Economic case for Universal Basic Income (UBI)

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: a325nt

1. We already reallocate money by tax and spend. UBI is basically a simplification of an existing system.

2. Money isn't like any of those things you listed. Money can and is created out of nothing on a continual basis.

Hence why we have this problem... Let's add to it right? Oh. You were trying to fix it using socialism....NVM

Wasn't trying to fix anything (also not sure what problem you are referring to).

Just pointing out reality.

a reply to: ScepticScot


So is UBI.

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: ScepticScot


So is UBI.

Because?

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: dfnj2015

Poverty is not rising. Poverty is decreasing world-wide. We’ve reduced extreme poverty in half over the last 30 years, and it could be eradicated in our life-time.

Sadly the people in UK who have in work poverty, i.e. they work full time and still struggle to put food on the table after paying bills and need food bank services, will have a hard time believing you.

The government needs to force employers to pay a proper rate of pay rather than low rates, the shortfall of which is then picked up by the government by way of low income benefits. In effect the government is subsidising private companies profit capability.

so, the gov't gives everyone enough money to at least live...
am I the only one who thinks the next move would be for the businesses to decide they shouldn't have to pay even that minimum wage so it can be done away with, or at lease decreased? would those earning higher wages suddenly find themselves earning, oh I don't know, about 20-30 thousand less than they were while still finding loopholes in the tax code and lobbying congress for more and better tax cuts?

a reply to: CthulhuMythos

The government needs to force employers to pay a proper rate of pay rather than low rates, the shortfall of which is then picked up by the government by way of low income benefits. In effect the government is subsidising private companies profit capability.

Oh, yeah, it's so much better for people to be completely out of work and making nothing at all than working and making less than they 'should.'

Not.

TheRedneck

I think a few posters in this thread need to better understand what it means to live in poverty. It is NOT having less than your neighbors, friends, billionaires. Poverty is being sincerely unable to meet any of the hierarchy of needs (food, shelter, security). Food does not mean steak 5 nights a week, shelter does not mean a 4 bedroom house, and security means being relatively assured you can meet the first two.

Very, very few people who think they are living in poverty actually are living in poverty. I’m sure people think my wife and I are close. We are not...see me using a computer to post to a forum? Nor do we seem to have an innate desire to “keep up with the Jones’”.

a reply to: Lab4Us
how many would be living in poverty if it wasn't for the food stamps, the hud vouchers, ect helping them out?
how many that are just over the income guidelines for those programs are?
lol... there were many times when I went long extended lengths of time not having seven meals a week... let alone able to afford a visit to mcdonalds.. why in the world was my taxmoney going to keep mcdonalds' workforce alive and returning to work?? I was neither enjoying the profit that their employees were creating for the company or taking advantage of their services. By the gov't providing the needs of their employees, they are just creating a situation where the company can be content running under a faulty and weak business plan that makes them just as dependent on the kindness of the gov't and the taxpayers as the employees in their ranks.
The only way a universal basic income would work is if the bulk to the money for it came from companies that were taking advantage of the fact that it enables the companies to save on the labor costs.

As long as the UBI replaces all current federal social/welfare programs, makes the federal government smaller & eliminates the minimum wage in fine with it. For the same cost as all current social/welfare programs, each U.S. citizen who is iver 18 and who does not receive a government pension, could receive a UBi of @ $1700 per month, regardless if they have a job or not. People can use there UBI Money in the free market on basic needs like housing, food, health insurance & higher education. Criteria can be established to receive consecutive years UBI, like a requirement tobjabe health insurance. These services already exist, there's no need for government to offer them through racketerring. If U.S. citizens don't want to work, their jobs can be replaced by automation or we can hire legal immigrants to work so consumer prices don't rise. Non-citizens would not be eligible for the UBI. A UBI which replaces all current social/welfare programs can be implemented without raising taxes or touching military spending.

As long as the UBI replaces all current federal social/welfare programs, makes the federal government smaller & eliminates the minimum wage in fine with it. For the same cost as all current social/welfare programs, each U.S. citizen who is iver 18 and who does not receive a government pension, could receive a UBi of @ $1700 per month, regardless if they have a job or not. People can use there UBI Money in the free market on basic needs like housing, food, health insurance & higher education. Criteria can be established to receive consecutive years UBI, like a requirement tobjabe health insurance. These services already exist, there's no need for government to offer them through racketerring. If U.S. citizens don't want to work, their jobs can be replaced by automation or we can hire legal immigrants to work so consumer prices don't rise. Non-citizens would not be eligible for the UBI. A UBI which replaces all current social/welfare programs can be implemented without raising taxes or touching military spending.

As long as the UBI replaces all current federal social/welfare programs, makes the federal government smaller & eliminates the minimum wage I'm fine with it. For the same cost as all current social/welfare programs, each U.S. citizen who is iver 18 and who does not receive a government pension, could receive a UBI of @ $1700 per month, regardless if they have a job or not. People can use there UBI money in the free market on basic needs like housing, food, health insurance & higher education. Criteria can be established to receive consecutive years UBI, like a requirement to have health insurance. These services already exist, there's no need for government to offer them through racketeering. If U.S. citizens don't want to work, their jobs can be replaced by automation or we can hire legal immigrants to work so consumer prices don't rise. Non-citizens would not be eligible for the UBI. A UBI which replaces all current social/welfare programs can be implemented without raising taxes or touching military spending.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dfnj2015

Won't work.

Nice idea, but it simply won't work.

There are 300,000,000 people in the US. Most seem to think that $30,000 per year is the 'minimum' livable wage, based on recent calls for $15 an hour. That's $9,000,000,000,000 (9 trillion dollars) per year if everyone was on it. Now, consider that the entire US budget is hovering somewhere a little less than half that, meaning taxes would have to triple (and actually more, because only tripling taxes would also triple the deficit). That assumes, of course, that we are going to provide this basic income to everyone regardless of whether they have a job or not.

What will that do to the economy? Well, there will be some who simply live off the basic income and don't want a job. That means less workers in the job market, and that means less work getting done. So the result is that there will be less goods available, but more people with money wanting those goods... which is the exact definition of inflation: too much money chasing too few goods.

So how do we combat inflation? Well, we can't require more people to work, of course, since that is antithetical to the basic idea of a basic income. We can't very well force companies to make more goods, with the labor force shrinking. not to mention the headaches that little proposal would come with. So the only thing left is to accept the inflation and raise the basic income to compensate... which means more money chasing the same number of goods, which means more inflation, which means a raise in the basic income, which means more money chasing the same number of goods, which means higher inflation, which means... you get the idea.

Now, where is that $9 trillion (and more, considering the above) going to come from? Well, it's obvious you want to tax the rich. They really don't need all that money after all. But then what happens when they want that much money? Too bad for them? No, not really.... they'll just move. They'll go to some country where they can have all that extra money. Of course, we could still tax their businesses... unless those businesses moved off shore as well. Then we have even less jobs available, so more people needing that basic income, and we just lost a big chunk of the money we were counting on to pay for it.

So what if we were to only provide that basic income to those who make less? Well, one thing it would do is cause a severe shortage of lower-class jobs. After all, who is going to work for $30k/year when they can make $30k/year sitting in their recliner all day watching Oprah and Dr. Phil? No one. So the only jobs that anyone will do will be the higher paying jobs, and that means automation will be forced into the market much faster. And we still have the issue of who is going to pay for all this.

I understand your thinking; I really do. I would love to see everyone have a basic wage. But the realities of the idea are not conducive with human nature. The end result would be something quite akin to Venezuela. I really don't want to eat zebra.

TheRedneck

One thing is for sure. We can't have a UBI under the current monetary system.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dfnj2015

Now, where is that $9 trillion (and more, considering the above) going to come from? Well, it's obvious you want to tax the rich. They really don't need all that money after all. But then what happens when they want that much money? Too bad for them? No, not really.... they'll just move.

Good, let them move. If you don't live here you can't do business here. Slap $1000 tariff on every Chinese container coming into the country. I'm sick and tired of the excuses. We have HUGE gains in productivity from computers and automation yet every year we simply can create enough wealth to meet everyone's basic needs. It's total BS. Are you suggesting people are just too retarded to meet their own basic needs?

Purchasing Power of the Consumer Dollar

As the curve suggests, money talks, everything you post is BS.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

The government needs to force employers to pay a proper rate of pay rather than low rates, the shortfall of which is then picked up by the government by way of low income benefits. In effect the government is subsidising private companies profit capability.

Oh, yeah, it's so much better for people to be completely out of work and making nothing at all than working and making less than they 'should.'

Not.

TheRedneck

No it is so much better for the government to make sure companies are not exploiting the system and getting away with paying low wages at the expense of the tax payer while making rocketing and obscene profits on the back of those who are working for a pittance from them and charging their customers exorbitant amounts for their products. Less money to share holders and the like, more money for their staff will increase the general spending in the economy. Shareholders/investors are not the spenders in the economy, they are not the ones to keep other general businesses going with their custom. The money that is then not spent on supporting families in in-work poverty could then be used elsewhere in areas of need, e.g. Improving road conditions, providing better public transport, providing more apprenticeship schemes for youth unemployment, give teachers and nurses the incentives they need to stay in their profession etc etc etc.

I've never heard a compelling argument for UBI. Its one of those things that attempts to address some serious issues, some of which will only get worse, but it does so at great expense.

Really, when it comes down to it, I feel the biggest issue is thinking solely in terms of money. Somewhere along the line, money has become some magical panacea.. Global warming? Throw money at it! Automation taking over? Throw money at it! People are starving? Throw money at it! Sun about to go supernova? Throw money at it!

Currency is a middleman at best. To actually address some of these things, they need to be examined directly instead of perpetuating the notion that money will make the bad things all better.

Really.. until that fundamental shift, I'm not even sure its fruitful to discuss other approaches. There are FAR too many that directly benefit from this vague, ineffectual system of throwing money at things.

a reply to: dfnj2015

. Are you suggesting people are just too retarded to meet their own basic needs?

Quite right. If you gave one hundred random people a million dollars in one shot, at least half of them will have nothing to show for it after year one. Many will even actually succeed in making themselves pooorer I kid you not.

Many will have adopted an increased lifestyle Even when their job situation stays the same. A handful will not even pay their existing debts, they would actually compound them!

The biggest thing I ever saw years ago that made me realize people really are that retarded was at a co-workers place so many years ago. Debating whether they should pay their water late or go without the cell phone so they can keep some food in the fridge until payday. It never occurred to maybe cut back on thet subcription video game they were playing on Xbox live or even the I ternet itself, or at least u bundle the $100+ entertainment bill to internet only since they already had cell phones and only watched football on ESPN for the TV package.

I get it though, the sports package and world of Warcraft are non negotiable even over running water

These are the kind of people you just want to give free money to.

I’ll counter the UBI with ending the Individual Income Tax completely. Which would put more stable money in people’s hands and grow the economy more?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Over my lifetime we have had HUGE increases in productivity from computers and automation. If as a people we have any chance to possibly pay off the national debt or continue some level of prosperity we need to have Universal Basic Income (UBI). According to studies a billionaire is only capable of spending around 30 million dollars per year. Given the size of the economy there is just not enough billionaires to keep the economy chugging along at a brisk rate. The only solution to keep the economy pumping along is to give people more money to spend.

Here's a really good article on the subject:

An Economic Case for Universal Basic Income

With all the additional money in the economy it ALL comes right back to shareholders who will finance UBI. People with the lowest incomes usually spend 100% of it with zero savings. So it will just come right back to the billionaires.

With automation in high gear the number of workers needed to produce all the Worlds products and services is less and less every year. Yet wages are completely flat and poverty is rising:

All my life the only allowable solution is tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics. And every time it doesn't work.

Thanks for raising this.

Topical issue for me right now because a group I am part of is discussing it now.

The full power of automation is yet to be unleashed on human society.

We are only at the "field trials" stage at this time.

I have my doubts about UBI but I do know the economics of robots must structured in a way that means most people wont have to work but will still have a reasonable standard of living, health care, education, opportunity to contribute, opportunity to learn, grow and develop that we get from paid work today.

Unfortunately I fear the young generation will only ever live in accommodation the size of a car parking bay and will have to share it at that.

See Dr Days talk - "Everything Is In Place and No-one Can Stop Us Now."

I had to laugh at someone suggesting $30,000 as a 'basic' income.

Over here in the UK I always thought roughly £10,000 per person with a National Security Number would be a reasonable starting point. The idea is not to give you luxuries but a minimum you can live on. If you want luxuries you can work, but you may need to work only half of the time you might work now, which in the short term at least would double available jobs.

I think eliminating the welfare state and giving people £10,000 a year instead has a lot of positives. You remove the stigma of benefits and you eliminate fraud. A couple living together would pull in E£20,000 without having to work, while that might put a roof over their heads and some food in their bellies they would have to earn their luxuries. We need to go from a society of entitlement to a society that earns.

Yes there are negatives, the cost being one. Shame that we bailed out the banks for trillions Because we could have funded UBI with that money and in my opinion made society a better place by doing so.