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

a reply to: luthier

It's not all that bad, but its bad enough, and it will be worse for our children. That scares the crap out of rather a few people and It's not progress its stagnation, so perspective is what it is im afraid.

If you lived in Scotland, right up until the 1980s, technically it was illegal to be gay, that's a scary fact.

The problems we have won't be alleviated by £200 a week, because it wont transpire as extra in as much as i wish it would.

originally posted by: luthier


It's funny how so many people want tax cuts but never ask where that money is going to come from. They figure it's theirs anyway....

It is our money.

SMH

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.

a reply to: DBCowboy

That debatable. The real argument is what is your tax being used for and do you have a say in it.

But a ubi is also your money. You just aren't judged if you deserve it or not and the bean counter deciding it has to find other work.

a reply to: andy06shake

If you enter a solution with the expectation of failure the only way that is positive is understanding the process of creating social solutions is evolutionary.

The fact is its simple. It's a simple solution. Simple is good and bad. Simple won't solve every problem in society maybe not even most problems.

But as a beuracracy model to give citizens their tax money back after a budget surplus or balance it makes more sense than a complicated welfare system where more people are employed with tax money just to decide who gets the tax money back.

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? This entire plan is horrible and Scotland will immediately experience runaway inflation and massive deficits. Greece 2.0 in the making.

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.

a reply to: nightbringr

Don't forget that the daycare workers and daycare owners would also be getting the basic universal income as individuals. And many parents would still use daycare services, especially if one of them decided to use the extra "free time" to start a small business of their own or to go back to school and get certified in a higher paying field than what they previously worked in.

There are just as many positive hypotheticals for this as negative hypotheticals.

a reply to: luthier

But as a beuracracy model to give citizens their tax money back after a budget surplus or balance it makes more sense than a complicated welfare system

It's not simply giving tax money back after a budget surplus, first of all a surplus is a very rare thing for any nation, secondly they could just lower taxes to achieve the same thing if it was giving people their own money back. Obviously the richest portion of the population will pay for it because they account for the majority of the tax revenue collected by the government.

This actually could work if people inject the money back into the economy at a fast enough rate but it's not a healthy economic model for several reasons. It makes people reliant on the government to get by, it doesn't encourage productivity, it may cause rich innovators to flee, and it takes a huge chunk out of the governments budget which will cause the national debt to rise even faster.

Maybe if the government didn't continually inflate the money so much we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with and the cost of living wouldn't be continually increasing. The fact a universal income is required even for people who have a full time job is just a symptom of the underlying problem, which is the debt-based keynesian economic system the world now uses.

I see it as just another form of the slowly boiling frog, they slowly suck away our liberty and our ability to survive so the government can swoop in and act like they're once again saving the day, making us beg for their help and their handouts and applaud the formation of a nanny state. So yes this economic system probably can work, but nothing in life comes free.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Your making an idealist argument for a free market.

What you negate is having a safety net. If you believe that is a good idea check out the Shanti towns in south Africa.

It's an unfortunate effect of civilization that some fall on hard times or even injustice.

And it replaces the welfare system. It doesnt have to add to the budget. Some models it replaces healthcare subsides as well.

If Scotland implements this I think it would be a good idea to invest in domestic Scottish whiskey and whatever vodka is sold there the most...

a reply to: luthier

What you negate is having a safety net.

Welfare is a safety net, universal income is received regardless of whether one needs a net. And it's clearly going to cost more than the basic welfare system.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

What is the "cost" difference?

a reply to: luthier

The universal income is a safety net. It ensures that even should the worst happen you still have money coming in. Best part since everyone is getting it should the worst happen you don't need to worry about waiting weeks for approval to start getting money coming in. As is you lose your job tomorrow if you were living week to week you might be screwed for a couple weeks.

Now maybe if you want a real safety net make the funds from ubi immune to garnishment from any source including fines ect. Might discourage certain pradatory debt based practices as well as being the one true safety net. You would never be without money for food or board unless you purposely throw it away.

a reply to: Puppylove

Yes it's a safety net. I think that was my first post.

It's also an argument free market economists have made. It's simply a simplified welfare system where everything is rolled into one payment. Everyone gets it.

Its also a computer program, not 10,000 tax acountants can do.

So is the plan just to print this money out of thin air, devaluing the currency in circulation?

That would mean that for every $200 you get for free, the average over all value of currency in circulation goes down by $200. Every month. For every citizen.

I suppose the other way is via taxes-
Give me $200 for month, then take $300 in taxes- $200 to pay me the $200 with, then $100 to cover the overhead created by this boondoggle.


Honestly, what the hell are people thinking?

a reply to: lordcomac

I think the plan is to simplify the current system and get rid of quite a bit of administrative duties.

Frankly it's cheaper to pay an accountant 1k per month than the 3-5k the taxpayers pay for the complicated tax system.
I don't know the details of the Scots but the idea is to wipe out all welfare benifits and make a standard payment for everyone. Models have shown a pretty close break even, though it's all theory.

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.

originally posted by: lordcomac
So is the plan just to print this money out of thin air, devaluing the currency in circulation?

That would mean that for every $200 you get for free, the average over all value of currency in circulation goes down by $200. Every month. For every citizen.

I suppose the other way is via taxes-
Give me $200 for month, then take $300 in taxes- $200 to pay me the $200 with, then $100 to cover the overhead created by this boondoggle.


Honestly, what the hell are people thinking?

Exactly. The people pushing this are not being realistic.

Even without printing money, inflation will soar. There will be considerably more consumer expenditure, so retailers will increase costs on basic goods. The result? Inflation.

The government will not be able to bring in enough money to cover all these handouts, so they will either borrow money at a dangerous rate, or print money, resulting in even more inflation.

This is not a self - sustaining economic model.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: lordcomac

I think the plan is to simplify the current system and get rid of quite a bit of administrative duties.

Frankly it's cheaper to pay an accountant 1k per month than the 3-5k the taxpayers pay for the complicated tax system.
I don't know the details of the Scots but the idea is to wipe out all welfare benifits and make a standard payment for everyone. Models have shown a pretty close break even, though it's all theory.

that still doesn't *produce* the $200 a month everyone gets.
Why not just cut the taxes paid by $200 a month instead, and cut out the middle man?

Taking away a chunk of my money to turn around and return to me a smaller chunk than what is taken is UBI.

Can't seem to wrap my head around the point, other than providing welfare to those without jobs... which I imagine is already happening.