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.
originally posted by: peter_kandra
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove
I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.
My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?
A UBI can be revenue neutral.
If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).
I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DBCowboy
Too big to fail anyone?
How about a 1% tax on derivates to pay back what is due with an UBI that ends poverty for good?
How is wealth redistribution (back to more humane levels) robbery when it hurts noone? The traders will keep trading cuz that's what they do to make a buck, this isn't about taking stuff from actual people.
Alright. You can call me Robin Hoodie if it helps.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: peter_kandra
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove
I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.
My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?
A UBI can be revenue neutral.
If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).
I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.
Pretty much every form of UBI proposed replaces some (generally most) benefits.
Its big selling point is the simplification of existing benefit systems.
There is nothing inherently inflationary about a UBI scheme.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated
People end up making bad decisions on current benefit systems. A UBI doesn't make that any worse or better.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: peter_kandra
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove
I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.
My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?
A UBI can be revenue neutral.
If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).
I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.
Pretty much every form of UBI proposed replaces some (generally most) benefits.
Its big selling point is the simplification of existing benefit systems.
There is nothing inherently inflationary about a UBI scheme.
It's hurts those who will be taxed more to pay for the "free money"
originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: DBCowboy
To be sure I'm no supporter of Obama.
In the not too distant future there will be a choice;
UBI
or
Uncharted waters with respect to crime and poverty.
AI will bring this on, we have already been warned.
originally posted by: peter_kandra
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: peter_kandra
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Puppylove
I don't think that's what generik is implying. The concept of UBL was brought up and that reply is simply stating the facts...that even what we would consider the poor in this country do have a decent standard of living. Is it a 3000 square foot house, no. Do they have a 50,000 car..no. Do they have shelter and food and other basic necessities...yes.
My bigger question is that generik also laid out an excellent reply on how the math for paying for UBI/UBL doesn't work that I haven't seen anyone address, so the question still remains...how will it be paid for?
A UBI can be revenue neutral.
If the payment is close to the average amount of benefit it replaces and the income tax rises by the equivalent amount for those not currently on benefits (so they are no better or worse off).
I get that. I don't think anyone is stating a UBI will replace anything though. My impression is this will be in addition to any current benefits, and no one has even addressed the inflation issue that will almost surely rear it's ugly head.
Pretty much every form of UBI proposed replaces some (generally most) benefits.
Its big selling point is the simplification of existing benefit systems.
There is nothing inherently inflationary about a UBI scheme.
If it simplified things, that would be great. Years ago I owned a few rentals, and virtually all my tenants received section-8 benefits ($900 to $1000 per month), food stamps, subsidies for utilities and possibly other benefits I'm unaware of. Even with 2 kids, those benefits are more than $18,000 UBI would replace (3x the $6k figure mentioned).
If we could do away with the administrative costs associated with those multiple benefits, it may work. Unfortunately, you then have to rely upon people to be responsible with their UBI payment, or have to go the UBL route and pay for those services directly, but then you're back to having administrative costs.
There were some calculations in this post saying this would cost roughly $2 trillion dollars a year. Wouldn't it be better to spend a fraction of that on infrastructure and train people in the process? $100 billion a year would "pay" for 2.5 million $40,000 a year jobs. Add another $100 billion a year for materials, supplies, etc. and for $200 billion a year, you would start to fix our crumbling infrastructure, employ an additional 2.5 million people directly (plus the indirect jobs created from the materials and supplies needed) and hopefully train those people in current job skills...construction, project management, etc. That same $2 trillion would fund a program like this for 10 years.
A job guarantee scheme to improve infrastructure and social care would be a far better idea.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DBCowboy
It's hurts those who will be taxed more to pay for the "free money"
Yeah? And how many "robbed" traders will stop trading due to this horrific act of redundant peanuttery, none?
Do you know any or would it be that guy from your local bank, who visits your mother from time to time and has you cleaning up the basement for a better credit rating?
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot
A job guarantee scheme to improve infrastructure and social care would be a far better idea.
That was like... uhm... a century ago, but hey - let's implement those again to yield different results this time?
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DBCowboy
It's hurts those who will be taxed more to pay for the "free money"
Yeah? And how many "robbed" traders will stop trading due to this horrific act of redundant peanuttery, none?
Do you know any or would it be that guy from your local bank, who visits your mother from time to time and has you cleaning up the basement for a better credit rating?