1) It can’t be enough to desirably live on. It must essentially be “survival level” so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your work. Unlike unemployment, this means that if you get a job you just make more money rather than trade unemployment for a paycheck.
2) You have to strictly prevent increases due to inflation or inflation will spiral further out of control than it already is, perpetually increasing the UBI to accommodate the increases in costs for everything leading to a death spiral for the currency. Otherwise, it is impossible.
3) You must reduce all other benefit programs by the amount of the UBI to help pay for it.
4) It can only be done in a way that most people will be paying it back with reasonable income levels or it will be a perpetual drain.
> 1) It can’t be enough to desirably live on. It must essentially be “survival level” so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your work. Unlike unemployment, this means that if you get a job you just make more money rather than trade unemployment for a paycheck.
such a bizarre position to take. "we could build a basic if functional utopia, but I'm worried about the work ethic of other people and how they have fun so instead I will insist that it fucking sucks".
why are you like this?
why do you:
1) care?
2) assume other people will just smoke bongs all day?
3) care if they do smoke bongs instead of doing something you find valuable?
how much oversight of the worthiness of how you spend your time and how you should be rewarded am I permitted right now?
1) Because a UBI program has to be paid for. It will be paid for out of taxes. If everybody simply consumes it but doesn’t contribute to helping to pay for it the entire system will fail anyway.
You cannot have a UBI if it incentives the majority of people to not work in some capacity because the system will naturally fall apart.
The system shouldn’t survive, that’s fine. A lot of the takes here envision UBI somehow fitting into our current economic model. In the case where AI/automation truly remove a bulk of the jobs, we shouldn’t be trying to prop up our current capitalistic model. At that point of industrialization, we will need a model that allows needs to be met without worrying about what it means to afford something, or to at least drastically reimagine it.
>If everybody simply consumes it but doesn’t contribute to helping to pay for it the entire system will fail anyway.
In a world where AI takes jobs, couldn't they also take on the responsibility of taxes? All the top dogs from OpenAI, Anthropic, NVIDIA, etc. keep talking about the ridiculous value that AI could provide. Trillions of dollars.
I'm no economist, but here's a naive suggestion: make the robots pay taxes. If AI turns out to be as incredible as they're hyping it up to be, then every company on earth will be paying some big AI company for its services. Instead of letting OpenAI and others hoard all this money, take a cut of their insanely high revenue to pay for UBI.
... As I said, I'm not an economist - I suspect there's a serious flaw in my suggestion but I don't know what I don't know. I'd appreciate any rebuttals.
It's a myth that spending money causes inflation. Printing money causes inflation. If the government can run a basic income program without increasing the monetary supply then no, there will be no impact on inflation. In fact it will be the best economic stimulus in history.
The supply and demand for something with change regardless of how it’s distributed. If you’re spending the money on food and housing, demand for better food and better housing will increase.
If it’s all going to a bunch of really wealthy people then the it will be focused on the types of assets that they would spend money on (businesses, yachts, whatever).
No matter the supply of money, there’s a limited supply of everything else.
My understanding of marginal propensity to consume is that it decreases as wealth and income increase. The wealthier you are, the less you tend to spend as a function of the next dollar. So the inverse would imply that there would be more spending overall with UBI. We sort of saw this experiment play out with the COVID relief checks.
Given that increase in demand, I'm curious how UBI would affect the supply side. My first thought is that it would negatively impact supply since there would be less efficient allocation of people to supply-related jobs. Unless I'm off here, I struggle to see how increased demand and decreased supply wouldn't impact inflation.
> Unless I'm off here, I struggle to see how increased demand and decreased supply wouldn't impact inflation.
We're rapidly approaching the situation where 10 factory workers can be replaced by a single worker supervising some robots.
At some point the decrease in employment will not significantly impact productivity for a large sector of the market.
A properly implemented UBI scheme will be significant enough to allow a large part of the population to seriously reduce their income, either by working way less, or not working at all. Only that way can the amount of dollars in the economy stay relatively the same.
I think therefore the assumption that supply would diminish while demand increases is wrong.
It just doesn't work though mathematically. If you take my home country of Canada, giving 40k a year to every person 18 and over would cost around 1.3 trillion (assuming a modest 3% admin cost) vs a current federal budget of around 400 billion, with the provinces it's likely around 1 trillion. SO just to fund a ubi that would not be very comfortable for anyone to live on, especially with a family, would require raising 30 % more revenue. This does not account for the large percentage of the budget that is just not cheaper to provide privately through individuals paying from their ubi (i.e. military, healthcare, policing, transport, protection of public forests, regulation of food and drugs, education). even if you cut all levels of government spending to the bone leaving only the stuff it makes complete sense to provide communally, you are left with maybe 300 billion (but likely much lower because I haven't analyzed the cost of promised retirement benefits at all), which is roughly 9k per year per over 18 person, which isn't enough to come anywhere near the numbers supporters of UBI want. That means much higher taxes but our taxes are already insane and so will likely not extract that kind of money from the populace, especially when they are being incentivized not to work with a 9k check each year, most of us will tell the government to pound sand and just cut our work hours.
Our taxes in Canada are a bit low, especially on the wealthy.
However your argument seems to stem from "if we give it to everyone and cut nothing where does the money come from". Well, a part of it comes from all the welfare programs it replaces (OAS, Ontario Works, etc) and a huge amount of it doesn't really exist (since for the vast number of people you'll tax back 100% of it anyway).
For the amount that's left, yes, one needs to choose a funding strategy. A real policy play with all the data available would have the needed numbers to begin to decide what that looks like
> Any sane UBI replaces most, if not all, other benefit programs.
Elsethread I wrote:
>> Secondly, you have to be prepared to let people starve to death in the streets. If that non-insignificant chunk of people who have gambling/alcohol/sex/drug addictions blow their entire income on the first day of the month on slots/booze/prostitutes/drugs, any funds you set aside for them means that what you have is UBI + existing welfare, not UBI instead of existing welfare.
How is this any different from how things work now? “UBI”, to me, and in a society where work is largely a non-human task, needs to encompass housing, food, etc. In a world where jobs don’t exist in the way they do now, UBI needs to be a stop gap while we completely overhaul what it means to have an _economy_.
>> > Are you willing to let people starve to death?
> How is this any different from how things work now?
Now there are specific (and often means-tested) welfare benefits available to people. Replacing all of those benefits with a single (non-means-tested) cash payment because:
>>> Any sane UBI replaces most, if not all, other benefit programs.
means you have to be ready to let other people die for your principles.
I get what you mean, and I don’t think the two can’t coexist. Some benefits like SNAP would probably go away - what’s the difference in $500 for food vs the lump of UBI? If you’re getting $4k/month, then the need for those specific benefits goes away. If you’re disabled, UBI doesn’t need to replace your disability benefits, but could supplement it. Imagine having that $2k/month for disability on top of the $4k for UBI: people could actually focus that $2k on treatment instead of just using it to barely get by.
It replaces a small portion of benefit programs at best. Any sort of a serious disability and/or health related program will still need the same amount of resources to support people who need something other than money. And no UBI payment can cover market rates for these sorts of services.
> 3) You must reduce all other benefit programs by the amount of the UBI to help pay for it.
This isn't a caveat. A caveat is "something that is possible". This is about as possible as asking a human to flap their arms and levitate as a result of that flapping.
Firstly, there is no way, on this earth, that you are going to convince the population that a healthy young male who wants to only play videogames gets exactly the same amount as a crippled mother who is unable to work.
Secondly, you have to be prepared to let people starve to death in the streets. If that non-insignificant chunk of people who have gambling/alcohol/sex/drug addictions blow their entire income on the first day of the month on slots/booze/prostitutes/drugs, any funds you set aside for them means that what you have is UBI + existing welfare, not UBI instead of existing welfare.
> Firstly, there is no way, on this earth, that you are going to convince the population that a healthy young male who wants to only play videogames gets exactly the same amount as a crippled mother who is unable to work.
I said reduce, not replace. If you get $800 / month in UBI and $5,000 / month for disability (crippled mother example) then you would reduce disability by $800. There would be no change to the benefit for the crippled mother who is still getting $5,000 / month ($4,200 from disability and $800 from UBI).
Then what you have, at the end, is just an additional entire department devoted to a welfare program, feeding from the same pool of funds that all the existing welfare schemes are using.
I mean, using "reduce" to mean "lower existing welfare payouts (not costs) by enough to allow UBI welfare" is very different to how UBI proposals normally mean "reduce".
There is a need for something, but UBI as it is currently being proposed by world+dog is not that thing.
I think your argument might be the first one that I've seen that doesn't use "reduce" to mean "almost eliminate".
Think about this like a plug-in hybrid vehicle. Most people drive less than 35 miles per day so by moving that mileage to electric, you eliminate the vast majority of gas usage.
By taking out the first $800 from every other benefit program you will eliminate the vast majority of their usage as well which will shrink them enough that they can be safely reformed if need be.
> so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your work.
I think you're mistaken on some parts. The problem that UBI is trying to solve is that we're quickly approaching a situation where we don't need people to 'contribute to society with their work' anymore.
On some basic level the economy works because companies produce products and services and the consumer pays for those products and services.
Currently the consumer side is in large part financed by wages.
This means that a large part of the economy is dependent on a large part of the consumers being employed.
This will be a problem when there is a very high possibility of mass unemployment when advances in AI will make most jobs obsolete.
The solution is to decouple the consumer income from employment, through something like UBI. This allows people that are jobless to still contribute to the economy and keep (local) businesses alive.
For this to work UBI actually does need to be able to provide a comfortable (desirable) life. This doesn't mean luxury, but it should allow someone to have a house, buy groceries, visit friends and family, use (public) transport, go on a 2 week (national) vacation every year, save a little bit.
If the UBI is not enough to provide a comfortable life, people will still need to work which doesn't solve the problem.
I think making the UBI low enough that most people will still work is exactly what would cause inflation. If the UBI replaces wage, the amount of money in circulation wouldn't change, so no inflationary pressure. If people keep working but get an extra UBI on top, the amount of currency would greatly increase thus lead to inflation.
Personally I think we all should just accept that if we allow people to truly choose what they want to do, some of them will choose to do nothing. But in general people are productive creatures, and most if not all, have some limit to the time they don't want to do anything. Besides that UBI would be a great incentive for people to start their own business, volunteering, or doing valuable things that are inherently unprofitable
>This will be a problem when there is a very high possibility of mass unemployment when advances in AI will make most jobs obsolete.
We've been here a few times. Not with AI, but with the agricultural revolution (hunting and gathering became almost obsolete), the industrial revolution (physical force became almost obsolete, if it was not needed in conjunction with intelligence), the computer revolution (tedious data processing became obsolete), the internet (messengers and mail, as well as local businesses became almost obsolete)...
Every time, large swaths of human work were made nigh-obsolete, but societal progress needed people to find other niches to work in to expand our societal wealth. If everybody just laid down their work and didn't look for anything new, some other civilization would have taken over, because somebody there would.
>UBI. This allows people that are jobless to still contribute to the economy and keep (local) businesses alive.
If the money they use is not backed by value production it will make everything more expensive, since the purchasing power of that currency depends on less value. Local business will be the last to be kept alive, because UBI will need to be lower than working wages to motivate others to continue working whose work is still needed. Local businesses have the habit of being more expensive. UBI receivers will be the last people able to afford that luxury.
>I think making the UBI low enough that most people will still work is exactly what would cause inflation.
Why? The more people work, the more value is being produced by this society, the less inflation there should be, due to costs being lower.
>If the UBI replaces wage, the amount of money in circulation wouldn't change, so no inflationary pressure.
But nobody worked for this money, since it's a redistribution it will have inflationary effects. Because there's the same amount of money, with less things to buy for it.
> 1) It can’t be enough to desirably live on. It must essentially be “survival level” so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your work
I used to think like that, but it too is fundamentally unfair. It is a recognition that there must exist an underclass of people that will be coerced into work else they will be kept at "survival level".
> according to Widerquist, the $2-3 trillion projections are just bad math. These simplistic calculations involve multiplying the number of people in America (roughly 330 million) by the average UBI output (approximately $10-12k). While they accurately assess the amount of money that would be involved in such a system, they aren’t accounting for the fact that most of that money will be exchanged via the tax system (many people will pay into it, but they will also get that money back, effectively nullifying the need to generate “new” revenue), meaning that the total amount of new revenue that the government actually needs to generate is only about $539 billion, or roughly 3 percent of GDP.
If you are now earning enough/lot, you get UBI, but it is all taxed away anyway. So in the end high income people will not gain anything net.
On other side basically nearly all of UBI will be spend, thus generate economic activity and come back in taxes in various ways such as sale or income or corporate.
> On other side basically nearly all of UBI will be spend, thus generate economic activity and come back in taxes in various ways such as sale or income or corporate.
By that rationale, can the government hire $2-3 trillion of teachers, cops and college professors for only $539 billion?
UBI replaces the standard deduction, or something like that. Everyone pays tax, at either flat or progressive rates, but with the base tax on $0 income being -$10,000/person.
So if you hypothetically imagine a 20% flat tax (not a realistic number!), then once you're making $50,000 a year, you're breaking even. At that point, UBI is nominally costing the government $10,000/American/year, but most of that is an accounting fiction--it's just equivalent to not taxing that person as much as you would've in an alternate scenario.
Now, I don't know how this works for Wilderquist's example, since I doubt that simulation has UBI replacing all other taxes/deductions.
At least in America, entitlement programs, once enacted, are so popular they have been impossible to remove, as most recently evidenced by the attempts to get rid of obamacare. See also social security and medicare.
More precisely, it pays out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. If it reaches insolvency in 2034, Gen-X will be the big losers, but that bloc was never big enough to swing elections.
- whites without a college degree benefit most from anti-poverty programs
- and ACA
Among the 65-and-older group, who receive social security, non-whites represent 1/3, then 1/4, then 1/5 as you ascend by decade.
It’s possible non-college whites, as a bloc, don’t know this. Put another way, if UBI redistributes those programs, they might gain some awareness of their best interests. Or, UBI could be phrased in a way that convinces them it hurts the right people instead of them.
>Among the 65-and-older group, who receive social security, non-whites represent 1/3, then 1/4, then 1/5 as you ascend by decade.
What is the base-rate here though? Is it vastly different than for the general population? Otherwise this sounds like a base-rate fallacy, to say anybody is "benefitting more".
It's pretty straightforward who qualifies in 2024 for the basic income guaranteed by social security.[0] 76% of recipients are white, compared to 60% of the population. [1] I assume someone who's collected social security for 15 years has a 80% chance of being white [2], but it's probably higher because I don't know the rates non-white seniors qualify for social security. I think that's what you're getting at.
Social security will remain solvent until 2034, which is the first year Gen-X will start retiring. The age bracket for people who are now 48 is closest to 50/50 white. When they retire, in 2041, the entire nation will coincidentally pass 50/50. I think those stats are enough for the GOP to abandon social security in the long term.
as an outsider, it is fascinating how much of a broad consensus there is in the US for "socialism for the old" - especially government funded/run healthcare and 'u'bi, vs doing anything at all help to the young and/or poor.
In my country, I can't not-pay taxes. They are deducted by my employer out of my pay. There is a large gap between employees in this situation and freelancers who get paid in cash and declare nothing. So basically, those who already pay, are paying for everybody that does not want to.
In 2023, some 60-ish billion euro has been evaded. No government has ever tried to rectify this gaping chasm as that would be a political suicide.
On top of this, should I pay even more to keep afloat those that do no not want to work?
Fuck that. Forget it.
The argument for UBI is that there will, one day, not be nearly enough work available for the workforce. It’s not about people not wanting to work, but that they can’t.
Yes, but to me, UBI can be accomplished by taxing these people plus the ultra rich. For landlords, if total rent exceeds 28% of the renters salary, the amount above that is taxed at 90%.
But to me, the best way would be a tax on corporations in an inverse manner compared to CEO Pay. The higher the ratio, the higher the tax
For example something like this. Take the ave salary of bottom 10% of wage earners in the company, excluding over time. Compare that to the CEO or the ave of upper management salary, including bonuses and all other non monetary compensation. Use the higher value.
Then tax the company full revenue before all deductions at the percent of the ratio difference. You will see things change quickly. This tax will apply to companies outside of the US too.
For people without work, there should be $ left over for them.
> As AI produces most of the world’s basic goods and services, people will be freed up to spend more time with people they care about, care for people, appreciate art and nature, or work toward social good
No, it won’t, and no, they won’t. I’m sure this view helps Sam sleep at night but based on all of human history, the rich and powerful will use AI to suck as much life out of the poor and powerless as possible.
So roughly 4,000,000,000,000 in new spending per year just to start. Obviously none of this would come from existing revenues. Which is incidentally very similar to the 2020 spending; which caused ~6% inflation.
Will that $1000/month be inflation adjusted? If not, in 10 years that will be the equivalent of setting it to $500.
If it is inflation adjusted, then it will be at ~1700/year.
Roughly 5,600,000,000,000is the new price. That's assuming no politicians for 10 years and multiple elections dont say they'll be increasing it.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." by Benjamin Franklin
Uh, Covid inflation came from food & energy [3] profiteering and a lessor extent the loss of labor participants [1].
Tyson Foods didn't grow their margin by 4% by paying their suppliers more, you grow your margin by charging more in excess of what you pay your suppliers [2].
Ladies and Gentleman money are VIRTUAL, so yes, a UBI system is definitively possible, the point is how much REAL resources we have to share amount the people for their needs and desires no matter if with a UBI or not.
Formally a society is built to serve their people, so it's a duty of a society assuring a minimum living standard as much as possible to anyone, if that's possible is not a matter of money but natural resources, skills to profit from them etc. How to ensure such living standard to anyone and where the bar of "the minimum" is set it's a whole topic and have not much to do with money.
Remember however a thing: most poor tend to remain poor because they do not know how to administer their life BUT they can still live better with a bit of revenue and what go though their "holed hands" fall in someone else pocket, meaning it still makes the economy turning, so there is NO ISSUE in having a UBI for all, unconditionally, also to the richest, with just few spending rules (like you can save money from it, but not more than a certain amount, you can spend it but only domestically) because the money goes from those who receive them to the local activities, spent in food, medicine, play and so on.
The real point is how can an economy have private money, created out of thin air by some who "rent it" to the government as de-facto dictators. And my answer is there is no economy able to survive much in such system, deep crises and wars are natural in such systems.
In the US, not as long as there are Conservatives. A pillar of the Republican ideology (and perhaps Libertarian, even) is that money is for people who work and if you don't work, die - you're useless to them.
You view of your fellow countryman is really sad. Luckily Cuba or North Korea don't have those pesky Conservatives, only people with your world view and you can still vote with your feet. As far as I know Conservatives still don't build walls to keep people in.
I live in a religious conservative state - one of our congressmen said they wouldn't be happy until they could hunt down Democrats like dogs in the streets (and he would be a moderate these days). On a daily basis, I am among people who fantasize about killing liberals, or anyone perceived as liberal, indiscriminately (also LGBTQ, or insufficiently religious). Rather than actually try to solve the problem of homelessness, they just want them to magically "go away", or die (they don't seem to be too concerned about which one).
This is what I see daily. Is it any wonder I have a dim view of Conservatives?
I'm aware that things are horrible in North Korea and other places. Doesn't mean I have to be happy with people where I live, though. "Suck it up, buttercup" is not a survivable philosophy.
>> I live in a religious conservative state - one of our congressmen said they wouldn't be happy until they could hunt down Democrats like dogs in the streets (and he would be a moderate these days).
Can you name the person and link to their speech? I'll be happy to spread it around and have such person shamed.
>> On a daily basis, I am among people who fantasize about killing liberals, or anyone perceived as liberal, indiscriminately (also LGBTQ, or insufficiently religious).
A liberal just shot at a presidential candidate recently.
>> Rather than actually try to solve the problem of homelessness, they just want them to magically "go away", or die (they don't seem to be too concerned about which one).
I'm pretty sure none of the democrat run places ever solved this problem.
>> This is what I see daily. Is it any wonder I have a dim view of Conservatives?
There are endless streams of liberals protesting, destroying property, arsoning and attacking people of different convictions and I still don't think liberals are bad people.
I think that if someone had a regular income to pay for their basic needs there is no way they would just sit around drinking beer and smoking weed all day. Most people are driven to better themselves.
I do hate the haters who wrongly think that living on any benefit is living a life of luxury. I challenge all of thenm to try and successfuly live a full and productive life on £70 a week. Impossible.
Even people on benefits contribute to society.
Every penny of the meagre benefits they get and spend on survival still goes towards some business profit margin.
All benefits here on Airstrip One work on a sliding scale so those 18 year olds do not get the same amount as the disabled person because the disabled person gets twice as much to live on as well as other benefits to support them.
In 2023-24, the government is expected to spend £265.5bn on paying pensions and benefits.
just over half of which (£134.8bn) goes on benefits to pensioners.
All pensioners that is, even those living in £2,000,000 properties and recieving huge personal pensions. yes they still get the state pension too. I personally think the state pension should be stripped from those pensioners.
The Standard allowance
You’ll get one standard allowance for your household every month.
If you’re single and under 25--------£311.68
If you’re single and 25 or over------£393.45
If you live with your partner and you’re both under 25-----£489.23 (for you both)
If you live with your partner and either of you are 25 or over-----£617.60 (for you both)
If you are under 25 and live with your parents, money will be deducted from your benefits to pay a share of your parents rent.
People are currently not allowed to work while claiming benefits which inevitably leaves them in the benefit trap from which there is no escape.
This is where UBI would work for all people, everyone would be allowed to work and receive UBI.
A win win for the people and for society as far as I am concerned.
78 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 174 ms ] threadProbably yes.
In practice, and at the behest of "AI titans" - who have NO at-scale experience with economic policy or political leadership?
Zero chance in hell.
1) It can’t be enough to desirably live on. It must essentially be “survival level” so that there is still an incentive to contribute to society with your work. Unlike unemployment, this means that if you get a job you just make more money rather than trade unemployment for a paycheck.
2) You have to strictly prevent increases due to inflation or inflation will spiral further out of control than it already is, perpetually increasing the UBI to accommodate the increases in costs for everything leading to a death spiral for the currency. Otherwise, it is impossible.
3) You must reduce all other benefit programs by the amount of the UBI to help pay for it.
4) It can only be done in a way that most people will be paying it back with reasonable income levels or it will be a perpetual drain.
“Must” feels strong here — particularly for any country that under-taxes their wealthiest citizens and spends wildly on defense.
such a bizarre position to take. "we could build a basic if functional utopia, but I'm worried about the work ethic of other people and how they have fun so instead I will insist that it fucking sucks".
why are you like this?
why do you:
1) care? 2) assume other people will just smoke bongs all day? 3) care if they do smoke bongs instead of doing something you find valuable?
how much oversight of the worthiness of how you spend your time and how you should be rewarded am I permitted right now?
You cannot have a UBI if it incentives the majority of people to not work in some capacity because the system will naturally fall apart.
In a world where AI takes jobs, couldn't they also take on the responsibility of taxes? All the top dogs from OpenAI, Anthropic, NVIDIA, etc. keep talking about the ridiculous value that AI could provide. Trillions of dollars.
I'm no economist, but here's a naive suggestion: make the robots pay taxes. If AI turns out to be as incredible as they're hyping it up to be, then every company on earth will be paying some big AI company for its services. Instead of letting OpenAI and others hoard all this money, take a cut of their insanely high revenue to pay for UBI.
... As I said, I'm not an economist - I suspect there's a serious flaw in my suggestion but I don't know what I don't know. I'd appreciate any rebuttals.
If it’s all going to a bunch of really wealthy people then the it will be focused on the types of assets that they would spend money on (businesses, yachts, whatever).
No matter the supply of money, there’s a limited supply of everything else.
Given that increase in demand, I'm curious how UBI would affect the supply side. My first thought is that it would negatively impact supply since there would be less efficient allocation of people to supply-related jobs. Unless I'm off here, I struggle to see how increased demand and decreased supply wouldn't impact inflation.
We're rapidly approaching the situation where 10 factory workers can be replaced by a single worker supervising some robots.
At some point the decrease in employment will not significantly impact productivity for a large sector of the market.
A properly implemented UBI scheme will be significant enough to allow a large part of the population to seriously reduce their income, either by working way less, or not working at all. Only that way can the amount of dollars in the economy stay relatively the same.
I think therefore the assumption that supply would diminish while demand increases is wrong.
However your argument seems to stem from "if we give it to everyone and cut nothing where does the money come from". Well, a part of it comes from all the welfare programs it replaces (OAS, Ontario Works, etc) and a huge amount of it doesn't really exist (since for the vast number of people you'll tax back 100% of it anyway).
For the amount that's left, yes, one needs to choose a funding strategy. A real policy play with all the data available would have the needed numbers to begin to decide what that looks like
Elsethread I wrote:
>> Secondly, you have to be prepared to let people starve to death in the streets. If that non-insignificant chunk of people who have gambling/alcohol/sex/drug addictions blow their entire income on the first day of the month on slots/booze/prostitutes/drugs, any funds you set aside for them means that what you have is UBI + existing welfare, not UBI instead of existing welfare.
Are you willing to let people starve to death?
How is this any different from how things work now? “UBI”, to me, and in a society where work is largely a non-human task, needs to encompass housing, food, etc. In a world where jobs don’t exist in the way they do now, UBI needs to be a stop gap while we completely overhaul what it means to have an _economy_.
> How is this any different from how things work now?
Now there are specific (and often means-tested) welfare benefits available to people. Replacing all of those benefits with a single (non-means-tested) cash payment because:
>>> Any sane UBI replaces most, if not all, other benefit programs.
means you have to be ready to let other people die for your principles.
I am not suggesting the elimination of food banks I suppose, which one might consider a benefit program, though usually not government operated.
> 3) You must reduce all other benefit programs by the amount of the UBI to help pay for it.
This isn't a caveat. A caveat is "something that is possible". This is about as possible as asking a human to flap their arms and levitate as a result of that flapping.
Firstly, there is no way, on this earth, that you are going to convince the population that a healthy young male who wants to only play videogames gets exactly the same amount as a crippled mother who is unable to work.
Secondly, you have to be prepared to let people starve to death in the streets. If that non-insignificant chunk of people who have gambling/alcohol/sex/drug addictions blow their entire income on the first day of the month on slots/booze/prostitutes/drugs, any funds you set aside for them means that what you have is UBI + existing welfare, not UBI instead of existing welfare.
I said reduce, not replace. If you get $800 / month in UBI and $5,000 / month for disability (crippled mother example) then you would reduce disability by $800. There would be no change to the benefit for the crippled mother who is still getting $5,000 / month ($4,200 from disability and $800 from UBI).
I mean, using "reduce" to mean "lower existing welfare payouts (not costs) by enough to allow UBI welfare" is very different to how UBI proposals normally mean "reduce".
There is a need for something, but UBI as it is currently being proposed by world+dog is not that thing.
I think your argument might be the first one that I've seen that doesn't use "reduce" to mean "almost eliminate".
By taking out the first $800 from every other benefit program you will eliminate the vast majority of their usage as well which will shrink them enough that they can be safely reformed if need be.
I think you're mistaken on some parts. The problem that UBI is trying to solve is that we're quickly approaching a situation where we don't need people to 'contribute to society with their work' anymore.
On some basic level the economy works because companies produce products and services and the consumer pays for those products and services.
Currently the consumer side is in large part financed by wages.
This means that a large part of the economy is dependent on a large part of the consumers being employed.
This will be a problem when there is a very high possibility of mass unemployment when advances in AI will make most jobs obsolete.
The solution is to decouple the consumer income from employment, through something like UBI. This allows people that are jobless to still contribute to the economy and keep (local) businesses alive.
For this to work UBI actually does need to be able to provide a comfortable (desirable) life. This doesn't mean luxury, but it should allow someone to have a house, buy groceries, visit friends and family, use (public) transport, go on a 2 week (national) vacation every year, save a little bit.
If the UBI is not enough to provide a comfortable life, people will still need to work which doesn't solve the problem.
I think making the UBI low enough that most people will still work is exactly what would cause inflation. If the UBI replaces wage, the amount of money in circulation wouldn't change, so no inflationary pressure. If people keep working but get an extra UBI on top, the amount of currency would greatly increase thus lead to inflation.
Personally I think we all should just accept that if we allow people to truly choose what they want to do, some of them will choose to do nothing. But in general people are productive creatures, and most if not all, have some limit to the time they don't want to do anything. Besides that UBI would be a great incentive for people to start their own business, volunteering, or doing valuable things that are inherently unprofitable
We've been here a few times. Not with AI, but with the agricultural revolution (hunting and gathering became almost obsolete), the industrial revolution (physical force became almost obsolete, if it was not needed in conjunction with intelligence), the computer revolution (tedious data processing became obsolete), the internet (messengers and mail, as well as local businesses became almost obsolete)...
Every time, large swaths of human work were made nigh-obsolete, but societal progress needed people to find other niches to work in to expand our societal wealth. If everybody just laid down their work and didn't look for anything new, some other civilization would have taken over, because somebody there would.
>UBI. This allows people that are jobless to still contribute to the economy and keep (local) businesses alive.
If the money they use is not backed by value production it will make everything more expensive, since the purchasing power of that currency depends on less value. Local business will be the last to be kept alive, because UBI will need to be lower than working wages to motivate others to continue working whose work is still needed. Local businesses have the habit of being more expensive. UBI receivers will be the last people able to afford that luxury.
>I think making the UBI low enough that most people will still work is exactly what would cause inflation.
Why? The more people work, the more value is being produced by this society, the less inflation there should be, due to costs being lower.
>If the UBI replaces wage, the amount of money in circulation wouldn't change, so no inflationary pressure.
But nobody worked for this money, since it's a redistribution it will have inflationary effects. Because there's the same amount of money, with less things to buy for it.
I used to think like that, but it too is fundamentally unfair. It is a recognition that there must exist an underclass of people that will be coerced into work else they will be kept at "survival level".
I don't get it.
On other side basically nearly all of UBI will be spend, thus generate economic activity and come back in taxes in various ways such as sale or income or corporate.
By that rationale, can the government hire $2-3 trillion of teachers, cops and college professors for only $539 billion?
UBI replaces the standard deduction, or something like that. Everyone pays tax, at either flat or progressive rates, but with the base tax on $0 income being -$10,000/person.
So if you hypothetically imagine a 20% flat tax (not a realistic number!), then once you're making $50,000 a year, you're breaking even. At that point, UBI is nominally costing the government $10,000/American/year, but most of that is an accounting fiction--it's just equivalent to not taxing that person as much as you would've in an alternate scenario.
Now, I don't know how this works for Wilderquist's example, since I doubt that simulation has UBI replacing all other taxes/deductions.
- whites without a college degree benefit most from anti-poverty programs
- and ACA
Among the 65-and-older group, who receive social security, non-whites represent 1/3, then 1/4, then 1/5 as you ascend by decade.
It’s possible non-college whites, as a bloc, don’t know this. Put another way, if UBI redistributes those programs, they might gain some awareness of their best interests. Or, UBI could be phrased in a way that convinces them it hurts the right people instead of them.
What is the base-rate here though? Is it vastly different than for the general population? Otherwise this sounds like a base-rate fallacy, to say anybody is "benefitting more".
Social security will remain solvent until 2034, which is the first year Gen-X will start retiring. The age bracket for people who are now 48 is closest to 50/50 white. When they retire, in 2041, the entire nation will coincidentally pass 50/50. I think those stats are enough for the GOP to abandon social security in the long term.
[0] The Social Security Administration https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/projections/populations.html...
[1] Pew https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/07/30/most-comm...
[2] The Atlantic, 2018 https://archive.ph/EZ3ds
In 2023, some 60-ish billion euro has been evaded. No government has ever tried to rectify this gaping chasm as that would be a political suicide.
On top of this, should I pay even more to keep afloat those that do no not want to work? Fuck that. Forget it.
Where to take the money UBI needs from is a huge issue as well.
Private companies will proliferate with conveniently hard to calculate value.
The relationship between land and rent will only intensify.
But to me, the best way would be a tax on corporations in an inverse manner compared to CEO Pay. The higher the ratio, the higher the tax
For example something like this. Take the ave salary of bottom 10% of wage earners in the company, excluding over time. Compare that to the CEO or the ave of upper management salary, including bonuses and all other non monetary compensation. Use the higher value.
Then tax the company full revenue before all deductions at the percent of the ratio difference. You will see things change quickly. This tax will apply to companies outside of the US too.
For people without work, there should be $ left over for them.
No, it won’t, and no, they won’t. I’m sure this view helps Sam sleep at night but based on all of human history, the rich and powerful will use AI to suck as much life out of the poor and powerless as possible.
AI has an open goal on office workers with little client contact, but it requires serious leaps in robotics to take physical jobs from people.
So roughly 4,000,000,000,000 in new spending per year just to start. Obviously none of this would come from existing revenues. Which is incidentally very similar to the 2020 spending; which caused ~6% inflation.
Will that $1000/month be inflation adjusted? If not, in 10 years that will be the equivalent of setting it to $500.
If it is inflation adjusted, then it will be at ~1700/year.
Roughly 5,600,000,000,000is the new price. That's assuming no politicians for 10 years and multiple elections dont say they'll be increasing it.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." by Benjamin Franklin
Tyson Foods didn't grow their margin by 4% by paying their suppliers more, you grow your margin by charging more in excess of what you pay your suppliers [2].
[1]: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2023/beyond-bls/what-caused-the...
[2]: https://companiesmarketcap.com/tyson-foods/operating-margin/
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/drivers-sue-us-shal...
Formally a society is built to serve their people, so it's a duty of a society assuring a minimum living standard as much as possible to anyone, if that's possible is not a matter of money but natural resources, skills to profit from them etc. How to ensure such living standard to anyone and where the bar of "the minimum" is set it's a whole topic and have not much to do with money.
Remember however a thing: most poor tend to remain poor because they do not know how to administer their life BUT they can still live better with a bit of revenue and what go though their "holed hands" fall in someone else pocket, meaning it still makes the economy turning, so there is NO ISSUE in having a UBI for all, unconditionally, also to the richest, with just few spending rules (like you can save money from it, but not more than a certain amount, you can spend it but only domestically) because the money goes from those who receive them to the local activities, spent in food, medicine, play and so on.
The real point is how can an economy have private money, created out of thin air by some who "rent it" to the government as de-facto dictators. And my answer is there is no economy able to survive much in such system, deep crises and wars are natural in such systems.
Just look at the consequences of the COVID payments and imagine that on an even larger scale.
Perhaps possible, but coupled with other extreme changes made for "fair" treatmenet.
This is what I see daily. Is it any wonder I have a dim view of Conservatives?
I'm aware that things are horrible in North Korea and other places. Doesn't mean I have to be happy with people where I live, though. "Suck it up, buttercup" is not a survivable philosophy.
Can you name the person and link to their speech? I'll be happy to spread it around and have such person shamed.
>> On a daily basis, I am among people who fantasize about killing liberals, or anyone perceived as liberal, indiscriminately (also LGBTQ, or insufficiently religious).
A liberal just shot at a presidential candidate recently.
>> Rather than actually try to solve the problem of homelessness, they just want them to magically "go away", or die (they don't seem to be too concerned about which one).
I'm pretty sure none of the democrat run places ever solved this problem.
>> This is what I see daily. Is it any wonder I have a dim view of Conservatives?
There are endless streams of liberals protesting, destroying property, arsoning and attacking people of different convictions and I still don't think liberals are bad people.
I think that if someone had a regular income to pay for their basic needs there is no way they would just sit around drinking beer and smoking weed all day. Most people are driven to better themselves.
I do hate the haters who wrongly think that living on any benefit is living a life of luxury. I challenge all of thenm to try and successfuly live a full and productive life on £70 a week. Impossible.
Even people on benefits contribute to society.
Every penny of the meagre benefits they get and spend on survival still goes towards some business profit margin.
All benefits here on Airstrip One work on a sliding scale so those 18 year olds do not get the same amount as the disabled person because the disabled person gets twice as much to live on as well as other benefits to support them.
In 2023-24, the government is expected to spend £265.5bn on paying pensions and benefits.
just over half of which (£134.8bn) goes on benefits to pensioners.
All pensioners that is, even those living in £2,000,000 properties and recieving huge personal pensions. yes they still get the state pension too. I personally think the state pension should be stripped from those pensioners.
The Standard allowance
You’ll get one standard allowance for your household every month.
If you’re single and under 25--------£311.68
If you’re single and 25 or over------£393.45
If you live with your partner and you’re both under 25-----£489.23 (for you both)
If you live with your partner and either of you are 25 or over-----£617.60 (for you both)
If you are under 25 and live with your parents, money will be deducted from your benefits to pay a share of your parents rent.
People are currently not allowed to work while claiming benefits which inevitably leaves them in the benefit trap from which there is no escape.
This is where UBI would work for all people, everyone would be allowed to work and receive UBI.
A win win for the people and for society as far as I am concerned.