‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor!

a reply to: Bluesma

this is what Germany is paying to those they deport

So you realized we actually deport refugees from Germany, good for you.
Now you should double-check if Breitbart did inform you correctly, I'd guess they didn't. What's your second source for that story, zerohedge? From your densebeard link:

The costs of accommodating migrants in Germany is much higher than sending them back to their countries leading to the push to get many to return home voluntarily. The IFO institute calculated that residence and care costs alone for migrants total 21 billion euros for the German taxpayer.

IFO, really? Hans-Werner trickle the beard down?!?

Nope, I don't think they know what they're talking about and I'd prefer reading articles from well known (and independent) journalists instead. Two issues:

...
In Germany, officials say that they did not have the capacity to calculate the total costs of deportations.

www.themigrantsfiles.com...#/the-money-trails

Said IFO somehow managed to be in the known while officials struggle to get a grip on this behemoth? Aha. All IFO had to offer thus far, is a history of ideology-driven 'predictions' (aka Hans Werner UnSinn) for the sake of our TINA Troika BS.

...
There is no German professor who as polarized as sense. It is popular, at the same time also recognized in the art. The economist is against the minimum wage and for austerity, reminds us of changes in the pension system and called Chancellor Merkel's energy revolution as quixotic.

Hans-Werner Sinn tritt ab

Just to let you know why I'd prefer skepticism with regards to their... esoterics. You'd either have to come up with more than clouds of hot air or we simply agree to disagree on that point.
Where are the numbers they relied on, care to elaborate?

(even red tape costs stay in the system- they pay state employees, who spend their income - here!)

Every effort to justify mismanagement is worth to ponder about, don't you think so?
What is that, some kind of TINA (there is no alternative) mindset with regards to the status quo?

a reply to: ScepticScot


The problem with using VAT is that it is regressive. For the poorest in society the UBI would represent most or all of their income. Any increase in the cost of living would have an higher impact than on those who receive the UBI on top of an already above average salary. Paying for it via indirect taxation you would effectively be funding a tax rebate to the top earners.

I disagree. The solution that the UBI offers is that now Europe's poorest can afford a raise in VAT rates. I've factored in a higher BI to pay for the higher cost of living.
The top earners are the top spenders they will of course be paying the lions share of the VAT tax.
The problem with raises income taxes to pay for BI is participation in the work force, you are taxing people more for doing something good. It is true that the top earners could just save there money and therefore not pay the VAT tax, which will mean investment earnings or business startups that are taxed.
Do you get it? This is a tax on spenders you would need to spending more then at least I think $45,000 Euro's a year on VAT goods (still finishing these calculations - so still a bit unsure) to be disadvantaged. I'm trying to find out what percentage of the population earning more then this in a year. (Which is a much different calculation to average wage as most do not earn a wage).
The calculations here in NZ is comparably 5% of the population would be worse off, with a break even point of $120,000 NZ dollars.

a reply to: Peter Brake

The poorest will be spending close 100% of what income they get from a UBI as they have very little opportunity to save. Unless you set the UBI at a rate considerably higher than the benefits that presumably they would louse out on then they would be worse off as a result of higher VAT. If you do set it much higher then you are also paying higher income earners that much more as well which would require higher still VAT to fund or the scheme would run at a deficit (which in it's self inst a bad thing but is out with current EU rules).

By using a non targeted tax then those on lower income will inevitably be paying a much higher proportion of the costs of the scheme than higher earners as a % of their income. If the aim is to be self funding/revenue neutral as you suggest then there is no way you can fund a UBI through indirect taxation without making the lower earners worse off.

A UBI that is revenue neutral is essentially redistributive (any economic stimulus would come only from the redistribution as no new funds are added) . If it is funded by indirect taxation then it is distributing upwards,

a reply to: ScepticScot
Gosh dude - I've just finished saying the break even point here is $120,000 - 95% of the people (yes the poorest 95%) are better off. I do understand that the poor will need to spend the money, but really do you not understand what I have said above? Current benefits in England for unemployed are grim, and this is for the people who have even bothered to apply for it. The 5 Million people on a disability allowance in England get paid 20 Million pounds a year 4000 pounds a year or $5240 Euros they have a hard life now. They would be receiving nearly twice this with a BI.

I know just telling the rich to give the poor their earnings would mean they have the same percentages, but dude they get upset when you steal from them. The comment about redistributing upwards, I find insulting so either level up or we can leave the conversation where it is. Your blanket statement about indirect taxation is simply wrong and a fair bit dumb.

a reply to: Peter Brake

Sorry but what you are explaining dosent make sense . As a UBI involves giving everyone the same amount of money regardless of circumstance in stead of all or most current benefits. It sounds to me impossible to have such a scheme that is fully funded by indirect taxation and also makes the bottom 95% better off/no worse off.
The lower on income spectrum you are then the higher proportion of income you have to spend just to survive. Indirect sales tax (unless targeted at certain goods only) will always impact you more.
If you think I am wrong the give even a rough idea of how you think it would work in practise. Simply saying that it would negatively impact only top earners without any evidence is insufficient.

a reply to: ScepticScot


I told you the bi is double the benefit. If the vat rate goes up 25% - well if you can't work this out this is not a conversation I wish to continue

originally posted by: Peter Brake
a reply to: ScepticScot


I told you the bi is double the benefit. If the vat rate goes up 25% - well if you can't work this out this is not a conversation I wish to continue

Double what benefit? Minimum? Maximum, Mean? Median? And in what country benefits vary across Europe?

How do you think a 25% VAT increase is going to cover that level of payment to every single person in Europe?

You seem to think people should accept your word that this works out without offering any evidence or even a simplified model of how it would work?

Someone disagreeing with what seem (in the absence of any evidence) to be ungrounded assumptions is not same as not being able to work it out. Sorry that you feel like that.

Im gonna have to say it. The reason the "elites" dislike the idea is they may lose control of key assets and then this will result in a whole lot of humans breeding who otherwise would not have been able to and we know that is one of their pet peeves.

If the elites and the general population of earth are in a swimming pool drowning together the elites will be the ones fighting for life by holding the others head under water by all means available.

Basic income is like giving that victim next to the psycho swimmer a life ring and that is just not in the plans.

In Switzerland voters rejected a referendum for a basic income by a wide margin. This thread was pointless like most of the threads on ATS.

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Its not a useless conversation, we have various people giving ideas on why and why not it could work.

The idea has legs but the effort I think to get it to walk would be too much for even a small state to handle right now.

a reply to: Maxatoria

I'm sure these discussions, which are based on false premises, will be highlighted during the next EU summit.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I have no idea what these "beard" comments you are making mean. (densebeard? Trickle beard?) I have never heard those terms.

I continue to wonder what the deportation costs or the "red tape" costs in Germany has to do with the problem I brought up existing in France - that immigrants who work here legally are taking the money out of the country.



What is the connection???

I've done enough guessing to try and figure out why you brought that up in response to my point, why don't you just say it??

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
In Switzerland voters rejected a referendum for a basic income by a wide margin. This thread was pointless like most of the threads on ATS.

Yet you still have a login and bothered to comment (twice) today on this thread.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your point being? Am I not allowed to comment on the uselessness of this?

Sorry I called out your boring thread. It's absolutely terrible. Don't get too emotional over it.

a reply to: stabstab

We should be encouraging breeding of successful couples, currently it is backwards. low impulse control, low long term thinkers breed and end up on the dole.
One theory about europe raising its IQ was that the smart and successful truly did outbreed and outlive those with low work ethic, low IQ, and low impulse control. Birth and death rates support this in England's data.

It is important to think about the concept that those with an IQ of 85 breed like rabbits in this current society while those at 115 are barely making any children. It's important for crime, countries development, innovation, culture, and the fact that a countries average IQ under 90 cannot sustain democracy.

Perhaps the Elites have as much disdain for Kardashian Culture as I do.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your point being? Am I not allowed to comment on the uselessness of this?

Sorry I called out your boring thread. It's absolutely terrible. Don't get too emotional over it.

Not my thread and not really emotionally affected one way or the other by your opinion of it.

Do you often keep posting on subjects you find boring? What an unusual hobby. Personally I find tennis mind numbingly boring, maybe I should go post about the French Open .

a reply to: ScepticScot

Just came in to point out that the thread is based on a false premise. Then you got emotional and tried to start up with me. Now you're attempting to outwit me which you've obviously failed at. Calm down. The thread is pointless. That means you can go now.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Just came in to point out that the thread is based on a false premise. Then you got emotional and tried to start up with me. Now you're attempting to outwit me which you've obviously failed at. Calm down. The thread is pointless. That means you can go now.

No emotion or attempt to 'start up' with you. Just admiring your relentless determination to post on subjects that bore you.
Oh and this thread wasn't about the Swiss referendum, the reason you gave for it being pointless. What was it you were saying about wits?

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

a false premise you say, well i dont make many predictions myself, but i wil predict that this UBI talk will be more than just talk and will be in place in the next couple of years, as far as im concerned its already been decided and these polls and such things are just conditioning tools to prepare you for whats coming.
Another link from today talking about it......
www.rt.com...

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Did you hear the rest of the report about this where the losers have said they want this and will try basically till they get it. It was mentioned that the Swiss Pension etc took 4 goes to the vote before it was passed - but this is quite another matter and is as thou say utterly ludicrous. Except for one thing in that it could be a mechanism for pegging low wages even for exceptional workers.