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

UBI sounds good and we will have to address how we function as a society once automation and robotics really start to take away a good chunk of the existing workforce.

That being said, no one has shown me numbers how UBI is funded properly. You make all these assumptions of savings of combining all existing forms of assistance and cutting defense and other "unnamed programs". Even with those rosy assumptions, the math doesn't work for me. Please show me where UBI is funded properly in a society where it doesn't increase the debt or increases taxes greatly on the already working.

I know UBI is in it's development stage, but you need to have more than pie in the sky assumptions of how to pay for it. Done wrong, it could easily wreck an economy in no time.

If we are going to go the UBI route, why not socialize/govt control utilities, pricing of food and other basics of life to make the UBI income give the biggest bang for the buck?

What is the corporate role in UBI? Do business pay more in taxes as well as working individuals. I don't see how you fund it long term without the "haves" paying more for helping out the "have nots" with UBI. I understand everyone would get UBI, the cost of paying for it has to come from somewhere?


Please point to a real study of how to fund UBI.

Thanks

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: nOraKat

There's another name for Universal Income, it's called welfare.

I think it would be more acceptable if people are required to do community service to get Universal Income as a form of contributing to society.

It's not welfare. In welfare only the poor get the cash. This is different. It's for everybody. It doesn't discriminate against rich or poor, jobed or jobless.

Universal Income is absolutely essential for future generations, because robots and automation will do most of the work.

Why do we need humans?

Well, only humans can determine what resources of the earth are worthwhile to develop and acquire.

We need humans to direct cash towards things they think is important for their life, so that the machines will know what to produce.

That's the basic idea.

You can't just give people food. You have to give them cash to buy the food, so that you can "discover" what they really want to eat.

The dollars and pounds and euros etc are just the "voting chads".

Elections are held every day, 24/7, by people all over the world voting with their cash what is important for them.

So, Universal Income is basically a democratic tool, provided to people the same way the government hands out ballot slips for people to cast their vote for some candidate.

Only here, we're not voting for a candidate politician, we're voting directly for products and services we want and need.

a reply to: pavil

Surely you can Google the ubi?

The way it is implemented would be based on the region and government.

The Swiss recently put one up for a vote and it did much better than expected for a trial run.

Have you considered how much the IRS costs to operate, and how much a complex tax system costs employers and individuals? 100's of billions in the US.

An employer could not pay workman's comp as well which is about the same cost as the salary or wage.

No welfare, snap, medicaid, medicare, etc.

A study of a system that isn't in place is not possible.

If your looking for models Google "funding the UBI"

It's a theory so it's all unknown.

Just like tax cuts it's reliant on legislators actually doing their jobs and telling the truth so that is an uphill battle.

Only giving it to legal citizens eh? Sounds mighty racist.

a reply to: lordcomac

Well maybe you should read about it before making judgements.

Would you rather get no money back and pay for a complicated tax system and the administrative costs of means based welfare?

If tell costs were equal would you rather pay irs salaries or get a simplified system and have a 10k tax return every year? Are you getting that now?

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.

a reply to: TheShippingForecast

Yes it would. So a person would need to get room mates. However if your unwilling and able to work I don't see anything wrong with that.

The disabled is where things can get tricky.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: lordcomac


If tell costs were equal would you rather pay irs salaries or get a simplified system and have a 10k tax return every year? Are you getting that now?

Come on now....common sense dictates to give to all you have to take from the "some". Who are the "Some" and how much do you have to take from them to make UBI work? Devil is in those details.

a reply to: pavil

Did you google?

Do you get the concept of replacing one system with the other and one being more efficient and not requiring 10's of thousands of administrators?

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.

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.

I could have used an extra 200 a month when I was a carpenter just for vehicle wear and tear, or a friend of mine right now going through custody stuff could defined let use the help...

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.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Did you google?

Do you get the concept of replacing one system with the other and one being more efficient and not requiring 10's of thousands of administrators?

I have.... .please point me to one solution you have found to be compelling. Most leave that pesky "how do we pay for all of it" out of the equation. I know it's a small matter funding perhaps the largest entitlement ever.

Don't get me wrong......I'd like to see it work. I just don't see how.

Just did the math.

5.3 million people current in Scotland. Let's assume only 3 million are of age to receive the cheque.

3,000,000 x 200 x 52 (weeks) = 31,200,000,000 dollars per year given out.

What's Scotland's GDP, anyways? Nevermind you don't have to answer, you're screwed.

a reply to: pavil

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

a reply to: nightbringr

How much do they currently spend on welfare, dole, housing, medical...

Hmm looks like about 30 billion...

originally posted by: luthier


I could have used an extra 200 a month when I was a carpenter just for vehicle wear and tear, or a friend of mine right now going through custody stuff could defined let use the help...

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.

Unfortunately, UBI alone will not work the way you think there. If you raise everybody's income by $200/month, all that happens is that the prices of all goods and services will go up immediately, and we'll be back to where we started, with people being unable to buy the things they couldn't buy before.

So, hand in hand with a UBI plan, you need a price control plan. If you fix the prices for basic things, then when you give everybody UBI, they will be able to benefit from the extra cash. If you don't fix these prices, nobody benefits at all.

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.

a reply to: pavil

So the irs is one institution..

Here is a test.

Total up all entitlements in Scotland including medical.

Total up all us entitlements including the irs operating cost.

On top of that the stimulus of middle class extra income.

And since you can't be bothered here are 5 professors and links to several studies.

qz.com...

originally posted by: nightbringr
Just did the math.

5.3 million people current in Scotland. Let's assume only 3 million are of age to receive the cheque.

3,000,000 x 200 x 52 (weeks) = 31,200,000,000 dollars per year given out.

What's Scotland's GDP, anyways? Nevermind you don't have to answer, you're screwed.

Your percentage of people over 18 is wrong. it's over 4.2 M Link

a reply to: AMPTAH

Raising the income while lowering the employers cost (no employee insurance workman's comp)

The reason costs go up with wage increase is because employers have to cover the cost difference.