxed at 75%-99%, and leaves the country?
But this will not help in predicting long term effects of higher amounts of money.
Let's say one starts of with 100 dollar. Nothing happens for the next year. 200 dollars. nothing happens for a year. etc. You reach 800 dollar, but then start to note negative influences which actually started around 400 dollar, but only now become apparent.
Ok... but at that point, you're 8 years into the program, and all your citizens have been made accustomed to getting money for nothing, maybe have made loans with the taught of the UBI in mind, and you're whole populace has become to see it as an acquired right (which always happens when you give a benefit long enough).
Is there any political party that would dare to revoke or starkly reduce this UBI, and still hopes to be re-elected? I don't think so.
As I said, it's a pretty damn dangerous thing to do for a country, and if it really goes awry, it could destroy your national economy. And even when using mitigating methods, like small amounts, etc., you'll never be fully sure whether you'll not end up with huge consequences if something goes wrong, but only shows up in the long run.
And with small scale experiments, you'll never get a fully valid extrapolation for a nation-wide UBI.
So, for me, I have nothing intrinsically against a nation trying out a general UBI, but I'll prefer it to be ANOTHER nation doing it first, while we wait 10 years, and see how it goes. ;-)
Even with all the theories floating around here on slashdot (everyone is an expert again, as usual), my personal estimate is, that a true UBI, country-wide implemented, and within our current neo-liberal capitalistic free-market system, has only a 20% of success. The main problem is and remains: who is going to pay for it all? Some seem to think a countries' economy is a closed loop, and you simply can re-use the money endlessly. Well, it's not. So it can't be just by 'taxpayers' (at least, not at the level of current taxes, which are huge as it is in the EU). Some say: "take it from the rich'.. but tax the rich too much, and they'll flee to another country. The same for big companies. and the most heard one is: it will pay for itself, because of reduction of administrative overhead. Which is BS, or, at least, a stupendously optimistic view on how much (cost)reduction it will bring. In the best of cases, it would be around 15-20% of the total costs, not 60%, let alone 100%.
As of yet, I didn't see a clear, concise and valid system (and certainly not something with numbers and calculations and other hard data) of who, what and how much exactly such a nation-wide UBI would be sustained long term.
Look, I'm beginning to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. The fact that I do not call it a real UBI is not because (whether or not) you calculate it at the average, and that the average is (would be) 24%, but for this fact (which you explicitly said yourself in one of your posts):
"Only people making nothing at all would get to keep 100% of their UBI, as they have no income to tax.
People making the median income, of around half the mean income, would only get to keep half of their UBI (about $500/mo) after taxes; the rest would go right back into funding the UBI program.
People around the 75th income percentile, who make about the mean income, would neither get nor pay anything in net, obviously.
Only around the top 25% of incomes would actually come out at a loss for this, and most of them would still pay only a nominal percentage of their income as the higher income brackets get smaller and smaller very quickly (i.e. most of the top 25% still don't make much more than the mean income themselves).
Only the absolute richest of the rich would end up paying even close to the nominal tax rate, and you would have to make literally infinite money to actually pay the nominal tax rate."
So what are you blabbering about, now? You're completely contradicting yourself, first saying some people will get nothing, now saying everyone will get 1000 dollar. CLEARLY, if ONLY the persons 'making nothing at all' would get the full UBI, and people with the mean income would GET NOTHING, then you ARE NOT giving a fixed sum, and YOU ARE NOT giving the same amount because of the CONDITION of their income. I don't care HOW you calculate their taxes; it's the fact that (the amount of) your semi-UBI is dependent on their income WHICH MAKES IT NOT AN UBI.
If anyone, it should be me saying; please get it through your thick skull.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, then.
For you, it seems an UBI means this:
"Not at all. I'm proposing that everyone gets the same, uniform, amount (set to some fraction of the average income)"
I think you fail to see the contradiction of the first part with the last part of your sentence there. If your amount is dependent on your income, than, by it's very nature, the amount you get is not the same for everyone anymore.
While in effect, an UBI is a uniform AMOUNT which is FIXED. "An unconditional basic income (also called basic income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income, universal demogrant, or citizen's income) is a form of social security system in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income ; note the 'unconditional' and 'sum' in that definition there).
So I wasn't 'ranting' under a misconception, but rather was spot on with what I said. Whether you want to see it or not, the fact that some get it 'full', others half, and others not at all IS differing it in groups (groups of different income) and IS making it conditional, and therefore it's not an UBI anymore. The fact that it can be calculated by simple math doesn't change anything to it, and still means that, compared to an actual UBI, your welfare-system is going to have more overhead.
I'm not sure what YOU think an UBI is, but I think I made it clear what I think it is, and what the definition of it is. And any UBI-amount/sum of money which is dependent on one's income (aka; a condition for the amount one will receive) by definition is no true UBI. As I've said plenty times by now. I think it's you who are confused what an actual UBI is, thus.
Anyway, we've gone on about this for long enough now. I'll grant you that your system would be simpler than the current patchwork - but the original welfare-system was simpler than what we have now too, and you did not alleviate or counter any of the objections I raised in my former post about it. The reason I asked for who's going to pay for it (a true UBI) is because, as you say yourself - such a thing is not feasible if taxpayers have to pay for it equally. However, if you say "people with a higher income", you're basically saying what I wrote in my first posts; 'take it from the rich' as a way to subsidise it, which I think is unrealistic in getting any succes, if the tax is too high. The difference with your welfare-system is, that the cost in total will be less, since you give less to those that earn more. But that ain't an UBI anymore. And while it prolongs itself by being less costly, it doesn't solve it. A tax-rate for the supperrich which approaches their nominal income: you really think that is going to fly? It's fairly realistic to think that they'll flee the country long before it gets that high. In your system, the 10% pay for the brunt of the system, however (because those with median incomes will not really supply your welfare-system with enough money to keep the rest afloat, at least not if you consider the fact that our current 'patchwork' soups up already 50% of the median incomes. Saying your (partial) reduction of overhead will compensate for it, is very unlikely.
Also, note that you can't infinitely 're-use' your money. It's not like a closed system, where you have a set amount of money, divide it to the people, which spend it on goods, which are then 100% recuperated by the sellers and makers of the goods, which then get taxed, which then provides income to the state to give to the citizens to buy again, etc. Such a vision would be simplistic, and I'm sure you're aware of this too. A country, especially with a trade-deficit, always *loses* some money. And you can't recuperate all your money, because it's not a closed system - if that were not the case, the solution would be simple: the state should make us all civil servants, doing (almost) nothing, and paying us all 2000 dollar/month. Ah, the increase in expenditure! The increase in e
errata; several months = several years. and some other things, but I'm getting sleepy and start to make too much spellingmistakes, so I'm going to leave it at this, for tofday. ;-)
A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions. The reduction of overhead there, thus, is that you do not try to have it progressively increase or reduce according to your income. It greatly simplifies matters, by not having to calculate any deductions. the same goes for a true UBI, which *IS* meant to be universal and the same for anyone. And this too, would avoid having to calculate the diminishing factor of an UBI related to income (+ have the additional advantage of not actually needing to check any income), contrary to what you propose. Which, I repeat, is more akin to our current welfare-system than an UBI.
I guess you could call it a regressive UBI if you want, but it goes against the principles of what a real UBI is supposed to be.
In essence, what you propose is a welfare-system like we have now, but one that tries to replace the different ones we already have no; do you agree or not?
I've already stated the pragmatic problem with this: our current welfare-system didn't start out to be this complex from the get go, no; it used to be much simpler when it just started. The problem is exactly the progressive and/or regressive nature such welfare-systems (and taxes). That is, because in essence, you're making exemptions for it; one says 'this group with this income gets this much', 'this group gets only so much', etc. It's easy to see, once you already established such a system, that under the slightest political and social pressure, additional groups and/or with additional levels of % will be added. That's exactly what happened with our welfare-system, which was relative simple and limited in the 50'ies and '60ies, but then took off into directions and branched out to so many domains, groups, and different % levels, that we ended up with the patchwork you're now speaking of.
I don't see how you would avoid the same. Even if you managed to impose such a thing, history will only repeat itself, and you'll end up again with extra additions to your progressive/regressive system.
One can't even exclude this with a real UBI and flattax, but at least there you have the advantage of simplicity and clarity, it's more 'pure' (and thus, more difficult to subvert with added complexity) just *because* it's a black-or-white situation: you either have a true flattax, or you don't. And you either have a an nation-wide UBI (the same for everyone), or you haven't. There are no distinctions being pre-made, nor progressive reductions of an UBI introduced, so it's far harder to make such straightforward systems devolve into a chaos of welfare-patches again.
With your system, it's rather going back where we came from, but I don't see how it will survive additional complexity being added, and thus overhead being added. And you already *have* more overhead than with a real UBI, at least partially to begin with.Even in the domain you insist it's reducing overhead. For instance, with your "he overhead of figuring out how much money people made and collecting some of it from them / sending something back to them". Well, exactly. And, for instance, if such a person was deemed to be in a higher income-level, but for the last two months he fell into a lower class, then that means your UBI-reduction wasn't quite correct neither. So any mistake in income - whether made by the person or by the TAX-administration, will need to re-evaluate the UBI, and when too much has been reduced, will need to be paid back. so, in essence, you've gained no administrative reduction, at least not in principle. You STILL need to pay money back if your calculation was wrong.
In contrast, with a real UBI, you just pay each the same amount. It doesn't matter what his income is, so one doesn't need to deal with (mis)calculating it, and thus one doesn't need to send money back (or ask for more), if there is something wrong with his income-representation. Worse: with your system you'd still need to have a control and sanction-system too, to combat fraud by wi
No, if you read the papers dealing with UBI's (and flattax, for that matter) they almost ALL claim one of the big advantages is almost no administrative overhead anymore. If you replace overhead of other programs with overhead of your own program, it still means you have overhead, which you would NOT have if you didn't have to check every persons income each time to see if they're still eligible for an UBI.
As said, that's actually not an UBI anymore. The word says it itself: it should be a Universal Basic Income. Per definition this is meant that EVERYONE gets the same BASIC income. What you're describing is another form of welfare like we already know and have, but one that tries to replace the current welfare-systems. No doubt if you would succeed (but note that such welfare systems with checks always get more complex, not less), you would gain something, but it's clear as daylight that an UBI and real flattax where you DO NOT have to check income and such has LESS overhead than your welfare program and semi-flattax, where you DO have extra administrative overhead in checking things out. That we currently already have such a checking mechanism is just my point; an UBI and flattax is supposed to get rid of that.
"You're not doing any more income-checking than you already are just in the process of collecting taxes."
Exactly, so the advantage of reduced administrative overhead (that could even largely pay itself back, if you believe proponents) of an UBI and flattax is lost.