Silicon Valley Continues To Explore Universal Basic Incomes (siliconvalley.com) 382
A Silicon Valley Congressman "is pushing for a plan that has been described as a first step toward universal basic income...a long-shot $1 trillion expansion to the earned income tax credit that is already available to low-income families." An anonymous reader quotes the Mecury News:
Stanford University also has created a Basic Income Lab to study the idea, and the San Francisco city treasurer's office has said it's designing pilot tests -- though the department told this news organization it has no updates on the status of that project... The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year -- more than three-fourths of the federal budget, said Bob Greenstein, president of Washington, D.C.-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Some proponents advocate funding the move by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it upward, exacerbating poverty and inequality, Greenstein said... Jennifer Lin, deputy director of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, is skeptical that basic income can do much lasting good in Oakland. What the city needs is more high-paying jobs and affordable housing, she said... The idea, [Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator] said at the Commonwealth Club, tackles the question not enough people are asking: "What do we as the tech industry do to solve the problem that we're helping to create?"
This summer Y Combinator is expected to announce a larger Universal Basic Income program, though the article also describes "small pilot studies" in the 1960s and 1970s in Canada and in several U.S. states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Indiana, where "Some studies showed improvements in participants' physical and mental health, and found children performed better in school or stayed in school longer. But some also showed that people receiving a basic income were inclined to spend fewer hours working."
This summer Y Combinator is expected to announce a larger Universal Basic Income program, though the article also describes "small pilot studies" in the 1960s and 1970s in Canada and in several U.S. states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Indiana, where "Some studies showed improvements in participants' physical and mental health, and found children performed better in school or stayed in school longer. But some also showed that people receiving a basic income were inclined to spend fewer hours working."
A Wonderful Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
...That will work flawlessly.
.
Right up until they run out of other people's money.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't the rich the guys who pay most of the tax? They are in fact talking about using rich people's money.
Re:A Wonderful Idea (Score:4, Informative)
Aren't the rich the guys who pay most of the tax? They are in fact talking about using rich people's money.
The problem is one of scale. Even if the government took 100% of the wealth of the top 5% it still would be a drop in the bucket. By ny calculations to supply ~320M people $10K/year would cost $3,200,000,000,000 or $3.2 *trillion* dollars...every....single...year!
And, that number will only increase.
The *only* way this is even remotely feasible is if *all* other "social safety net" entitlement programs are halted. No more Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, etc etc etc.
Basically it would be removing *all* government assistance in exchange for $10K/year per person. This would actually be a huge savings compared to existing entitlement programs, but at what human cost?
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Basically it would be removing *all* government assistance in exchange for $10K/year per person. This would actually be a huge savings compared to existing entitlement programs, but at what human cost?
It doesn't work unless you also have national health. 10k/year is plenty to live in the midwest and have a boring life, or it would be if the banks weren't driving property values up by sitting on properties until they rot. If you want to live in California or New York, you're going to have to make some money or someone else is going to have to want to host you.
Re: A Wonderful Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Then who pays for the national health ? The people out actualy working. Costing them more and those not working nothing. Im not sure i enjoy paying for other people.....
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you don't get to live in CA if you can't afford it.
That was the thrust of my comment. If you didn't get that, I weep for your English teachers' failure.
Re: (Score:3)
Money, get back
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet
Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a rise
It's no surprise that they're giving none away
--excerpted from "Money" - Pink Floyd
And the song remains the same.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
It is the LOVE OF MONEY that is the root of all evil. Not money itself.
I'd think the *particularly* relevant parts in the context of TFA/TFS are "share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie" and "If you ask for a rise it's no surprise they're giving none away".
Strat
Yes, rich people are talking about using their own (Score:2)
"It is amusing that all of these rich people proposing this are not talking about using their own money..."
I see a comment like this pop up in every UBI discussion on slashdot and there's no truth to it at all. Any wealthy person talking about this is talking about using their own money by default because they pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. On top of that, given that these people are generally not dumb people, they probably realize that their taxes will have to go up to make UBI work.
Re: (Score:3)
Show me a quote where he says his taxes should be lower.
Equilibrium (Score:5, Interesting)
The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer.
The real problem is jobs being replaced by machines, A.I., etc. This should decrease the costs of those goods and services. But instead, it's making the rich richer and the poor unable to afford those goods and services because they're out of work.
Re:Equilibrium (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't true. By just about every measure the standard of living has increased for even the poorest of people. It's more accurate to say, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer, only slower. I think it's dis-genuine leftism to focus on the money rather than measure and improve standard of living.
Re:Equilibrium (Score:4, Informative)
The only things that really cost an inordinate amount of money today are housing and healthcare. Basic subsistence otherwise is cheap. I retired recently reducing my pay by 50 percent. I own my house and car outright so even though my pay is half I actually have much more money. I eat out maybe 10 percent as much as I used to because I'm home and have time to fix better quality food that's cheaper than what I paid for eating out. I no longer pay to get my grass cut, I have time to do it myself and benefit from the exercise of pushing a mower around my half acre. My main monthly expense is my health insurance, over the last 8 years the cost of it nearly tripled and my copays doubled and catastrophic limit more than doubled. Still, I'm pretty well set, as long as the country doesn't fail. There are of course no guarantees in life.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is jobs being replaced by machines, A.I., etc. This should decrease the costs of those goods and services. But instead, it's making the rich richer and the poor unable to afford those goods and services because they're out of work.
If you look at the BLS employment-population ratio [bls.gov] they have data back to 1948 and it swings between 55% and 65%, currently at 60.2%. That is to say, there's not an exceptional number of people out of work even though it's considerably lower than the 90s and early 00s even though wages are depressed. They've mainly been depressed the last ~50 years first because of a Europe recovering from WW2 and then a huge influx of cheap labor, particularly Indian and Chinese on the world market affecting supply and dem
Silicon Valley explores universal basic income (Score:3)
The people of Alpha Centauri were happy to hear about this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Universal is bad, specifics is what matters. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree that just handing everyone a check every month would be a recipe for disaster for a significant percentage of the population, I also shudder to think of the government bureaucracy that would be required to administer everyone's "free" housing, food, transportation, etc. Furthermore, those who already own a home, own a car, etc., would find such handouts useless.
If you're going to institute a UBI, you have to give everyone the choice to use the money as they see fit. On the other hand, you have to prevent some of them from taking the money and blowing it on drugs, alcohol, or gambling in the first 24 hours, and then begging in the streets for the rest of the month. Western society has never tolerated such extreme social Darwinism, and I don't think we're going to start now.
One possible solution would be two-fold: (1) make the UBI a daily , rather than monthly income, and give approved parties the ability to put a lien on your UBI, so that essentials get paid for first. In this scenario, you'd be given your government credit card, and every day a certain amount of money would be added to it, less the daily cost of rent, meals, etc., according to whatever contracts you have signed for your day-to-day living costs. Even if you go and drink or smoke away the rest, the maximum damage you can do is limited to 24 hours of income. You won't starve or sleep in the streets.
Of course, this still ignores the myriad ways that people will still come up with to abuse the system, just as current government handouts are already abused. But it might mitigate some of the very worst abuses.
Re:Universal is bad, specifics is what matters. (Score:4, Interesting)
When everyone knows that all of your financial needs are met and so the only possible reason you're begging is because you blew your money on booze and hookers, will people still give you money if you beg for it?
Re: (Score:3)
(1) make the UBI a daily , rather than monthly income, and give approved parties the ability to put a lien on your UBI, so that essentials get paid for first. In this scenario, you'd be given your government credit card, and every day a certain amount of money would be added to it, less the daily cost of rent, meals, etc., according to whatever contracts you have signed for your day-to-day living costs. Even if you go and drink or smoke away the rest, the maximum damage you can do is limited to 24 hours of income.
Someone will start a UBI loan company that gives you $5000 right away in exchange for your daily income for the next year. Stupidity is boundless in its ingenuity, and so is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Replace (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Some proponents advocate funding the move by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it"
If it does not *replace* all the other social income and welfare programs, then what is the purpose? That is the only way it could even remotely be affordable; and even then, it is still questionable. Basic income is not based on need, it is based on equality- that everyone would get an amount of subsistence money, regardless of what they choose to earn or already have. A program with zero red tape, almost no overhead, and without trying to create standards for who supposedly "deserves" money. Otherwise, all we would be doing is starting another absolutely massive, unaffordable, unsustainable, unfair, corruptive social welfare program to add to the dozens that already exist.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you in some ways, the reality is that "disabled" is highly subjective. I see people on "disability" all the time for minor ailments.... some of which I have myself and yet I have paid taxes every year since I was 16 and starting working. Other ailments just things that people bring on themselves. The system is so horribly managed now, it is hard to believe that socializing money distribution further based on "need" will help the situation.
UBI must be de-coupled from healthcare, but I s
some people are on disability just for healthcare (Score:2)
some people are on disability just for the healthcare part and if they work to much then they lose there healthcare covage. Also others don't want take the risk of taking a job and then having it not work out and then having to work the system for 6mo-2 years to get back on.
UBI will only raise crime rates (Score:2, Troll)
Re: UBI will only raise crime rates (Score:2)
Even if you had no menial jobs that require any input people would manage to create an economy. Some people value what they do and try to make the world a better place.
Unless you get an AI to replace the entirety of humanity, there is always work to be done whether it is research or art or mowing the grass and tending to flowers.
What you need to do instead of UBI is find the human need for exploration, the rest will come. How many people at McD wouldn't love to go to the moon? Or Mars?
Give the military budg
Re: (Score:2)
UBI does not redistribute upwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Greenstein misses the point, while a UBI does pay out to everyone, and you do get some back from eliminating newly redundant programs (not health, though, that needs to be expanded separately, not as part of a UBI), you also increase taxes as well.
If you make it a straight flat tax increase you can adjust the level of the UBI and the tax increase to set the income level where it's break even. The UBI for people above that level is just a tax refund.
Figure out, for example, what the effective and marginal tax rate is at various income levels with a flat tax of 50% and a UBI of $2000/month.
A big part of UBI is power (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A flat tax on income is difficult to avoid, it's taxed before you get it, since there's only one bracket it's simple.
A flat tax of 45% with a UBI of $24000/year gives a slightly lower total tax rate at $80000 income (single) or $150000 married than the current rates.
Re: (Score:2)
90% of the effort in filing taxes is defining what constitutes 'income'.
Which is why your taxes are so simple, if you're an employee.
Beware of Y Combinator... (Score:3)
I finished reading "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" [amzn.to] by Antonio Garcia Martinez. The author and his two engineers leave the startup they worked at to create a startup at Y Combinator to create a better version of the Digg toolbar (remember toolbars?) for Google advertisers in 2010. He sold his company and engineers to Twitter and jumped ship to Facebook in a three-way deal. The funny thing is that his engineers made out better than him in the end. As for Y Combinator, I've heard mixed things about their success rate.
Here is another thought (Score:2, Interesting)
Money = work. Make people work to earn it. Universal basic work. IE you can always get a job even if we have to hire people to do something silly like rebuild our infrastructure. All money should represent work. Giving it away devalues it and it has to come from somewhere (taxes) and that is theft.
Good idea but (Score:2)
That's a good idea, but that incurs overhead, which is what UBI is supposed to eliminate. Doesn't take a lot of administrators to have a machine cut checks to people.
I'd be a lot more impressed (Score:2)
UBI will happen eventually (Score:2)
UBI will be put into place but a lot of people are going to be jobless and homeless long before politicians get the message. The funny thing is, it's the people who are currently against UBI that are going to be the ones that are going to start calling for it because they have lost their jobs to automation. The only alternative outcome is a conflict on par with a civil war. Not even "make work" jobs are going to be able to stop UBI from happening because of the sheet amount of people that are going to be
Re: (Score:2)
Not even "make work" jobs are going to be able to stop UBI from happening because of the sheet amount of people that are going to be put out of a job.
There is another solution. Instead of waiting till we have massive unemployment, we could start increasing the number of jobs right now. If we reduced the number of hours worked each week to 38 hours (5% decrease), it would create 5% new jobs because those jobs would still need to be filled. If we slowly decrease the workweek as automation takes over then we can evenly distribute both the work and the idleness instead of having a huge split between the people lucky enough to still have a job and the ones
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offer companies a tax break for creating jobs.
Companies hire employees to do jobs because those jobs provide the company more income than they spend on labor. Companies don't just hire people to do nothing. The only thing a tax break might do is adjust the marginal cost of the employee down to where the income exceeds the labor cost. If the job worth to the company is that low to begin with, that job is going to be a very low paying job. A much better solution would be to turn off H1B1s and reduce the number of hours a highly skilled person is allo
Pilot Studies mostly worthless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think pilot studies are worth much, because people will act drastically differently when given a guaranteed income for a few years, compared to a guaranteed income for life.
I think the best way to do pilot studies would be to get some of the state lotteries involved. They could easily set up a lottery where the winner wins 10k or 20k for life. Then you could really see if a UBI works. From what I've heard about most lottery winners, it doesn't usually end well.
Re: (Score:2)
The downside would be that the selection would have a heavy bias towards people who are willing to buy lottery tickets, but that's definitely a smaller distortion than the one in current and previous experiments; and would be easier to control for.
EITC is not universal (Score:4, Interesting)
I was a desperate poor single young man wisely not having kids or getting married while I was shit poor, and I never qualified for EITC.
My equally poor divorced father stopped qualifying for it as soon as I moved out to go to college.
Mom is on disability so doesn't file taxes but I doubt a single woman not supporting a kid would qualify for it either.
There's a "family" of three desperately poor people not filing taxes together because we don't live together and none of us see a lick of this EITC.
A first step toward making a universal basic income would just be making EITC universal. Make poor people, not poor families, get the credit. Then, yeah, expand it from there and it makes a great start. Give every single taxpayer a tax credit of a fixed amount, tax every single taxpayer a fixed percent to fund it (a percent equal to the credit amount over the mean income would make it immediately revenue-neutral), and there you go, you have a universal basic income. Then make tax refunds paid out monthly instead of all at once (and allow tax payments to be made monthly too, to be fair about it) so people don't blow their whole basic income at once right after tax season.
Wrong on purpose (Score:2)
I suspect some will push a wrong flavor of UBI to better kill the idea.
I see two ways to do it badly: first, an UBI too low to live on it, which makes sure people still have to beg for any job that can pay the bills. In the end, employers will even be able to pay them less because they already have UBI. Such an UBI is a social subsidy for employers.
The other way to get it wrong is to make something without proper funding, and kill it as too expensive to be generalized.
So much strange math here... (Score:3)
Surely the point of an UBI is that the UBI is "enough" and that anything beyond that point should be taxed? Say 40% flat.
Earn $0, get $10k/year (UBI).
Earn $10k, get $16k/year ($4k taxes, $10k UBI = $6k net) = -60%
Earn $20k, get $22k/year ($8k taxes, $10k UBI = $2k net) = -10%
Earn $30k, get $28k/year ($12k taxes, $10k UBI = $2k tax) = 6 2/3%
Earn $50k, get $40k/year ($20k taxes, $10k UBI = $10k tax) = 20%
Earn $100k, get $70k/year ($40k taxes, $10k UBI = $30k tax) = 30%
Earn $200k, get $130k/year ($80k taxes, $10k UBI = $70k tax) = 35%
So the break-even in this example would be $25k. But it's not like most under $25k will burden the full amount, if you're working minimum wage you'll be paying over half of it yourself. Those who really cost money are those with no income, but they're probably on some program today, where you could for starters say that the first $10k of any program today is 100% taxed towards your UBI. That is if you get $30k disability pension today, tomorrow you get $20k disability pension, $10k UBI and keep adjusting the system from there. Every dollar you make, you keep 60 cents no funny limits or drops or brackets etc.
Not working (Score:2)
UBI: why not use real goods instead of money? (Score:3)
We already massively subsidize farms. With the savings from eliminating SNAP and other related programs, we might not even need to taxes to do it.
so much... (Score:2)
So much for the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
allow this to happen since they want to force everyone to work, which is slavery.
Verses the Democrats that want to redistribute money from the people who work for it, against their wills, which is theft.
Perhaps instead of one line sound bites, we should look at the actual problems?
Re:The Republicans will never.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote.
If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed). But if giving those handouts is the only way those who actually work can keep the political power, they need to keep the basic income high enough (or they'd be voted out again).
Re: (Score:3)
>>"If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits"
>"So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote."
I have often thought it should be that way (or, similarly, if one is accepting public assistance, he/she can't vote). But, alas, it goes contrary to the Constitution, and that is very unlikely to be changed.
Re: (Score:2)
But, alas, it goes contrary to the Constitution, and that is very unlikely to be changed.
Well, there's world outside the US. I for one live on the right side of the puddle.
But as for the US, you raise an interesting issue. The body of your Constitution doesn't give any trouble, but a couple of amendments require careful reading:
Amendment XIV, section 2: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof
Re:The Republicans will never.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm retired. My income consists of Social Security and compensation from the VA because I'm 30% disabled. (Service connected.) The compensation isn't considered income for tax purposes, and it's been at least a decade since I've even had to file a tax return. Does that mean that you think that I shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Re: (Score:3)
>I'm retired. My income consists of Social Security and compensation from the VA because I'm 30% disabled. (Service connected.)
I wouldn't think retirement/SS would be considered "public assistance", since you put money into that system for just that purpose. I should think there is a large difference between retirement and someone who chooses not to work.
Re: (Score:3)
The concept of retirement is less clear cut in the US, as you have a multitude of concepts, so let's take a look at Poland: you pay a special tax ("ZUS") then, once you reach the retirement age, you receive money according to a formula somewhat based on the amount you paid. You don't have the option to take the money as a lump sum, once your monthly payout is set it can't "run out", your family doesn't inherit the rest if you kick the bucket early (or even before retirement).
This system has lots of unfairn
Re: (Score:3)
I have often thought it should be that way (or, similarly, if one is accepting public assistance, he/she can't vote). But, alas
That's a pretty fucked up view. Do you think you will never be in that situation? All it takes is one major health crisis to end up losing your ability to work. That's something totally beyond your control.
If what you need right now is to feel superior to other people, then I'm not about to take that crutch away from you. I do wish that you remain in good health and continue to prosper. I do hope, however, that you eventually learn a measure of compassion for people who through no fault of their own are not
Re: (Score:2)
>"Once upon a time, only those who held property of some kind could vote. Hasn't been that way in awhile though."
True. And after that, only European American males. Neither was fair, however. In this case, those actively paying taxes (of any amount) are those contributing to the running of the country and should probably be the only ones with the power to decide where and how to spend that money. Seems reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Republicans will never.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits"
That is not inevitable at all. Just lo9k at the here and now, there are quite a lot of red staters who receive government assistance who regularly vote for fiscal conservatives who often want to cut their benefits.
Re:The Republicans will never.... (Score:4, Informative)
If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed). But if giving those handouts is the only way those who actually work can keep the political power, they need to keep the basic income high enough (or they'd be voted out again).
I'm pretty sure lobbyists, Congresscritters and special-interest groups for rich people, corporations and banks already live by that creed. They routinely "vote themselves money" and get "handouts" - though they would never call them that. It's the less-rich who cannot afford to buy their representation that get screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, they'd have to leave at least some portion unrobbed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin (quote disputed)
Kinda seems like you were trying to rack that quote to justify your seemingly unfounded opinion.
Here's the real quote from the real author:
âoeThe American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.â
â Alexis de Tocqueville
The root of the problem is not the common people, it's how they are handled by the higher classes. They are just hungry and confused and not particularly conscious.
Of course they are going to act on base instinc
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I really am tiring of this bs "against their wills" crap wingnuts keep espousing. You idiots keep wanting us to do stuff against our wills all the time, but if it benefits you thats ok? As the latest with Trump and Republicans show, their is no ceiling or floor to your hypocrisy.
1) I don't want my hard earned tax dollars spent on constant wars for oil or whatever, and yet conservatives see no problem with spending tax dollars "against our wills" on the military
2) I dont want my hard earned tax dollars spent
Re: (Score:2)
45% of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. The richest 20% of Americans pay nearly 87% of all the federal income tax
Not entirely correct. Based on the 2014 tax year [ntu.org], it's the top 25% who pay the ~87% of all federal income tax.
Also, the top 50% pay for 97% of all federal income taxes collected. People making as little as $38,173 are part of that 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if the government would live on collected taxes alone. BUT, there's deficit spending and on top of that, occasional money printing by the central bank to buy government debt. [stlouisfed.org] The debt increases won't stop until the system breaks. And no one knows where that is, but spending money helps senators and representatives hold onto their jobs, so they won't stop until they find out. Admittedly, US government debt is slightly over 100% of GDP but Japan's is up around 240 percent. [oecd.org] Their historical [ycharts.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People get to elect the representatives that will decide the taxes they pay. The Founding Fathers didn't ralley to "No taxation", they rallied to "No taxation without representation."
Learn your history and pay your taxes. Libertarianism economics is nothing more than a sociopathic fantasy ideology espoused by the insanely greedy and the utterly stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the evils of taxation!
So you're an anarchist then right?
Re: (Score:3)
The so called republicans (really neo fascists now) have spent the past three or four decades redistributing money. To the wealthy. That's why there's a monstrous wealth disparity in this country.
And they were doing this with a Democratic House, Senate, and President? Damn! They sure are good!
Re: (Score:2)
allow this to happen since they want to force everyone to work, which is slavery.
No, slavery is a system in which people are treated as property, i.e., one human being can legally own another. A system that Republicans brought to an end in the USA.
Being forced by the government to work (and get paid) may or may not be just, but it is not slavery.
We all should work if we can, but people should have the freedom not to work. Some simply can't, for legitimate reasons. But not working can have consequences, including an indigent lifestyle.
Disclosure: I am not a Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
We could pay them to work, then it wouldn't be slavery.
Re:The Republicans will never.... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Many Republicans have long been supporters of EITC.
2. It is the Democrats who are generally opposed.
3. EITC is means tested, and requires people to work, so it is pretty much the opposite of UBI.
Expanding EITC has two big advantages over UBI:
1. It is politically realistic.
2. It addresses a real problem rather than an imaginary problem.
EITC addresses inequality, which is a real problem, by applying a negative income tax (subsidy) to people earning low incomes.
UBI addresses the problem of jobs disappearing completely, which is imaginary since there is no evidence that is actually happening.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
No. EITC is not paid to the employer. Most minimum wage workers do not qualify for EITC, because it depends on household income, not their individual income. In many cases, an employer will not even be aware of which employees are receiving EITC.
Re: (Score:2)
I think UBI means no more food stamps.
Re:The Republicans will never.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any 10K per year would entirely replace food stamps and all other welfare measures. Why would you have UBI and still have a foodstamp system? It should also replace the tax threshholds. UBI + flat taxes + no other welfare. That's how you make it work, because it simplifies (abolishes) a whole pile of existing programs that are designed to be redistributive and massively simplifies the tax system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before anyone complains about a flat tax being regressive, a flat tax + UBI is actually progressive.
What I'do like to see is a flat tax plus VAT with a UBI. Split the entire budget (including the UBI) 50-50 between a flat income tax (personal and business) and a VAT. A spending bill is automatically a tax bill.
A UBI of $2000/month ($800 for dependent children), flat tax around 45-50% and VAT around 25% works out as a first approximation. A lot of adjustments would be needed, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Before anyone complains about a flat tax being regressive, a flat tax + UBI is actually progressive.
No. You are ignoring the meat of the argument, just like last time. The poor spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes on necessities already. Then they get dinged all over again when it comes to sales taxes. UBI does nothing to change that situation, and a flat tax makes it even worse than it is already. No one should be taxed on their purchases of necessities, but there is no reasonable way to administer such a system, so instead we have a graduated tax rate, and nobody should be paying taxes at
...overhead (Score:2)
I'm quite sure my comment included the word "overhead" before the end.
Re: (Score:2)
You don"t tax the UBI as income, of course, but exempting UBI from a VAT or sales tax isn't feasible.
Balancing the taxes between income and spending helps stabilize the economy and the revenue stream. So, the UBI is sufficient for you to live on, including any VAT for the necessities. Then you don't need the overhead and micromanagement of deciding what people "should" be buying, or how much.
A flat tax with a UBI is a progressive tax, e.g. with 45% and $24000, earning $55000 will have a tax rate of just u
Re: The Republicans will never.... (Score:2)
The problem with this is that a single person would have a hard time surviving on a UBI of 10k while a UBI of 50k would be more than a lot of families of 5 currently make.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no means testing when you pay less for children.
There will be eligibility requirements no matter what,whether it's citizenship, species, or age. Not paying anything for children is very punitive, paying the same as an adult would be too generous (if the UBI is actually adequate).
Re: The Republicans will never.... (Score:4, Informative)
You need food stamps because the people that receive them prove themselves to be incompetent to manage any money. You give them money and they still won't have food, hell most people that receive food stamps STILL manage to have their kids go hungry.
In my city we actually have a child hunger crisis, free breakfast and lunches in school and even during vacations. Why, BECAUSE corner and liquor stores accept EBT for cigarettes and alcohol all the while our food bank has curbside trucks (walk to the corner of the street and pick up free groceries) and tons of food rotting and spoiling in storage but the parents don't even bring their kids to the programs nor get the free food even though they're "unemployed", the programs are open 12h/day and the state pays their rent.
My significant other, when pregnant, actually managed to get $1200/month worth of groceries between food "checks" (which can be traded for specific items like eggs/milk, twice the trade value at farmers market and quadruple the value at food banks) and state and federal EBT. We actually got so much peanut butter, bread and cereal, they lasted about 6 months after benefits ended (she moved in with me and I make too much money).
Re: The Republicans will never.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It does in the USA, but not in Canada.
Re:Socialists gonna push their agenda .... (Score:5, Insightful)
You might want to look at the history of the idea before you start labeling it incorrectly, I think you'd be surprised.
Re: Socialists gonna push their agenda .... (Score:3, Insightful)
UBI will never work on large scale because giving money doesn't solve any problem.
You practically need to manage people's lives, you tell them they are only allowed to buy food and a bunch of them still manage to go hungry.
Re: Socialists gonna push their agenda .... (Score:5, Insightful)
you tell them they are only allowed to buy food
That's precisely not how UBI works. You don't tell them what to do with the money; you don't check up on them. There are no tests.
You just give them the money, and you save a whole bunch already because you no longer need a staggeringly inefficient bureaucracy to manage it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's popular to make witty comments around "people are idiots"... but a UBI solves the problem of people not being able to afford basic necessities.
It doesn't solve the problem of some people refusing to buy basic necessities, but that's a different and much smaller problem, and one that already exists without a UBI anyway. If indeed it's even a problem -- if people want to starve themselves or live in the streets, then it seems reasonable to let them. But nobody should be forced to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
UBI will never work on large scale because giving money doesn't solve any problem.
You practically need to manage people's lives, you tell them they are only allowed to buy food and a bunch of them still manage to go hungry.
Such a tried and true polemic! Remember Reagan's welfare queens, and strapping young bucks? Find the worst and most objectionable behavior within a class of people (or don't find it, just make it up), and be that only a tiny percentage, paint the entire lot with the same brush. Let a thousand starve because of one abuse!
But really it's even uglier than that - most people don't have a problem with social programs, as long as the benefits only go to white people.
You haven't really been paying attention, have you (Score:2)
All that said, don't abandon you're poor. If you do, somebody like Trump (or Mussolini) will show up and mobilize them against you. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let the poor be more than 50% or you are screwed in democracy, duh.
America has nowhere near 50% 'poor'. Guess you should redefine 'poor' again.
Historically, 2 out of 3 undisputed, self described fascist governments (Spain, Italy, Germany) were openly socialist, the third was Catholic religious and hostile to capitalism. You're going to have to distinguish more clearly.
Re:You haven't really been paying attention, have (Score:4, Insightful)
Productivity has been sky rocketing for decades. Wages have not. That's to be expected. As workers produce more demand for their services declines. Massive changes in technology and society might fix that, but even when they do they take decades to happen.
It doesn't take massive changes, it can be done incrementally. We might eventually get to a UBI but we are not ready for it. There is a much smoother transition. As you state, the reason that jobs are declining is because the supply of labor is greater than the demand for labor. The solution is not to put the people out of work on welfare. That really doesn't reduce the supply of labor as people still want good paying job. Instead of jumping straight from full employment to full idleness, it would be better to evenly distribute both the employment and the idleness. This can easily be done by reducing the work week. If we slowly reduced the workweek by say 5 hours a week per decade then as automation takes over, the number of hours each person works slowly drops to take up the slack. Eventually, we might get to the point where everyone only works 5 hours per week or noone works and everyone gets a UBI but we would have done it without creating two classes of people, the class that works and the class that lives on only what UBI provides instead everyone would still get the benefit of still working and everyone would still get the benefit of more leisure. This is a much smoother transition that trying to force UBI on people with the hope that it somehow magically solves poverty. It won't. But reducing the hours worked at high paying jobs by 5% should instantly create 5% more high paying jobs as those hours presumably still have to be filled by someone.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Government pays for Bitcoins for the UBI program, let's say USD$2000 per coin.
2. Bitcoins lower in value, let's say USD$1000 per coin.
3. People receive 0.5BTC because that was worth USD$1000 when the government bought it.
Your scenario is still costing the same for the government and the people are getting less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a government buys them at $2000 today doesn't mean they're still worth $2000 tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)