It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scotland may be first to adopt a Universal Income, will give $200 a week to every citizen for life

page: 11
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
Would the introduction of Universal Income mean social security/welfare is simply abolished ? $200 is only £150 per week ... for even some single people that’d represent a huge cut in their income.


This is one reason I'm actually against many of the proposals for universal incomces that I've seen. It really depends on which programs get cut in the process. And without price controls and adjustments for things like inflation and costs of living, it would hurt people more than help them. As an example, $200 a week would get someone way further in suburban Alabama than in New York City.




posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
Would the introduction of Universal Income mean social security/welfare is simply abolished ? $200 is only £150 per week ... for even some single people that’d represent a huge cut in their income.


This is one reason I'm actually against many of the proposals for universal incomces that I've seen. It really depends on which programs get cut in the process. And without price controls and adjustments for things like inflation and costs of living, it would hurt people more than help them. As an example, $200 a week would get someone way further in suburban Alabama than in New York City.


You have the same issues with inflation adjustment and regional cost of living differences with conventional benefits.

I do agree that you can't replace all benefits with s UBI, for example there would still be a need for additional disability benefits.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

I never did.

It's economic theory.


Theories need to be proven to be accepted........



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: nOraKat

Another thing it helps with it puts less pressure on both parents to work full time jobs. Which means if desired one parent could stay home or both could work part time allowing for more time with the kids and less need to pay exorbitant day care costs.

Which puts daycares (usually small family owned businesses) out of work and reduces the amount of people in the work place. Both the daycares and the stay at home parents.

Thusly, the government has less income from not being able to tax the earning of the now stay at home parents, and the incomes and business taxes for the daycares.

Explain how this is good for the economy?


Because it gives people more choice.

Some people will be able to stay at home because of the greater financial freedom.

Others will be able to take jobs they previously couldn't because the poverty trap made child care unaffordable.


More freedom until your economy tanks and painful austerity is required, I agree.

Now would you care to address my points on the economy? You do know less people in the workforce means less taxable income, correct? You do know daycares closing is also bad, correct?

I swear, people think money grows on trees.


Why would it assume that there would be less people in the workforce? Some people may leave the workforce, sone more may join it.

Daycare centres closing is neither inherently good or bad. It depends on the need for them.

Any businesses closing are bad. Less people employed, less taxable income, less business taxes accrued.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: nOraKat

Another thing it helps with it puts less pressure on both parents to work full time jobs. Which means if desired one parent could stay home or both could work part time allowing for more time with the kids and less need to pay exorbitant day care costs.

Which puts daycares (usually small family owned businesses) out of work and reduces the amount of people in the work place. Both the daycares and the stay at home parents.

Thusly, the government has less income from not being able to tax the earning of the now stay at home parents, and the incomes and business taxes for the daycares.

Explain how this is good for the economy?


Because it gives people more choice.

Some people will be able to stay at home because of the greater financial freedom.

Others will be able to take jobs they previously couldn't because the poverty trap made child care unaffordable.


More freedom until your economy tanks and painful austerity is required, I agree.

Now would you care to address my points on the economy? You do know less people in the workforce means less taxable income, correct? You do know daycares closing is also bad, correct?

I swear, people think money grows on trees.


Why would it assume that there would be less people in the workforce? Some people may leave the workforce, sone more may join it.

Daycare centres closing is neither inherently good or bad. It depends on the need for them.

Any businesses closing are bad. Less people employed, less taxable income, less business taxes accrued.



If the business isn't providing a service people need or want then the resources are better used elsewhere.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Consider the Scottish/UK benefits available ... these are the main ones, there’s dozens more obscure ones available ... Jobseeker’s Allowance (unemployed), Employment Support Allowance (sick/disabled), Working Tax Credit (low waged), Child Tax Credit (low income), Housing Benefit (rent/low income), Council Tax Benefit (local tax/low income), Disability Living Allowance (long term disability), Personal Independence Payment (replaces DLA), Child Benefit, Guardians Allowance ... and now the monstrosity that is Universal Credit.

It’s no exaggeration to say a single guy in his thirties, unemployed on JSA (or UC) and in social housing would be worse off under a Universal Income system pegged at £150 per week. Even more so if he was a private tenant with a higher rent. Still more disadvantaged would be someone in the ESA Support Group, or on ESA with either DLA or PIP added into the mix.

Exempt some sick/disability social security benefits and there will be tremendous pressure to exempt benefits for the unemployed. Benefits for children too. You’d still have the DWP and it’s staff, the new Scottish Social Security department and theirs plus a whole new legion of civil servants administering Universal Income too (trust me, it won’t administer itself) ... so where's the saving coming from ????

It’s that I don’t get. Where’s the savings ?
edit on 4-10-2017 by TheShippingForecast because: Typo



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: nOraKat

Another thing it helps with it puts less pressure on both parents to work full time jobs. Which means if desired one parent could stay home or both could work part time allowing for more time with the kids and less need to pay exorbitant day care costs.

Which puts daycares (usually small family owned businesses) out of work and reduces the amount of people in the work place. Both the daycares and the stay at home parents.

Thusly, the government has less income from not being able to tax the earning of the now stay at home parents, and the incomes and business taxes for the daycares.

Explain how this is good for the economy?


Because it gives people more choice.

Some people will be able to stay at home because of the greater financial freedom.

Others will be able to take jobs they previously couldn't because the poverty trap made child care unaffordable.


More freedom until your economy tanks and painful austerity is required, I agree.

Now would you care to address my points on the economy? You do know less people in the workforce means less taxable income, correct? You do know daycares closing is also bad, correct?

I swear, people think money grows on trees.


Why would it assume that there would be less people in the workforce? Some people may leave the workforce, sone more may join it.

Daycare centres closing is neither inherently good or bad. It depends on the need for them.

Any businesses closing are bad. Less people employed, less taxable income, less business taxes accrued.



If the business isn't providing a service people need or want then the resources are better used elsewhere.

And some people will not have the skills to get jobs in other fields. IE daycare workers.

No matter how you chalk it up, small businesses tanking are bad. Eventually only large companies and corporations will be left. I don't see that as being a good thing.

The unemployed daycare workers might just sit at home in the dole. That isn't good for the economy either.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

How would you do it without doing it?

Theories need to be tested by trials.

Finland is a trial not a particularly good one. The Dutch, Swiss, Scotland small safe economies.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



You have the same issues with inflation adjustment and regional cost of living differences with conventional benefits.

Yeah, I have the same theoretical problems with those too lol. But that's the biggest hurdle in these kinds of programs.

Here's an absurd example. Suppose all State, local, and federal assistance programs were eliminated, but the federal govt gave out a $10/week universal income to every citizen. Obviously that would drastically reduce state & federal expenses while also causing a big drop in govt administrative positions & redundancies. But $10 a week is way below the poverty line & it wouldn't help anyone at all, especially if that replaced all aspects of the social safety net.

Now what if they instead eliminated all State, local, and federal assistance programs, but the federal govt gave out $1,000 a week as a universal income to every citizen? That would be a ridiculously huge amount per year and I'm pretty sure that would obliterate all current budget costs (a quick calculation shows around $17 trillion a year lol). However, it would also immediately make all citizens at least "middle class" financially & would undeniably replace the need for a social safety net.

So the real catch is finding the happy medium that reduces administrative costs & redundancies while still helping citizens stay out of abject poverty.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr

Unlike welfare the ubi will allow you to get skills and be payed at the same time.


It's an unknown for sure. But the current model is a beurocraric mess.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: nOraKat

Another thing it helps with it puts less pressure on both parents to work full time jobs. Which means if desired one parent could stay home or both could work part time allowing for more time with the kids and less need to pay exorbitant day care costs.

Which puts daycares (usually small family owned businesses) out of work and reduces the amount of people in the work place. Both the daycares and the stay at home parents.

Thusly, the government has less income from not being able to tax the earning of the now stay at home parents, and the incomes and business taxes for the daycares.

Explain how this is good for the economy?


Because it gives people more choice.

Some people will be able to stay at home because of the greater financial freedom.

Others will be able to take jobs they previously couldn't because the poverty trap made child care unaffordable.


More freedom until your economy tanks and painful austerity is required, I agree.

Now would you care to address my points on the economy? You do know less people in the workforce means less taxable income, correct? You do know daycares closing is also bad, correct?

I swear, people think money grows on trees.


Why would it assume that there would be less people in the workforce? Some people may leave the workforce, sone more may join it.

Daycare centres closing is neither inherently good or bad. It depends on the need for them.

Any businesses closing are bad. Less people employed, less taxable income, less business taxes accrued.


By this logic, we should be increasing the number of govt jobs too, right? That would increase the number of people employed and the amount of taxable income.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Or wagon wheel makers.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Can't put those horse carriage drivers out of work either. They'll never be able to find any other form of employment (even though they'd also be receiving the universal income every week).



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: nOraKat

Another thing it helps with it puts less pressure on both parents to work full time jobs. Which means if desired one parent could stay home or both could work part time allowing for more time with the kids and less need to pay exorbitant day care costs.

Which puts daycares (usually small family owned businesses) out of work and reduces the amount of people in the work place. Both the daycares and the stay at home parents.

Thusly, the government has less income from not being able to tax the earning of the now stay at home parents, and the incomes and business taxes for the daycares.

Explain how this is good for the economy?


Because it gives people more choice.

Some people will be able to stay at home because of the greater financial freedom.

Others will be able to take jobs they previously couldn't because the poverty trap made child care unaffordable.


More freedom until your economy tanks and painful austerity is required, I agree.

Now would you care to address my points on the economy? You do know less people in the workforce means less taxable income, correct? You do know daycares closing is also bad, correct?

I swear, people think money grows on trees.


Why would it assume that there would be less people in the workforce? Some people may leave the workforce, sone more may join it.

Daycare centres closing is neither inherently good or bad. It depends on the need for them.

Any businesses closing are bad. Less people employed, less taxable income, less business taxes accrued.


By this logic, we should be increasing the number of govt jobs too, right? That would increase the number of people employed and the amount of taxable income.

Of course not.

Government doesn't tax government. They may be able to tax earnings of gov employees (pointless), but no business tax is accrued as a result.

Where did you get that idea from?
edit on 4-10-2017 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
Would the introduction of Universal Income mean social security/welfare is simply abolished ? $200 is only £150 per week ... for even some single people that’d represent a huge cut in their income.



Yes. UBI replaces all forms of government assistsance. Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, social assistance programs of all types, we abolish all the multiple government departments dealing with such assistive programs and just give the people the cash directly. Instead of paying salaries of all these government employees, and paying for the maintenance, policing, and running costs of all the things and real estate used to house these departments, we free up all that capital, and fund the people direct with one simply payout plan.




A flat tax and ubi would get rid of literally hundreds of billions the complex system costs just to administer and judge the taxes owed.


Hundreds of Billions still doesn't pay for it. $10,500 for every person is Scotland over age 18 is $50,388,000,000. Scotland's GDP is 216 Billion. 23% of GDP.

In U.S. population a $10,200 per person over 18 is equal to $ 2,544,749,325,600
249,485,228 people times $10,200.

You need more Zeros on your assumption.


Your math is not very sound.

Which portion of the population is paying zero taxes? If it isn't 100 percent your math is very wrong.

If I pay 20k income tax and receive 12k the net cost for me to the system is zero.

If the population paying taxes is divided you do not have a 100 percent cost. You probably have 40 percent of the population paying zero and getting 12k and 60 percent paying their own. Flat tax..


Now rearranging benefits and lowering administrative cost is much closer to a negative cost. Without speculation on the stimulus.

The average for American income is 50k. Which at 26 percent for a flat tax say is 13k.

So obviously not every penny can go to the ubi but that is just from taxes. Not really arranging the irs, welfare, snap, housing etc..not even touching corporate taxes etc...

edit on 4-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
This would be awesome in the US. If people didn't have to be scared that they wouldn't be able to pay the rent consumer spending would go up, boosting the economy, and people would be able to do cool things again like take classes, go on vacation, etc.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
This would be awesome in the US. If people didn't have to be scared that they wouldn't be able to pay the rent consumer spending would go up, boosting the economy, and people would be able to do cool things again like take classes, go on vacation, etc.

Funny. It isn't in the US and Canada, yet I CAN do those cool things!

Hurray for self-sufficiency!



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr

Hey, you're the one who pointed out the whole "Less people employed, less taxable income" thingy. And according to 2015 numbers, there were almost 22 million people employed in State, local, and federal positions in the US (HERE). Reducing that number would also decrease the number of people employed and the amount of taxable income. So if you're really concerned about "Less people employed, less taxable income", we could always replace the "lost jobs" with more govt jobs. lol



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

So you Google funding the ubi and got nothing...


None that show how to pay. Point me to the one you think works best. Kinda damming that you can't cite it, IMO.


medium.com...

www.google.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.technologyreview.com...


Threw in a little reality at the end. It's a theory. I didn't mean theory as in a scientific theory. It's an economic theory.
edit on 4-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

God bless Sturgeon, she's full of grand ideas.....as long as those bastards in Westminster are prepared to fund it!

Horrible, horrible woman who does the Scots no favours at all.




top topics



 
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join