Author Topic: Do mustachians support universal basic income?  (Read 20224 times)

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #100 on: September 11, 2019, 08:03:20 AM »
The presumption is that poor people are poor not because they can't manage money, but because they have so little to manage. Scarcity makes you make poor decisions.

Seems like the "Overheard at Work" and variations of that thread would be a pretty good indicator, just here on MMM, that people are poor because they can't manage money. And it has seemingly no correlation to earnings.

I'm pretty sure that being poor is correlated with earnings.

LoanShark

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #101 on: September 11, 2019, 08:13:58 AM »
No. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Why should I pay people for doing nothing?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 08:15:42 AM by LoanShark »

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #102 on: September 11, 2019, 08:14:56 AM »
I really don't care whether universal basic income is implemented. If it is, I will exploit it to the fullest extend possible. Heck, if my state ever eliminates the means testing for food stamps, I'll use them to the maximum extent possible. See for example:https://thefga.org/video/millionaire-food-stamps-rob-undersander/.

Of course, if UBI isn't implemented I'll benefit from the lower taxes during my working days.

Probably the ideal situation would be that UBI is implemented on the day I retire.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #103 on: September 11, 2019, 08:17:04 AM »
No. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Why should I pay people for doing nothing?

You're getting paid too.

LoanShark

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #104 on: September 11, 2019, 09:02:38 AM »
No. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Why should I pay people for doing nothing?

You're getting paid too.

No, I wouldn't be. I'm a massive net payer into the tax system.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #105 on: September 11, 2019, 09:05:54 AM »
No, I wouldn't be. I'm a massive net payer into the tax system.

Oh. I didn't realize we were in the presence of a Rockefeller. ;-)

If that's the case then, at the end of 2017, we committed to going nearly $2 trillion in debt over the next decade to give you free money for doing nothing too. How is UBI any different?

To me, it's different because the money goes to people with a higher marginal propensity to consume, which is probably better for the economy. That, and they derive more utility from it.

LoanShark

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #106 on: September 11, 2019, 09:24:09 AM »
No, I wouldn't be. I'm a massive net payer into the tax system.

Oh. I didn't realize we were in the presence of a Rockefeller. ;-)

If that's the case then, at the end of 2017, we committed to going nearly $2 trillion in debt over the next decade to give you free money for doing nothing too. How is UBI any different?

To me, it's different because the money goes to people with a higher marginal propensity to consume, which is probably better for the economy. That, and they derive more utility from it.

You can't tax people into prosperity...but I suspect we're on different ends of the spectrum of that philosophical debate.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #107 on: September 11, 2019, 09:35:38 AM »
You can't tax people into prosperity...but I suspect we're on different ends of the spectrum of that philosophical debate.

But we can fabricate money out of thin air to baselessly reward the holders of capital? I do understand your revulsion to the government taking money and spending it in ways it thinks is better than the market. That just sounds bad and wrong on the face of it. And often times, I would agree that it is bad and wrong. But we already do this in roundabout ways all the time. The government bends over backwards to appease capital. I don't think it's so much to ask that it do the same to correct the market failures that affect working people.

I think taxing and redistributing has largely worked in countries with a much lower GINI coefficient and higher HDI score than the United States. Those metrics are a decent enough proxy for prosperity.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 09:39:05 AM by mathlete »

panda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #108 on: September 11, 2019, 01:32:47 PM »
I get the impression that UBI is a really good way to see how well people understand macro economics, and generally people have only a vague idea at best.



Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #109 on: September 11, 2019, 02:43:07 PM »
I get the impression that UBI is a really good way to see how well people understand macro economics, and generally people have only a vague idea at best.
Care to elaborate?

freedomfightergal

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #110 on: September 16, 2019, 08:41:06 AM »
After reading the book, "The War on Normal People" by Andrew Yang, I believe UBI is the only way to save the economy from a crash of epic proportions.  Automation & AI will reduce the number of available jobs by the millions - some estimate 70%!  With epic unemployment, no-one will have money so the businesses will suffer, sure there'll be some lucky people - the business owners with the robots doing all the work, but a few billionaires can only buy so many consumer goods.  It's in our interests to pay UBI, to help people from starving, becoming homeless, to help them transition to a new economic model, where they can start their own small business & share in the savings created by Automation.

EG- The trucking industry which has already started some runs with zero drivers, has 3.5million drivers.  The industry will save $168 Billion.  The VAT of 10% on the Trucking industry would then go to pay the drivers UBI - it's a slice of the savings.  Similarly, Amazon is killing off retail & automating warehousing & delivery - if they save say 20% in worker reductions, adding 10% VAT & paying it back to the people, is the people sharing in the savings of their automation. 

People would spend their UBI back into the economy pumping it up & keeping it alive.

I'm surprised people seem to freak out about people 'gasp' getting money (back), yet don't mention the Trillions given to the Banks, AIG, GM, Farmers, Fossil Fuel subsidies, war games, and just recently there was a news article about sending the Ukraine $250 Million - no one was saying 'how are we going to pay for that', and 'how dare they, it's our income tax money', I'd prefer it going back to the people.  I've lived in different countries & those that take the best care of their poor, with the best safety nets have the least crime, poverty, homelessness & result unrest eg Australia, Canada, Norway...

Ps Highly recommend reading the book, or listening to the Joe Rogan podcast interviewing Andrew Yang

panda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #111 on: September 16, 2019, 09:18:57 AM »
I get the impression that UBI is a really good way to see how well people understand macro economics, and generally people have only a vague idea at best.
Care to elaborate?
Very short answer: UBI is an incredibility complex subject and people that spend massive amount of time doing nothing but economics are arguing up a storm about how effective it may or may not be (in academic speak: there is robust discourse about the topic). It's also a macro economic topic that requires a pretty good rounding in national policy to really understand the arguments for against.

Yet, outside that discourse most of the arguments (for or against) boil down to partisan talking points that wouldn't even pass muster in a high school level course.

Kind of like how the argument that national budgets need to be run the same way as hold budgets just doesn't work. A better argument would be a comparison to corporations which need to take out bonds due to variable cashflow.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #112 on: September 16, 2019, 09:51:01 AM »
Very short answer: UBI is an incredibility complex subject and people that spend massive amount of time doing nothing but economics are arguing up a storm about how effective it may or may not be (in academic speak: there is robust discourse about the topic). It's also a macro economic topic that requires a pretty good rounding in national policy to really understand the arguments for against.

Yet, outside that discourse most of the arguments (for or against) boil down to partisan talking points that wouldn't even pass muster in a high school level course.

Kind of like how the argument that national budgets need to be run the same way as hold budgets just doesn't work. A better argument would be a comparison to corporations which need to take out bonds due to variable cashflow.

In some ways, I agree with you. And I'm incredibly partial to your comparison about household budgets vs. the country as a whole. That drives me up a wall. Countries can print their own money and can conceivably persist virtually forever while increasing their productivity. Households, on the other hand, are made up of people who will ultimately breakdown. So on and so on.

But for UBI though, I don't think you need a degree in economics to foresee that most human labor will be marginalized to the point of worthlessness and that sticking to the notion that people need to earn their keep will cause a lot of suffering.

panda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #113 on: September 16, 2019, 11:09:34 AM »
In some ways, I agree with you. And I'm incredibly partial to your comparison about household budgets vs. the country as a whole. That drives me up a wall. Countries can print their own money and can conceivably persist virtually forever while increasing their productivity. Households, on the other hand, are made up of people who will ultimately breakdown. So on and so on.
Also, don't forget that we can look at major corporations as well. Even ones with the healthiest books will issue bonds for large CapEx projects since their real revenues are not consist over time.

Quote
But for UBI though, I don't think you need a degree in economics to foresee that most human labor will be marginalized to the point of worthlessness and that sticking to the notion that people need to earn their keep will cause a lot of suffering.
That's a social argument against UBI though and not an economic one. There have been some small scale studies into UBI and while you do end up having some bad actors (who may have been a prioi) generally you see an overall economic and educational improvmenet along with more entrepreneurship. However, there's a bit question about if the small-scale projects would even scale, or if UBI should just be used to lift some populations out of poverty.

When you get down to it, most of the arguments against UBI tend to be social as opposed to economic. It's really hard to model the economics of something that really hasn't been done at scale before.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #114 on: September 16, 2019, 11:24:10 AM »
Still waiting for this to happen so that I can up my rent on my tenants!

panda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #115 on: September 16, 2019, 12:53:10 PM »
Still waiting for this to happen so that I can up my rent on my tenants!
I'm guessing your rents aren't part of a marketplace? ;)

In essence, how is it different from the standard deduction, except that it can result in negative taxes for low income earners?
Depending on the implementation and who you ask, not really that different barring lump sum versus monthly payments.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #116 on: September 16, 2019, 04:09:59 PM »
That's a social argument against UBI though and not an economic one. There have been some small scale studies into UBI and while you do end up having some bad actors (who may have been a prioi) generally you see an overall economic and educational improvmenet along with more entrepreneurship. However, there's a bit question about if the small-scale projects would even scale, or if UBI should just be used to lift some populations out of poverty.

When you get down to it, most of the arguments against UBI tend to be social as opposed to economic. It's really hard to model the economics of something that really hasn't been done at scale before.

I think we may have our wires crossed. I was trying to argue for UBI.

More specifically, I was trying to argue for the ability to argue for UBI without having an economics degree.

EngagedToFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #117 on: September 16, 2019, 04:26:37 PM »
After reading the book, "The War on Normal People" by Andrew Yang, I believe UBI is the only way to save the economy from a crash of epic proportions.  Automation & AI will reduce the number of available jobs by the millions - some estimate 70%!  With epic unemployment, no-one will have money so the businesses will suffer, sure there'll be some lucky people - the business owners with the robots doing all the work, but a few billionaires can only buy so many consumer goods.  It's in our interests to pay UBI, to help people from starving, becoming homeless, to help them transition to a new economic model, where they can start their own small business & share in the savings created by Automation.

EG- The trucking industry which has already started some runs with zero drivers, has 3.5million drivers.  The industry will save $168 Billion.  The VAT of 10% on the Trucking industry would then go to pay the drivers UBI - it's a slice of the savings.  Similarly, Amazon is killing off retail & automating warehousing & delivery - if they save say 20% in worker reductions, adding 10% VAT & paying it back to the people, is the people sharing in the savings of their automation. 

People would spend their UBI back into the economy pumping it up & keeping it alive.

I'm surprised people seem to freak out about people 'gasp' getting money (back), yet don't mention the Trillions given to the Banks, AIG, GM, Farmers, Fossil Fuel subsidies, war games, and just recently there was a news article about sending the Ukraine $250 Million - no one was saying 'how are we going to pay for that', and 'how dare they, it's our income tax money', I'd prefer it going back to the people.  I've lived in different countries & those that take the best care of their poor, with the best safety nets have the least crime, poverty, homelessness & result unrest eg Australia, Canada, Norway...

Ps Highly recommend reading the book, or listening to the Joe Rogan podcast interviewing Andrew Yang

We are at nearly full employment right now.  So the doomsday everyone loses their job scenario is kind of make believe... at the moment.  The issue is that politicians want to implement UBI, now.  While at full employment, then talk about automation and all that nonsense.  The thing is, we'll know when it's time to implement UBI because the market will dictate it.  When you are at full employment, the discussion about automation taking everyone's job and needing to implement UBI is kind of ridiculous.  We are nowhere near needing to have a serious discussion about UBI, it should be one of the last things our politicians should be focusing on.  In fact, automation may just mean we don't need more labor, as opposed to killing jobs, it may just make the existing jobs higher paying and reduce the need to import more workers.  But UBI?  No.  We aren't even close to that, yet.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2019, 04:28:24 PM by EngagedToFIRE »

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #118 on: September 16, 2019, 07:49:09 PM »
We are at nearly full employment right now.

You have to be looking for work to get counted in those statistics. Prime age male labor force participation is dropping fast.

The labor force participation rate among men has been on the decline... 69 percent in June, down from 86.2 percent 70 years ago.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/employment-prime-age-men

I'm afraid to see what happens when it gets to 50%.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1036
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #119 on: September 16, 2019, 09:25:17 PM »
I think a lot of (maybe all of) the proponents of UBI favour utilitarianism as a moral philosophy. Not everyone subscribes to that.

ctuser1

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #120 on: September 17, 2019, 07:08:41 AM »
I think the devil is in the details.

UBI in the manner and scale that Alaksa did it, is good! Their implementation was messed up, however. They did not diversify their portfolio and the SWR was messed around with by the political, rather than actuarial calculations. Fix that, and Alaska plan is golden. i.e. invest into a diversified portfolio that bets on the direction of the entire economy (that starts sounding very much like an index fund to me), and give out a SWR calculated conservatively. As the portfolio grows (i.e. economy grows), your share grows too!!

This mechanism will take a looooong time to take effect. That is okay, I think!! Despite what popular opinions suggest, AI will only impact a small number of areas - nothing our current safety nets can't handle (unless we get into a demographic crisis like Japan/Europe)!! So investing in such an UBI fund with a special fund set aside for that purpose is not a bad idea at all. When our grandchildren's grandchildren come around - magic of compounding will ensure we have a nest egg to guarantee a livable UBI to everyone.

If/when such "UBI fund" ownership of the economic activities start becoming a majority share of the market cap, then some more interesting questions will arise. Does it become more like communism - with public ownership of the economic activities? Communist economies are famously inefficient!!

Anyone thinking of UBI as a cheap quick-fix for the now and here, without putting in the time/compounding into it is smoking something really strong - mathematically speaking.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #121 on: September 18, 2019, 07:23:41 AM »
After reading the book, "The War on Normal People" by Andrew Yang, I believe UBI is the only way to save the economy from a crash of epic proportions.  Automation & AI will reduce the number of available jobs by the millions - some estimate 70%!  With epic unemployment, no-one will have money so the businesses will suffer, sure there'll be some lucky people - the business owners with the robots doing all the work, but a few billionaires can only buy so many consumer goods.  It's in our interests to pay UBI, to help people from starving, becoming homeless, to help them transition to a new economic model, where they can start their own small business & share in the savings created by Automation.

Gahhh.... Can't believe I'm getting sucked in to another UBI debate on the MMM forums. :)

I understand the fear that intuitively, 1) automation and technology will eliminate a lot of current jobs (which is true), which will then 2) lead to massive unemployment. Unfortunately, economics is not always intuitive, and 2 doesn't necessarily follow 1. In fact for much of recorded history, technology and other changes have eliminated jobs; sometimes society has broken through those periods without any issues, whereas other times there has been massive social unrest. Note there hasn't really been the equivalent of nationwide UBI in the past (that I'm aware of). So, what has worked in the past and why has it worked?

The market economy has generally worked to resolve 'technological unemployment' issues in the past, with government intervention to ensure that the basic needs of the people could be met even if there were large gaps in unemployment with the associated inability to pay for those needs. The harder question to answer, is why has it worked? Those few billionaires that you describe have been around for a long time. The Carnegies, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc. fit that bill. What do people do with all that money? They certainly aren't paying robots with it. Money, all money, is simply a transactional symbol for someone's labor. Whether you are buying a widget from Amazon (where some small percentage of your money goes to the widget makers in China, the Amazon programmers, the UPS truck drivers, and even government employees in the form of taxes) or whatever, all of that money is paying someone's labor. Now, the billionaires could do a few things with that money: 1) store it all in a Scrooge McDuck vault, which would be a huge boon to the government in the form of seigniorage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage) (and of course the government of the U.S. is by the people, for the people, etc.); 2) invest the money in companies, which pay the labor of people to generate profits; or 3) pay for the labor of people directly in the form of goods and services. As you can see, anything they do with their money results in that money being returned to laborers in some form or fashion (even if the government may need to intervene occasionally (like in the 1930s) to provide jobs).

We are at nearly full employment right now.

You have to be looking for work to get counted in those statistics. Prime age male labor force participation is dropping fast.

The labor force participation rate among men has been on the decline... 69 percent in June, down from 86.2 percent 70 years ago.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/employment-prime-age-men

I'm afraid to see what happens when it gets to 50%.

If you look deeper into the statistics, much of the increase in the people not looking for work are either students or, gasp, retired early. If someone wants a job, they can get one right now as long as they are at least semi-functional.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 06:55:29 AM by Boofinator »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1036
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #122 on: September 18, 2019, 03:18:08 PM »
How much would 3 daily meals totalling 2200 calories, warm shelter (I'm thinking a hostel type environment), an internet connection and a VR headset cost per person? Because I think that would be the extent of the "UBI" requirements, and I think if you institute that in bulk, it wouldn't be super expensive.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #123 on: September 18, 2019, 04:19:26 PM »
How much would 3 daily meals totalling 2200 calories, warm shelter (I'm thinking a hostel type environment), an internet connection and a VR headset cost per person? Because I think that would be the extent of the "UBI" requirements, and I think if you institute that in bulk, it wouldn't be super expensive.
Looking at prisons would probably give us a good idea. (https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost) Removing the obvious things that wouldn't be needed (liked $35k on security) it looks like you could house and feed people for about $600 per person per month excluding healthcare.


panda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #124 on: September 19, 2019, 09:09:18 AM »
How much would 3 daily meals totalling 2200 calories, warm shelter (I'm thinking a hostel type environment), an internet connection and a VR headset cost per person? Because I think that would be the extent of the "UBI" requirements, and I think if you institute that in bulk, it wouldn't be super expensive.
I'm not even sure that a VR headset would be a requirement. If you look at something like the Social Security in the United States, the original intent was to ensure that the elderly had basic food and shelter needs met so that they didn't end up destitute (great societies do not allow their elderly to beg on the street!).

I'd have to look up exactly how they determined things, but I seem to recall the first checks were around $22.50 and a full house could be rented for $18.00. So figure being able to rent an apartment with enough left over for food - scraping by, but not destitute! People tend to forget that Social Security was not meant to fund your retirement, it was meant to augment it by covering the basics so your family wouldn't be put out, or your own savings or nominal earnings could cover other necessitates and entertainment.

Optimiser

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Age: 36
  • Location: PNW
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #125 on: September 19, 2019, 09:59:42 AM »
In essence, how is it different from the standard deduction, except that it can result in negative taxes for low income earners?

One difference, at least in the Andrew Yang version of UBI, is that it would be funded by a value added tax and not an income tax. A VAT is a tax on consumption and thus those at high income levels can choose to not pay it by saving their money instead of spending it.

For any adult who spends less than $120,000/year, this would be an increase in income.

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #126 on: September 23, 2019, 04:00:07 AM »
I think it's hard to know where the break even point is with a VAT tax.

I think it gets applied at several points along the supply chain not just the point of final sale.

That increases the cost of goods sold on everything which means profit has to increase to maintain the same profit margins.

I could be wrong but I think adding a VAT tax by 1% would increase prices by more than just 1%.

I was still pretty young when Canada implemented the GST (VAT), so I don't remember the effect it had on prices... I also seem to remember tax being baked into the price before the GST so the consumer didn't actually know the tax rate on specific items.

panda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #127 on: September 23, 2019, 09:23:58 AM »
I was still pretty young when Canada implemented the GST (VAT), so I don't remember the effect it had on prices... I also seem to remember tax being baked into the price before the GST so the consumer didn't actually know the tax rate on specific items.
In all fairness, it would be really nice if the price on the shelf was the price paid at the register. Even with out VAT or GST, we have the technology, you would think that retailers would have done this by now.

In the UK the VAT is applied based upon the final sale price and I seem to recall that the EU is the same?

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
« Reply #128 on: September 24, 2019, 07:43:44 AM »
    I was still pretty young when Canada implemented the GST (VAT), so I don't remember the effect it had on prices... I also seem to remember tax being baked into the price before the GST so the consumer didn't actually know the tax rate on specific items.
    In all fairness, it would be really nice if the price on the shelf was the price paid at the register. Even with out VAT or GST, we have the technology, you would think that retailers would have done this by now.

    In the UK the VAT is applied based upon the final sale price and I seem to recall that the EU is the same?

    From Investopedia (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp):
    A value-added tax (VAT) is a consumption tax placed on a product whenever value is added at each stage of the supply chain, from production to the point of sale. The amount of VAT that the user pays is on the cost of the product, less any of the costs of materials used in the product that have already been taxed.

    and

    A VAT is levied on the gross margin at each point in the manufacturing-distribution-sales process of an item. The tax is assessed and collected at each stage, in contrast to a sales tax, which is only assessed and paid by the consumer at the very end of the supply chain.

    Say, for example, Dulce is an expensive candy manufactured and sold in the country of Alexia. Alexia has a 10% value-added tax.

    • Dulce’s manufacturer buys the raw materials for $2.00, plus a VAT of $0.20—payable to the government of Alexia—for a total price of $2.20.
    • The manufacturer then sells Dulce to a retailer for $5.00 plus a VAT of 50 cents for a total of $5.50. However, the manufacturer renders only 30 cents to Alexia, which is the total VAT at this point, minus the prior VAT charged by the raw material supplier. Note that the 30 cents also equals 10% of the manufacturer’s gross margin of $3.00.
    • Finally, the retailer sells Dulce to consumers for $10 plus a VAT of $1 for a total of $11. The retailer renders 50 cents to Alexia, which is the total VAT at this point ($1), minus the prior 50-cent VAT charged by the manufacturer. The 50 cents also represents 10% of the retailer’s gross margin on Dulce.


    So, my understanding is that all the "middlemen" have to pay taxes for the value added which would make prices inflate by more than just the rate of the tax (i.e. a 1% VAT tax would likely increase the cost of the good it was applied to by > 1%). But, I may be wrong on that part. Things are almost always more expensive in Canada than the US, but there are many reasons for that (VAT tax is one of them I think, but not the only one).

    Aside: I'd also be fine with taxes being included in prices in the store provided that the tax rates were known (which I don't think was the case in Canada at the time). I don't think stores would do this though because it's psychologically easier to buy something at $9.99 than at $11.29 (using Ontario's 13% HST which "harmonizes" the GST (VAT) and PST (sales tax))[/list]
    « Last Edit: September 24, 2019, 08:09:28 AM by NorthernBlitz »

    Boofinator

    • Handlebar Stache
    • *****
    • Posts: 1122
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #129 on: September 24, 2019, 10:29:49 AM »
    So, my understanding is that all the "middlemen" have to pay taxes for the value added which would make prices inflate by more than just the rate of the tax (i.e. a 1% VAT tax would likely increase the cost of the good it was applied to by > 1%). But, I may be wrong on that part. Things are almost always more expensive in Canada than the US, but there are many reasons for that (VAT tax is one of them I think, but not the only one).

    I could be wrong, but I think you have it backwards. Sales tax has to be paid by all middlemen (and hence tends to be greater than the stated rate), whereas value added tax equals the actual tax rate applied to the final cost to the consumer.

    NorthernBlitz

    • Bristles
    • ***
    • Posts: 393
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #130 on: September 25, 2019, 01:57:01 PM »
    So, my understanding is that all the "middlemen" have to pay taxes for the value added which would make prices inflate by more than just the rate of the tax (i.e. a 1% VAT tax would likely increase the cost of the good it was applied to by > 1%). But, I may be wrong on that part. Things are almost always more expensive in Canada than the US, but there are many reasons for that (VAT tax is one of them I think, but not the only one).

    I could be wrong, but I think you have it backwards. Sales tax has to be paid by all middlemen (and hence tends to be greater than the stated rate), whereas value added tax equals the actual tax rate applied to the final cost to the consumer.

    I'm also not an expert.

    But I think the definitions and example from investipedia show how it works.

    Boofinator

    • Handlebar Stache
    • *****
    • Posts: 1122
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #131 on: September 25, 2019, 02:50:07 PM »
    So, my understanding is that all the "middlemen" have to pay taxes for the value added which would make prices inflate by more than just the rate of the tax (i.e. a 1% VAT tax would likely increase the cost of the good it was applied to by > 1%). But, I may be wrong on that part. Things are almost always more expensive in Canada than the US, but there are many reasons for that (VAT tax is one of them I think, but not the only one).

    I could be wrong, but I think you have it backwards. Sales tax has to be paid by all middlemen (and hence tends to be greater than the stated rate), whereas value added tax equals the actual tax rate applied to the final cost to the consumer.

    I'm also not an expert.

    But I think the definitions and example from investipedia show how it works.

    I agree Investopedia has it right, though its example appears to be somewhat confusing. If you do the math, the country of Alexia gets 10% ($1.00) of the retail cost of the item ($10.00): $0.50 from the retailer, $0.30 from the manufacturer, and $0.20 from the producers of the raw materials. Now if a 10% sales tax was used along the supply chain instead, Alexia would have received $1.79, and the final cost would have been $11.79 rather than $11 (assuming all parties are making the same profits): $0.20 sales tax from purchasing the raw materials; $0.52 from the manufacturer (since the price needed to increase to $5.20 to cover the tax); and $1.07 from the retailer from an initial cost of $10.72.

    LonerMatt

    • Pencil Stache
    • ****
    • Posts: 845
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #132 on: September 25, 2019, 08:37:45 PM »
    Here's my thinking as a borderline communist.

    - Inequality is on the rise, which is bad for society for a host of reasons
    - Inequality in the extremes is totally unnecessary and not at all advantageous
    - Neither is enforcing that everyone lives on the same income despite differences in effort, skill, social value, contribution or merit (and I'd argue equally that people like teachers deserve more and CEOs deserve less based on that, but alas)

    But a UBI won't reduce inequality - it will enforce it. If there's an increase in a class of people who own/control vast amounts of wealth AND an increase in the number of people for whom $12,000 is a significant part of their income then we'll have, effectively, a 2 tiered system LOCKED IN PLACE.

    I do believe that the social issues at the heart of the thinking about UBI (rising inequality, lack of social mobility, concentration of wealth, increasing UNDERemployment) is a call to action, however I don't see a UBI as a silver bullet nor even as a good first step without good commitments on affordable/free childcare, affordable/free social housing, affordable/free health care and affordable/free education.

    If we truly believe that everyone deserves a chance (I do) then we need to honour that by making some of the most significant steps in enabling people to reach their potential.

    I, for one, don't see companies as particularly valuable, especially with the neoliberal, trickle-down bullshit that so obviously doesn't work.

    joshuagraham_xyz

    • 5 O'Clock Shadow
    • *
    • Posts: 15
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #133 on: October 09, 2019, 08:44:50 AM »
    In theory, if it is fully funded through taxes then no, because the same amount of money remains in the economy.  In the previous poster's example, rents are set (mostly) by supply and demand.  If suddenly incomes were increased by $12,000 per year, that wouldn't cause an increase in the number of people looking for rental units.   But it might increase the demand for higher end units, as some people could afford to upgrade from their current living conditions.   But in that case, the previous poster would have to upgrade his units as well in order to capture that market.   
    I think part of the reason that apartments in more expensive locals are rented at all is because folks have to be there to access the good jobs.  With UBI, folks don't need to be there, and so they will spend the cash in cheap locales.

    PDXTabs

    • Handlebar Stache
    • *****
    • Posts: 1259
    • Age: 36
    • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #134 on: October 09, 2019, 09:01:21 AM »
    But a UBI won't reduce inequality - it will enforce it. If there's an increase in a class of people who own/control vast amounts of wealth AND an increase in the number of people for whom $12,000 is a significant part of their income then we'll have, effectively, a 2 tiered system LOCKED IN PLACE.

    You are talking about a direct transfer of wealth from the people that make enough money to pay to people that have nothing. I don't think that your math adds up. If you take someone making $6K/yr and suddenly they make $18K/yr that's a huge improvement.

    joshuagraham_xyz

    • 5 O'Clock Shadow
    • *
    • Posts: 15
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #135 on: October 09, 2019, 09:09:51 AM »
    UBI would cause a double whammy if the main wage earner in your family suddenly dies and you lose both his or her income *AND* the $12000-a-year UBI.  That would be tough for the surviving family members.
    The idea is that there would be one less mouth to feed.

    LonerMatt

    • Pencil Stache
    • ****
    • Posts: 845
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #136 on: October 09, 2019, 04:22:23 PM »
    But a UBI won't reduce inequality - it will enforce it. If there's an increase in a class of people who own/control vast amounts of wealth AND an increase in the number of people for whom $12,000 is a significant part of their income then we'll have, effectively, a 2 tiered system LOCKED IN PLACE.

    You are talking about a direct transfer of wealth from the people that make enough money to pay to people that have nothing. I don't think that your math adds up. If you take someone making $6K/yr and suddenly they make $18K/yr that's a huge improvement.

    I'm not really doing any math - nor do I think I need to to support my point.

    If the argument goes that:
    - Automation, AI and disruptive technologies reduce the # of jobs (especially middle class jobs)
    - While at the same time enriching those who invest in them (who are almost exclusively previously wealthy people like VCs, Angel investors, etc)
    - So UBI provides a basic level of income for people who find the economy excluding them due to structural changes

    Then I think you necessarily get:
    - A class of people with a lot of money - involved and powerful in the economy
    - An shrinking middle class (as a lot of MC jobs become automated or technology'd away)
    - An increasing class of people with (relatively) no money - unable to meaningfully participate in the economy either as actors or as decision makers

    That seems, to me, to be LESS equality, not more. Since the middle class shrinks.

    Now predicting the future is always a murky prospect, so there could be a lot of bad assumptions at play, but if the assumptions that a UBI is based on are accurate then I don't see a UBI as doing anything other than enforcing inequality.

    Davnasty

    • Handlebar Stache
    • *****
    • Posts: 2061
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #137 on: October 10, 2019, 06:39:16 AM »
    But a UBI won't reduce inequality - it will enforce it. If there's an increase in a class of people who own/control vast amounts of wealth AND an increase in the number of people for whom $12,000 is a significant part of their income then we'll have, effectively, a 2 tiered system LOCKED IN PLACE.

    You are talking about a direct transfer of wealth from the people that make enough money to pay to people that have nothing. I don't think that your math adds up. If you take someone making $6K/yr and suddenly they make $18K/yr that's a huge improvement.

    I'm not really doing any math - nor do I think I need to to support my point.

    If the argument goes that:
    - Automation, AI and disruptive technologies reduce the # of jobs (especially middle class jobs)
    - While at the same time enriching those who invest in them (who are almost exclusively previously wealthy people like VCs, Angel investors, etc)
    - So UBI provides a basic level of income for people who find the economy excluding them due to structural changes

    Then I think you necessarily get:
    - A class of people with a lot of money - involved and powerful in the economy
    - An shrinking middle class (as a lot of MC jobs become automated or technology'd away)
    - An increasing class of people with (relatively) no money - unable to meaningfully participate in the economy either as actors or as decision makers

    That seems, to me, to be LESS equality, not more. Since the middle class shrinks.

    Now predicting the future is always a murky prospect, so there could be a lot of bad assumptions at play, but if the assumptions that a UBI is based on are accurate then I don't see a UBI as doing anything other than enforcing inequality.

    I don't see your point here. If there is a significant class who is unable to participate in the economy due to automation they will have far less wealth than the class who owns the capital. If UBI is provided, of course that divide would still exist but it would be slightly less. This doesn't sound like an argument against UBI, it sounds like an argument for some alternative that you haven't described yet.

    YttriumNitrate

    • Pencil Stache
    • ****
    • Posts: 647
    • Location: Northwest Indiana
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #138 on: October 10, 2019, 08:39:34 AM »
    If the argument goes that:
    - Automation, AI and disruptive technologies reduce the # of jobs (especially middle class jobs)

    It's interesting that people think automation and technological advances will reduce the total number of jobs. Looking back at the past 200 years, automation and technology have certainly killed off jobs, but have also created countless new ones at a far greater pace.

    Perhaps the problem is that we have a good idea of the jobs that are going to be killed off, but don't know what new jobs will be created. Imagine telling a farmer 200 years ago that there was 95+% chance that his job would be eliminated. That would be terrifying since he wouldn't know the new jobs that would take its place.
    « Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 10:36:59 AM by YttriumNitrate »

    TheContinentalOp

    • Stubble
    • **
    • Posts: 187
    • Location: Suburban Philadelphia
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #139 on: October 10, 2019, 12:44:52 PM »
    If the argument goes that:
    - Automation, AI and disruptive technologies reduce the # of jobs (especially middle class jobs)

    It's interesting that people think automation and technological advances will reduce the total number of jobs. Looking back at the past 200 years, automation and technology have certainly killed off jobs, but have also created countless new ones at a far greater pace.

    Perhaps the problem is that we have a good idea of the jobs that are going to be killed off, but don't know what new jobs will be created. Imagine telling a farmer 200 years ago that there was 95+% chance that his job would be eliminated. That would be terrifying since he wouldn't know the new jobs that would take its place.

    One problem is that the people at the lower end of the IQ scale are becoming more unemployable.

    Couple hundred years ago someone with a IQ of 80 maybe couldn't live on his own, but could productively contribute on a farm and earn his own keep. That's not true today (at least in the US).

    As technology/society advances this becomes an increasing problem: lacking cognitive skills,  businesses can't risk property damage, liability, customer interaction issues, increasing minimum wage prices them out of the job market.

    As time progresses this is going to continue to rise. What happens when it hits 100 and half the people are unemployable?


    EscapedApe

    • Stubble
    • **
    • Posts: 149
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #140 on: October 10, 2019, 01:16:30 PM »
    UBI is a terrible idea.

    It is a raised floor on the price of labour.

    If there is some task out there that will pay less than UBI, then UBI is in effect saying: "doing nothing is worth more than doing something." That's insane.

    Ultimately, people make choices based on the incentives and constraints placed upon them by circumstances such as market forces, laws, and social pressure. Incentivizing people to do nothing, and forcing other people to subsidize that lack of activity, is a recipe for disaster.

    panda

    • 5 O'Clock Shadow
    • *
    • Posts: 78
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #141 on: October 10, 2019, 01:25:47 PM »
    UBI is a terrible idea.

    It is a raised floor on the price of labour.

    If there is some task out there that will pay less than UBI, then UBI is in effect saying: "doing nothing is worth more than doing something." That's insane.

    Ultimately, people make choices based on the incentives and constraints placed upon them by circumstances such as market forces, laws, and social pressure. Incentivizing people to do nothing, and forcing other people to subsidize that lack of activity, is a recipe for disaster.
    That's not accurate.

    UBI says that you get $1,000/month then working a job that pays $1,000/month means your gross income that month is $2,000. As such, UBI can actually make low paid jobs more desirable since nay work will increase your gross monthly income. In some of the limited case studies done, UBI was actually shown to increase entrepreneurship since people knew they would always have a minimum income each month.

    On the other hand, raising the minimum wage increases the floor on the price of labor.

    To get even more technical, in theory a well implemented UBI would actually allow minimum wage laws to be repealed since employment would not be mandatory to cover basic expenses. That would then allow the marketplace to more accurately set the value of those jobs.

    Davnasty

    • Handlebar Stache
    • *****
    • Posts: 2061
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #142 on: October 10, 2019, 01:26:11 PM »
    UBI is a terrible idea.

    It is a raised floor on the price of labour.

    If there is some task out there that will pay less than UBI, then UBI is in effect saying: "doing nothing is worth more than doing something." That's insane.

    Ultimately, people make choices based on the incentives and constraints placed upon them by circumstances such as market forces, laws, and social pressure. Incentivizing people to do nothing, and forcing other people to subsidize that lack of activity, is a recipe for disaster.

    All of your arguments are more applicable to current welfare programs (US) than to UBI.

    Alternatepriorities

    • Bristles
    • ***
    • Posts: 256
    • Age: 39
    • Location: Alaska
    • Engineer, explorer, investor, blogger
      • Alternate Priorities
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #143 on: October 10, 2019, 02:26:06 PM »
    UBI in the manner and scale that Alaksa did it, is good! Their implementation was messed up, however. They did not diversify their portfolio and the SWR was messed around with by the political, rather than actuarial calculations. Fix that, and Alaska plan is golden. i.e. invest into a diversified portfolio that bets on the direction of the entire economy (that starts sounding very much like an index fund to me), and give out a SWR calculated conservatively. As the portfolio grows (i.e. economy grows), your share grows too!!

    I don't know if UBI is a good idea or not... As an Alaskan I'd like to share a couple of pitfalls from the PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend) that I never see mentioned in the national discussion.

    1. People who were previously self sufficient have come to depend on the PFD. Lifestyle inflation means people were unhappy returning to a previous spending level when the PFD was reduced to make the budget work. Last election our current governor (a republican for those keeping score) ran primarily on restoring the old PFD formula ie. increasing the amount of money people would get this year. If we are going to have a national UBI we will need a mechanism to keep politicians from running on a promise of "free" money. I'm aware that politicians already reward their voters, but a UBI could make it much easier to buy votes.

    2. Every article I read that mentions the PFD as an example of UBI finds people who spent it on college, or stocking up on food and fuel for the winter to interview. In reality every October (when the PFD is deposited) is feeding frenzy of consumerism worthy of multiple posts on the wall of shame and comedy. This year I started hearing ads on the radio at least 6 weeks before the PFD arrived for TVs, cars, furniture, and vacations. If the PFD is our guide be prepared for UBI to massively increase consumerism.

    3. Alaska massively increased state spending when oil was $100+ a barrel and hasn't been able to balance it's budget in a few years. The PFD has become the same kind of 3rd rail that SS is a the national level. It's not currently sustainable, but there are not enough people in Juneau with the integrity to risk their reelection by dealing with it. The current "solution" essentially assumes a 5.25% SWR but even then some were arguing for a 5.9% draw this year to ensure a "full" PFD. (They did ultimately settle on a smaller PFD at a 5.25% draw but it was a close call).

    mathlete

    • Handlebar Stache
    • *****
    • Posts: 1179
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #144 on: October 10, 2019, 03:15:02 PM »
    2. Every article I read that mentions the PFD as an example of UBI finds people who spent it on college, or stocking up on food and fuel for the winter to interview. In reality every October (when the PFD is deposited) is feeding frenzy of consumerism worthy of multiple posts on the wall of shame and comedy. This year I started hearing ads on the radio at least 6 weeks before the PFD arrived for TVs, cars, furniture, and vacations. If the PFD is our guide be prepared for UBI to massively increase consumerism.

    The same thing happens around tax (refund) time, or around Christmastime. When advertisers know people have money and are willing to spend. For anyone living paycheck the paycheck, the same thing happens every two weeks too. This is a fundamental issue of human psychology, rather than something specific to UBI, PFD, or any other disbursement program. 

    I know we have an anti-consumerist bent around here, but if we can take off our mustachian hats for a moment, and pull our economist stockings over our head, expanding consumption in a consumerist economy like the United States is probably a good thing. Money does buy happiness. At least, as contemporary research shows, until you're making north of around $80K a year.

    It's good for aggregate happiness to nudge people further along the happiness/income curve. Of course, that alone isn't reason enough to implement UBI, but we have other reasons. Like workers getting a comparatively small share of the productivity gains from the past 40 years, or the impending devaluation of human labor that will come with automation.

    Alternatepriorities

    • Bristles
    • ***
    • Posts: 256
    • Age: 39
    • Location: Alaska
    • Engineer, explorer, investor, blogger
      • Alternate Priorities
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #145 on: October 10, 2019, 03:53:42 PM »
    2. Every article I read that mentions the PFD as an example of UBI finds people who spent it on college, or stocking up on food and fuel for the winter to interview. In reality every October (when the PFD is deposited) is feeding frenzy of consumerism worthy of multiple posts on the wall of shame and comedy. This year I started hearing ads on the radio at least 6 weeks before the PFD arrived for TVs, cars, furniture, and vacations. If the PFD is our guide be prepared for UBI to massively increase consumerism.

    The same thing happens around tax (refund) time, or around Christmastime. When advertisers know people have money and are willing to spend. For anyone living paycheck the paycheck, the same thing happens every two weeks too. This is a fundamental issue of human psychology, rather than something specific to UBI, PFD, or any other disbursement program. 

    I know we have an anti-consumerist bent around here, but if we can take off our mustachian hats for a moment, and pull our economist stockings over our head, expanding consumption in a consumerist economy like the United States is probably a good thing. Money does buy happiness. At least, as contemporary research shows, until you're making north of around $80K a year.

    It's good for aggregate happiness to nudge people further along the happiness/income curve. Of course, that alone isn't reason enough to implement UBI, but we have other reasons. Like workers getting a comparatively small share of the productivity gains from the past 40 years, or the impending devaluation of human labor that will come with automation.

    Maybe I missed something, but isn't the entire premise of MMM that this contemporary research is flawed?

    I agree with both your first and third points though. The ladder is precisely why we need to have a discussion of UBI and the former is why I question if it could make a meaningful difference.

    LonerMatt

    • Pencil Stache
    • ****
    • Posts: 845
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #146 on: October 10, 2019, 05:15:48 PM »
    I don't see your point here. If there is a significant class who is unable to participate in the economy due to automation they will have far less wealth than the class who owns the capital. If UBI is provided, of course that divide would still exist but it would be slightly less. This doesn't sound like an argument against UBI, it sounds like an argument for some alternative that you haven't described yet.

    My point is that if the aim of UBI is to increase equality (which maybe it is, maybe it isn't) the best way to do that is to protect/invest/create middle class jobs, which are the main driver of equality. Rather than give people a (relatively) large amount of free money that still is fairly poor (what's 18k? 50% of the median salary in the USA?).

    I don't have a solution to this pressing problem, I just think UBI will entrench inequality rather than alleviate it, though I do want us to try and alleviate it.

    LonerMatt

    • Pencil Stache
    • ****
    • Posts: 845
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #147 on: October 10, 2019, 05:19:35 PM »
    It's interesting that people think automation and technological advances will reduce the total number of jobs. Looking back at the past 200 years, automation and technology have certainly killed off jobs, but have also created countless new ones at a far greater pace.

    Perhaps the problem is that we have a good idea of the jobs that are going to be killed off, but don't know what new jobs will be created. Imagine telling a farmer 200 years ago that there was 95+% chance that his job would be eliminated. That would be terrifying since he wouldn't know the new jobs that would take its place.

    I'm less interested in the total job # than the type of job changed.

    So far, in my lifetime, technology in Australia has created some new jobs, but it has also contributed a lot of casual, gig, poorly paid roles where companies eschew basic responsibilities in our system (paying super annuation, for example) so that workers' hourly rate is effectively 15-20% lower (after tax and super). So these jobs are what should basically be the new paper route or working at a shop (for kids entering work, easy, accessible, low skill, flexible), but you can't really raise a family as a Deliveroo rider.

    So even if the # of jobs increased by a few percent, if the types of jobs are like this that's still a net loss. Middle class jobs build equality, especially when combined with taxes of businesses and individuals channeled into social programs. That's the society I'm hoping for.

    EscapedApe

    • Stubble
    • **
    • Posts: 149
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #148 on: October 15, 2019, 10:28:42 AM »
    - Inequality is on the rise, which is bad for society for a host of reasons
    - Inequality in the extremes is totally unnecessary and not at all advantageous

    Inequality has existed in every economic system, including communism, since the beginning of economies. Inequality is the normal state of nature. Why anyone thinks that equality would just come about naturally without human greed interfering is beyond my comprehension.

    Ultimately, inequality isn't as salient a concern as the net wealth of a society.

    If you look at free market versus centrally-planned economies, inequality exists in both types, but free markets always have greater net wealth. The result is that even the least wealthy people in a free market tend to have more wealth in their own possession than do the average participants of a centrally-planned economy.

    It's better to have a smaller piece of a massive pie, than to have an equal-sized crumb as everyone else.

    - Neither is enforcing that everyone lives on the same income despite differences in effort, skill, social value, contribution or merit (and I'd argue equally that people like teachers deserve more and CEOs deserve less based on that, but alas)

    You are correct, it is unfair to try and decide contributions legislatively, especially when some individuals make greater contributions to a nation's wealth than others. We must be careful about making qualitative judgments about who is "deserving" of what, especially when doing so interferes with our ability to make efficient judgments about the market.

    So how are we to decide who gets what?

    As it turns out, prices (and wages, which are the price of labour) do just that.

    Money is a measure of how much people care about something. The more money you get for what you do, the more people care about you doing it. Prices, when they are not interfered with, allow us to get a real sense of how much a society cares about this service or that, this product or that.

    So one person who doesn't care about football might say that a football player shouldn't receive 13 millions dollars for throwing a ball and running fast. But his salary speaks otherwise about the opinions of people who do care about football, and their opinions must not be ignored for personal reasons.

    The trouble arrives when we try to interfere with prices under the pretenses of fairness. This is what UBI is - an interference with prices - and it will have the same problems as other kinds of price interference such as rent control, minimum wage, government subsidies of goods/services, etc.

    When we interfere with prices, we are interfering with the one means we have for determining what people value from moment to moment.

    panda

    • 5 O'Clock Shadow
    • *
    • Posts: 78
    Re: Do mustachians support universal basic income?
    « Reply #149 on: October 15, 2019, 10:42:05 AM »
    The trouble arrives when we try to interfere with prices under the pretenses of fairness. This is what UBI is - an interference with prices - and it will have the same problems as other kinds of price interference such as rent control, minimum wage, government subsidies of goods/services, etc.
    Universal Basic Income (UBI) has nothing to do with prices, and this seems to be a fundamental disconnect with a lot of people as well. Most of the proposals for UBI would have each person getting a fixed amount of money each month (ex., $1000) which is ideally indexed to a basic cost of living (i.e., basic shelter, food, utilities) that ensures survival but not necessary a high standard of living. Thus, people would still be motivated to work to advance past that basic standard of living, while entrepreneurs would have a safety net knowing their basic needs would be set.

    Arguably the Standard Deduction is an employment linked UBI since the government is earmarking sufficient funds for basic survival as non-taxable. Obviously it's not quite the same as UBI, but the basic idea is there.