Author Topic: Universal basic income: forced early retirement  (Read 51074 times)

Threshkin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Location: Colorado
    • My Journal
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #250 on: March 25, 2019, 10:44:38 PM »
I don't think the maths works out in any way shape or form, unless you propose taxing companies' profits/taxing the magical cure-all, automation.

But let me ask you this. If an inventor or a company is smart enough to automate things, why should they distribute the profits to everyone? Their goal is not a utopia; it's profit. Obviously, a smart corporation would want to provide enough societal value to avoid rampant death, homelessness, etc, but beyond that, it's not their problem.

All these people who want to pay for a UBI with other people's money - would you still be able to FIRE if it was your bank account being pillaged? Would you still be able to FIRE if you were paying 2/3 of your total income in state/federal taxes? It's always easy to spend other people's money, always hard to spend your own.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/18/elon-musk-automated-jobs-could-make-ubi-cash-handouts-necessary.html

If nobody has money to buy your shit, what's the point of your automation...not to mention, do you want a revolt when the .1% are living in excess while the 99.9% are fighting over the crumbs?

Or to put it another way, let's say there are 100 people and 100 jobs. One of those guys automates 90 jobs. Now there is the one guy with the income of 90, 10 regular guys with normal income, and 89 people with no income and no jobs to be had. What's your solution?

I don't have a solution.  I like the concept of UBI and would love to see how it could work.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #251 on: March 25, 2019, 10:45:40 PM »
No, I don't want a revolt, but I do think we can easily maintain existing levels of inequality indefinitely. If automation increases inequality, then my solution would be for taxes to pay for enough welfare to pay for current standards of living, i.e. a meagre existence for those who are on the wrong end of the inequality spectrum.

To use your example, I would expect the 1 guy with huge income to pay more tax (in line with current tax rates), and most of the 90 people to find jobs that may be less secure or less well-paying, but still better than the alternative. If necessary, government welfare could step in to keep levels of inequality (and social unrest) approximately what they are now.

So my solution is to endorse the status quo.

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #252 on: March 26, 2019, 05:32:44 AM »
Thinking about the math here.

  • Current US population: 325.7 Million - Source: Google "US Population"
  • Annual UBI payment: $24,000 - Source: I pulled this out of the air, feel free to change/argue the amount. (This is less than the popular $15 per hour wage for a full time job.)
  • Annual UBI cost for the entire population $7,816,800 Million or 7.8 Trillion - Simple math
  • Current US budget: 4.1 Trillion - Source: Wikipedia 2018 budget (the 2019 entry does not give easy to find numbers.
  • Current US Government Revenue: 3.7 Trillion (est.) - Source: Same as US Budget.
  • Current US GDP: 20.2 Trillion - Source: Same as US Budget.
  • Total Government spending (Fed, State, Local): 7.65 Trillion gestimate - Source: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total (First estimate I could find.)

Using these numbers, UBI would cost about 190% of our total federal budget or 102% of all government spending.  Obviously we cannot eliminate the entire federal, state and local government just to pay for UBI.  Someone would have to administer the program at least

Keep in mind that I am only looking at spending here.  As we all know, revenue is significantly lower than spending, at least in many significant cases.

Another issue is GDP.  If everyone receives UBI, then there is less incentive to work.  Yes, many people will keep working to have a better life or because the like to work but some people will not.  I cannot see how UBI would increase GDP in any significant way.

There are many other questions that could be raised but let's leave it at this for now.

The concept of UBI is very appealing.  Many people, myself included, would love to get a regular payment to supplement my own earnings.  But the math looks tough.  How can we make it work?

I think all proposals have UBI payments being 500-1000 dollars a month.  But it leads to the question how long after implementing UBI would people be demanding more.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #253 on: March 26, 2019, 08:43:02 AM »
No, I don't want a revolt, but I do think we can easily maintain existing levels of inequality indefinitely. If automation increases inequality, then my solution would be for taxes to pay for enough welfare to pay for current standards of living, i.e. a meagre existence for those who are on the wrong end of the inequality spectrum.

To use your example, I would expect the 1 guy with huge income to pay more tax (in line with current tax rates), and most of the 90 people to find jobs that may be less secure or less well-paying, but still better than the alternative. If necessary, government welfare could step in to keep levels of inequality (and social unrest) approximately what they are now.

So my solution is to endorse the status quo.

I see.  Your solution is to endorse the increasing disparity of wealth - because fuck the poor people, right?

Three people have the net worth of half of America.  The continuation of this trend does not bode well for society.

Thinking about the math here.

  • Current US population: 325.7 Million - Source: Google "US Population"
  • Annual UBI payment: $24,000 - Source: I pulled this out of the air, feel free to change/argue the amount. (This is less than the popular $15 per hour wage for a full time job.)
  • Annual UBI cost for the entire population $7,816,800 Million or 7.8 Trillion - Simple math
  • Current US budget: 4.1 Trillion - Source: Wikipedia 2018 budget (the 2019 entry does not give easy to find numbers.
  • Current US Government Revenue: 3.7 Trillion (est.) - Source: Same as US Budget.
  • Current US GDP: 20.2 Trillion - Source: Same as US Budget.
  • Total Government spending (Fed, State, Local): 7.65 Trillion gestimate - Source: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total (First estimate I could find.)

Using these numbers, UBI would cost about 190% of our total federal budget or 102% of all government spending.  Obviously we cannot eliminate the entire federal, state and local government just to pay for UBI.  Someone would have to administer the program at least

Keep in mind that I am only looking at spending here.  As we all know, revenue is significantly lower than spending, at least in many significant cases.

Another issue is GDP.  If everyone receives UBI, then there is less incentive to work.  Yes, many people will keep working to have a better life or because the like to work but some people will not.  I cannot see how UBI would increase GDP in any significant way.

There are many other questions that could be raised but let's leave it at this for now.

The concept of UBI is very appealing.  Many people, myself included, would love to get a regular payment to supplement my own earnings.  But the math looks tough.  How can we make it work?

I think all proposals have UBI payments being 500-1000 dollars a month.  But it leads to the question how long after implementing UBI would people be demanding more.

How long after hiring an employee would people be demanding more? How long after giving your kids dessert would they be demanding more?  One could make that argument for basically anything.

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #254 on: March 26, 2019, 10:27:23 AM »
Quote
I think all proposals have UBI payments being 500-1000 dollars a month.  But it leads to the question how long after implementing UBI would people be demanding more.

How long after hiring an employee would people be demanding more? How long after giving your kids dessert would they be demanding more?  One could make that argument for basically anything.

Right, because it makes tons of sense to compare kids wanting dessert to an ever-expanding list of social benefits that cost trillions of dollars.  You got me.

Liberals want to increase SS benefits when the program is already underfunded.  They want to expands medicare to all (which I actually agree with, because it works in other countries; they pay less and get for the most part the same or better care, i.e. we know such programs work).  UBI would dwarf these programs.  And none of these so-called "studies" actually examine the full effect of UBI on a large scale population.  At best they show what happens to people who know they are getting a temporary windfall (i.e. until the study ends), but this is fundamentally flawed since the money stops, and the subject of the experiment know this.  They don't study the full societal effect of such a program, including how it would effect the people actually paying for it. 

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
  • Age: 44
  • Location: San Diego
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #255 on: March 26, 2019, 10:59:00 AM »
24,000 for each man, woman, and child, seems a bit on the high side for UBI, from proposals that I've seen. But realize that the UBI would be partially funded by decreased compensation across the board for all kinds of work, allowing businesses and governments to finance the increased taxes that would be needed.

While mechanics are important, I think if you take a step back, the real question is whether the productive capacity of the US (or developed world, or entire world, whatever system you choose) is enough to provide adequate food, shelter, education, healthcare, and other basic necessities and important benefits of society, with left over capacity to incentivize those who want more than the minimum? I'm skeptical of anyone who argues "no", at least for the US, and therefore the question isn't whether we can "afford" it but whether we can change our societal makeup enough to institute UBI.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #256 on: March 26, 2019, 10:59:59 AM »
I couldn't give a shit about wealth disparity. Wealth disparity is what is going to let me retire early with a nice house and a garage full of nice cars. As long as people aren't hungry or cold or rioting in the streets I couldn't care less. In this world if you want a nice life you can go and work for it.

Cool Friend

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #257 on: March 26, 2019, 11:14:36 AM »
I couldn't give a shit about wealth disparity. Wealth disparity is what is going to let me retire early with a nice house and a garage full of nice cars. As long as people aren't hungry or cold or rioting in the streets I couldn't care less. In this world if you want a nice life you can go and work for it.

Yikes.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #258 on: March 26, 2019, 11:18:47 AM »
I couldn't give a shit about wealth disparity. Wealth disparity is what is going to let me retire early with a nice house and a garage full of nice cars. As long as people aren't hungry or cold or rioting in the streets I couldn't care less. In this world if you want a nice life you can go and work for it.

Yikes.

Basically what I expected - "fuck the poor people." They should've been born into a better situation so they could be rich too.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #259 on: March 26, 2019, 05:28:00 PM »
Or they could just study hard, work hard and take care of their finances.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #260 on: March 26, 2019, 05:44:01 PM »
Mike, and never acquire a serious illness, disability, etc.

Leisured

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Age: 79
  • Location: South east Australia, in country
  • Retired, and loving it.
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #261 on: March 26, 2019, 11:31:05 PM »
Thinking about the math here.

  • Current US population: 325.7 Million - Source: Google "US Population"
  • Annual UBI payment: $24,000 - Source: I pulled this out of the air, feel free to change/argue the amount. (This is less than the popular $15 per hour wage for a full time job.)
  • Annual UBI cost for the entire population $7,816,800 Million or 7.8 Trillion - Simple math
  • Current US budget: 4.1 Trillion - Source: Wikipedia 2018 budget (the 2019 entry does not give easy to find numbers.
  • Current US Government Revenue: 3.7 Trillion (est.) - Source: Same as US Budget.
  • Current US GDP: 20.2 Trillion - Source: Same as US Budget.
  • Total Government spending (Fed, State, Local): 7.65 Trillion gestimate - Source: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total (First estimate I could find.)

quote]


Google tells me that 24% of the US population is under 18 years of age. These people will not get UBI, so multiply by 0.76 and the population getting UBI becomes 248M. Total UBI is now 5.9 trillion. Still a huge number. Also consider that a UBI will eliminate all other forms of welfare, a large saving. A stiff increase in income tax will be needed.

Leisured

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Age: 79
  • Location: South east Australia, in country
  • Retired, and loving it.
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #262 on: March 26, 2019, 11:36:22 PM »
If nobody has money to buy your shit, what's the point of your automation...not to mention, do you want a revolt when the .1% are living in excess while the 99.9% are fighting over the crumbs?

Or to put it another way, let's say there are 100 people and 100 jobs. One of those guys automates 90 jobs. Now there is the one guy with the income of 90, 10 regular guys with normal income, and 89 people with no income and no jobs to be had. What's your solution?


Well put JLee. The first para reminds me of Henry Ford, who paid his workers well, on the grounds that if workers were poorly paid, who would buy his cars?  He is also known for the national goal of a chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage. Would Henry Ford vote for  Bernie?

thesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #263 on: March 27, 2019, 10:08:47 AM »
It's interesting that this is such a huge topic when the US unemployment rate is at 4% and the economy seems to be doing really well. Granted, plenty of people are from other countries, and yes, employment and a living wage are different, but I'm reading a lot of panic and doom in some of these posts.

I don't know, but when technology makes the necessities of life rather affordable, most people don't just stop there - suddenly their demand for other things they don't need increases. Which is why we have clown cars in the first place, and many other things showcased in the Anti-Mustachian Hall of Fame board. When one thing gets automated, humans typically find other things to want. And much of the economic struggle comes from buying ridiculous degrees that offer no real-world job skills, which makes paying off student loans difficult and otherwise puts a tremendous strain on one's ability to "get by". Decrease the worthless education and I think you'll see good things.

My biggest qualm with universal basic income is that it assumes a particular standard of living. Does the UBI in San Francisco differ from the UBI in Chicago? Or the UBI in Leavenworth, KS? At some point you'd have to control the price of housing. We have that and it's called "the projects", and Section 8 housing. It was also one of the roots of communism's failure in the USSR. But if you just pump more money into the economy for housing and food, suddenly those industries raise their prices due to increased demand. There's no guarantee that money wouldn't simply wash itself out. And then people will just organize more demonstrations about how they aren't being paid enough for doing nothing. I'm not unsympathetic to UBI, but I just don't believe it works. People need to wise up to lifestyle before you can possible hope to provide enough for them. I would be in favor of reducing the bureaucracy around food stamps, etc, but only on the condition that the blame for failure in this regard be placed on the individual. It's sad when it happens, but society cannot afford to worry about people who don't take care of themselves, it's enough that we do put some programs together to try to help.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #264 on: March 27, 2019, 11:24:47 AM »
Food stamps are mostly used by poor women feeding their kids, people with disabilities and the elderly. It’s certainly not their fault in most cases.  Kids that don’t get enough nutrition end up suffering by losing IQ points which will effect their ability to earn and work their entire lives. I spent my career in human services and have seen many sad things.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #265 on: March 27, 2019, 11:46:46 AM »
It's interesting that this is such a huge topic when the US unemployment rate is at 4% and the economy seems to be doing really well. Granted, plenty of people are from other countries, and yes, employment and a living wage are different, but I'm reading a lot of panic and doom in some of these posts.

I don't know, but when technology makes the necessities of life rather affordable, most people don't just stop there - suddenly their demand for other things they don't need increases. Which is why we have clown cars in the first place, and many other things showcased in the Anti-Mustachian Hall of Fame board. When one thing gets automated, humans typically find other things to want. And much of the economic struggle comes from buying ridiculous degrees that offer no real-world job skills, which makes paying off student loans difficult and otherwise puts a tremendous strain on one's ability to "get by". Decrease the worthless education and I think you'll see good things.

My biggest qualm with universal basic income is that it assumes a particular standard of living. Does the UBI in San Francisco differ from the UBI in Chicago? Or the UBI in Leavenworth, KS? At some point you'd have to control the price of housing. We have that and it's called "the projects", and Section 8 housing. It was also one of the roots of communism's failure in the USSR. But if you just pump more money into the economy for housing and food, suddenly those industries raise their prices due to increased demand. There's no guarantee that money wouldn't simply wash itself out. And then people will just organize more demonstrations about how they aren't being paid enough for doing nothing. I'm not unsympathetic to UBI, but I just don't believe it works. People need to wise up to lifestyle before you can possible hope to provide enough for them. I would be in favor of reducing the bureaucracy around food stamps, etc, but only on the condition that the blame for failure in this regard be placed on the individual. It's sad when it happens, but society cannot afford to worry about people who don't take care of themselves, it's enough that we do put some programs together to try to help.

I think you're underestimating what society is capable of affording.

ericrugiero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 740
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #266 on: March 27, 2019, 12:24:17 PM »
To me, UBI makes sense when you have an excess of money that you are trying to do something with.  For instance, Alaska has a yearly check for it's citizens that started at $1000 in 1982 and has increased to somewhere around $2000/year.  I believe Saudi Arabia has a similar system (with a larger checks) and both are based on money from selling oil. 

The current argument for UBI seems to be that automation will take the place of jobs and we won't have enough jobs to go around.  Meanwhile, we have very low unemployment and a very hot job market.  Very few people with any type of work ethic and skills should have a hard time finding a job today.  Maybe someday we will get to the point where automation replaces all available jobs but we certainly haven't reached it yet. 

Also, the math has to make sense.  I would love to get a check every month.  But, the money has to come from somewhere.  If we borrow money to give everyone a check and it bankrupts our country we are all worse off. 

Lastly, we need to be sure we don't take away the motivation for working.  Capitalism works because when you reward people for working hard and doing a good job they are willing to keep working hard and doing a good job. 

That's all a long winded answer to say that I'm not automatically opposed to UBI and some of the arguments make good sense (ex: simple is better and can reduce waste like we have in our welfare system now.  Also, if it's set up to not penalize people for working that's an improvement.)  However, I don't think we have reached the point where automation is driving us to UBI or where we can afford it. 

DadJokes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #267 on: March 27, 2019, 12:27:49 PM »
It's interesting that this is such a huge topic when the US unemployment rate is at 4% and the economy seems to be doing really well. Granted, plenty of people are from other countries, and yes, employment and a living wage are different, but I'm reading a lot of panic and doom in some of these posts.

I don't know, but when technology makes the necessities of life rather affordable, most people don't just stop there - suddenly their demand for other things they don't need increases. Which is why we have clown cars in the first place, and many other things showcased in the Anti-Mustachian Hall of Fame board. When one thing gets automated, humans typically find other things to want. And much of the economic struggle comes from buying ridiculous degrees that offer no real-world job skills, which makes paying off student loans difficult and otherwise puts a tremendous strain on one's ability to "get by". Decrease the worthless education and I think you'll see good things.

My biggest qualm with universal basic income is that it assumes a particular standard of living. Does the UBI in San Francisco differ from the UBI in Chicago? Or the UBI in Leavenworth, KS? At some point you'd have to control the price of housing. We have that and it's called "the projects", and Section 8 housing. It was also one of the roots of communism's failure in the USSR. But if you just pump more money into the economy for housing and food, suddenly those industries raise their prices due to increased demand. There's no guarantee that money wouldn't simply wash itself out. And then people will just organize more demonstrations about how they aren't being paid enough for doing nothing. I'm not unsympathetic to UBI, but I just don't believe it works. People need to wise up to lifestyle before you can possible hope to provide enough for them. I would be in favor of reducing the bureaucracy around food stamps, etc, but only on the condition that the blame for failure in this regard be placed on the individual. It's sad when it happens, but society cannot afford to worry about people who don't take care of themselves, it's enough that we do put some programs together to try to help.

This.

Despite (or more likely because of) automation and wealth/income disparity, there is more opportunity now than at any point in human history. Someone can come to America with nothing but the clothes on their back and retire a multi-millionaire. I think it's very telling that immigrants and their children build successful companies at a greater rate than American-born citizens. If someone doesn't get ahead, it's not because the opportunity isn't there. It's because they either lack ambition, are happy where they are, or would rather play the victim.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #268 on: March 27, 2019, 03:39:41 PM »
Mike, and never acquire a serious illness, disability, etc.

Australia has public health care and disability support, doesn't it?

Andrew Yang has some interesting ideas on UBI.   I think the trouble is how to prove them out.    You can't very well switch this on for the entire country to see if it works well or not.

Linea_Norway

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8569
  • Location: Norway
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #269 on: March 28, 2019, 01:03:33 AM »
Mike, and never acquire a serious illness, disability, etc.

Australia has public health care and disability support, doesn't it?

Andrew Yang has some interesting ideas on UBI.   I think the trouble is how to prove them out.    You can't very well switch this on for the entire country to see if it works well or not.

UBI is being tried out several places in the world, often in a city at the time, and sometimes only among a certain group of people.
https://interestingengineering.com/the-15-most-promising-universal-basic-income-trials

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #270 on: March 28, 2019, 05:19:45 AM »
Mike, and never acquire a serious illness, disability, etc.

Australia has public health care and disability support, doesn't it?

Andrew Yang has some interesting ideas on UBI.   I think the trouble is how to prove them out.    You can't very well switch this on for the entire country to see if it works well or not.

UBI is being tried out several places in the world, often in a city at the time, and sometimes only among a certain group of people.
https://interestingengineering.com/the-15-most-promising-universal-basic-income-trials

None of these is testing UBI.  All of these are giving people a bonus for a *set period of time* and the subjects know this.  In many cases the money comes from outside the experiment; to truly test UBI you would need to fund the experiment in the same way you would fund a real, permanent UBI plan.  Finally, most of these programs only give the money to a small set of people, not the entire population.  It's like testing if a car moves by putting it on a hill, with no engine, and then declaring that your car works because it rolled down the hill. 

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #271 on: March 28, 2019, 05:42:09 AM »
Mike, and never acquire a serious illness, disability, etc.

Australia has public health care and disability support, doesn't it?

Andrew Yang has some interesting ideas on UBI.   I think the trouble is how to prove them out.    You can't very well switch this on for the entire country to see if it works well or not.

UBI is being tried out several places in the world, often in a city at the time, and sometimes only among a certain group of people.
https://interestingengineering.com/the-15-most-promising-universal-basic-income-trials

None of these is testing UBI.  All of these are giving people a bonus for a *set period of time* and the subjects know this.  In many cases the money comes from outside the experiment; to truly test UBI you would need to fund the experiment in the same way you would fund a real, permanent UBI plan.  Finally, most of these programs only give the money to a small set of people, not the entire population.  It's like testing if a car moves by putting it on a hill, with no engine, and then declaring that your car works because it rolled down the hill.

So you know your brakes, steering, suspension, and electrical systems function. ;)

You're demanding an impossible test and then declaring what studies do exist to be irrelevant because they don't test everything. It's like saying it's impossible to walk on the moon because nobody's done it, and then blowing off all other spaceflight because it didn't include walking on the moon so it's irrelevant.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #272 on: March 28, 2019, 06:02:20 AM »
None of these is testing UBI.  All of these are giving people a bonus for a *set period of time* and the subjects know this.
Without examining each one in detail, I can definitely say that the Alaska Permanent Fund is not for a set period of time. See the link they gave in the article you responded to. Essentially, a UBI at the level in Alaska ($1-2k pa) seems to act as a kickstarter, allowing people to afford clothes and transport for part-time jobs, etc, and preventing the worst poverty.

I was interested to see on the list one of the charities we donate to, GiveDirect. That's a 12 year trial. As I understand, the aim there is not to provide a UBI, but for it to act as a kickstarter to the local economy, much like previous ideas about microloans and so on.

Successful social welfare programmes, just like unsuccessful ones, and successful and unsuccessful defence programmes, and so on, don't really get tested first, they tend to just be supported by some party for ideological reasons and they go all-in on them and find out in practice. The results may or may change the practice.

In many cases, actual evidence is ignored, for example most welfare fraud prevention programmes cost more money than they recover from the fraudsters, but the ideology is "no-one must cheat us!" so... Likewise, there's no evidence that spending $18,000 on a several disabled guy's wheelchair rather than $1,000 leads to an 1,700% better quality of life for him, or even 50% better, but the ideology is, "the poor disabled!" so... Nor is it clear why, in Australia, a 64yo unemployed man needs only $13k a year in support, but the day he turns 65yo he'll receive the first payments taking him to $22k that year... did his life become $9k more expensive? But the (relatively) young are considered undeserving poor, and the (relatively) old are considered the deserving poor, so...
« Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 06:06:21 AM by Kyle Schuant »

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #273 on: March 28, 2019, 06:36:29 AM »
Mike, and never acquire a serious illness, disability, etc.

Australia has public health care and disability support, doesn't it?

Andrew Yang has some interesting ideas on UBI.   I think the trouble is how to prove them out.    You can't very well switch this on for the entire country to see if it works well or not.

UBI is being tried out several places in the world, often in a city at the time, and sometimes only among a certain group of people.
https://interestingengineering.com/the-15-most-promising-universal-basic-income-trials

None of these is testing UBI.  All of these are giving people a bonus for a *set period of time* and the subjects know this.  In many cases the money comes from outside the experiment; to truly test UBI you would need to fund the experiment in the same way you would fund a real, permanent UBI plan.  Finally, most of these programs only give the money to a small set of people, not the entire population.  It's like testing if a car moves by putting it on a hill, with no engine, and then declaring that your car works because it rolled down the hill.

So you know your brakes, steering, suspension, and electrical systems function. ;)

You're demanding an impossible test and then declaring what studies do exist to be irrelevant because they don't test everything. It's like saying it's impossible to walk on the moon because nobody's done it, and then blowing off all other spaceflight because it didn't include walking on the moon so it's irrelevant.
Yeah good luck drawing conclusions about how a car breaks or steers without the engine in it.

I’m claiming people tend to look at these trials and draw conclusions that are incorrect.  “See, people on UBI don’t stop working”.  Well you can’t really conclude that since the expirement is a set time, so it’s just a temporary windfall—most wouldn’t stop working on those conditions. 

And none of these experiments examine the effects of the increased tax burden on everyone. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #274 on: March 28, 2019, 06:38:57 AM »
None of these is testing UBI.  All of these are giving people a bonus for a *set period of time* and the subjects know this.
Without examining each one in detail, I can definitely say that the Alaska Permanent Fund is not for a set period of time. See the link they gave in the article you responded to. Essentially, a UBI at the level in Alaska ($1-2k pa) seems to act as a kickstarter, allowing people to afford clothes and transport for part-time jobs, etc, and preventing the worst poverty.

I was interested to see on the list one of the charities we donate to, GiveDirect. That's a 12 year trial. As I understand, the aim there is not to provide a UBI, but for it to act as a kickstarter to the local economy, much like previous ideas about microloans and so on.

Successful social welfare programmes, just like unsuccessful ones, and successful and unsuccessful defence programmes, and so on, don't really get tested first, they tend to just be supported by some party for ideological reasons and they go all-in on them and find out in practice. The results may or may change the practice.

In many cases, actual evidence is ignored, for example most welfare fraud prevention programmes cost more money than they recover from the fraudsters, but the ideology is "no-one must cheat us!" so... Likewise, there's no evidence that spending $18,000 on a several disabled guy's wheelchair rather than $1,000 leads to an 1,700% better quality of life for him, or even 50% better, but the ideology is, "the poor disabled!" so... Nor is it clear why, in Australia, a 64yo unemployed man needs only $13k a year in support, but the day he turns 65yo he'll receive the first payments taking him to $22k that year... did his life become $9k more expensive? But the (relatively) young are considered undeserving poor, and the (relatively) old are considered the deserving poor, so...
Right that’s true, I was referring to a link to a list of experiments posted above; and I didn’t see the alaska situation in it.   The problem with that is it doesn’t give people enough to be considered a UBI; it’s more of a windfall for the people living in the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #275 on: March 28, 2019, 10:01:13 AM »
None of these is testing UBI.  All of these are giving people a bonus for a *set period of time* and the subjects know this.
Without examining each one in detail, I can definitely say that the Alaska Permanent Fund is not for a set period of time. See the link they gave in the article you responded to. Essentially, a UBI at the level in Alaska ($1-2k pa) seems to act as a kickstarter, allowing people to afford clothes and transport for part-time jobs, etc, and preventing the worst poverty.

I was interested to see on the list one of the charities we donate to, GiveDirect. That's a 12 year trial. As I understand, the aim there is not to provide a UBI, but for it to act as a kickstarter to the local economy, much like previous ideas about microloans and so on.

Successful social welfare programmes, just like unsuccessful ones, and successful and unsuccessful defence programmes, and so on, don't really get tested first, they tend to just be supported by some party for ideological reasons and they go all-in on them and find out in practice. The results may or may change the practice.

In many cases, actual evidence is ignored, for example most welfare fraud prevention programmes cost more money than they recover from the fraudsters, but the ideology is "no-one must cheat us!" so... Likewise, there's no evidence that spending $18,000 on a several disabled guy's wheelchair rather than $1,000 leads to an 1,700% better quality of life for him, or even 50% better, but the ideology is, "the poor disabled!" so... Nor is it clear why, in Australia, a 64yo unemployed man needs only $13k a year in support, but the day he turns 65yo he'll receive the first payments taking him to $22k that year... did his life become $9k more expensive? But the (relatively) young are considered undeserving poor, and the (relatively) old are considered the deserving poor, so...
Right that’s true, I was referring to a link to a list of experiments posted above; and I didn’t see the alaska situation in it.   The problem with that is it doesn’t give people enough to be considered a UBI; it’s more of a windfall for the people living in the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there a minimum amount needed to be considered UBI? I don't think there is.

Even if there was, this would not be a windfall. A windfall is an unexpected good fortune, regular payments would be expected.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #276 on: March 28, 2019, 10:56:38 AM »
Mike, and never acquire a serious illness, disability, etc.

Australia has public health care and disability support, doesn't it?

Andrew Yang has some interesting ideas on UBI.   I think the trouble is how to prove them out.    You can't very well switch this on for the entire country to see if it works well or not.

UBI is being tried out several places in the world, often in a city at the time, and sometimes only among a certain group of people.
https://interestingengineering.com/the-15-most-promising-universal-basic-income-trials

None of these is testing UBI.  All of these are giving people a bonus for a *set period of time* and the subjects know this.  In many cases the money comes from outside the experiment; to truly test UBI you would need to fund the experiment in the same way you would fund a real, permanent UBI plan.  Finally, most of these programs only give the money to a small set of people, not the entire population.  It's like testing if a car moves by putting it on a hill, with no engine, and then declaring that your car works because it rolled down the hill.

So you know your brakes, steering, suspension, and electrical systems function. ;)

You're demanding an impossible test and then declaring what studies do exist to be irrelevant because they don't test everything. It's like saying it's impossible to walk on the moon because nobody's done it, and then blowing off all other spaceflight because it didn't include walking on the moon so it's irrelevant.
Yeah good luck drawing conclusions about how a car breaks or steers without the engine in it.

I’m claiming people tend to look at these trials and draw conclusions that are incorrect.  “See, people on UBI don’t stop working”.  Well you can’t really conclude that since the expirement is a set time, so it’s just a temporary windfall—most wouldn’t stop working on those conditions. 

And none of these experiments examine the effects of the increased tax burden on everyone. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am getting the distinct impression that you believe so firmly that it could never work that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that it might.

Btw I have a car with electric power steering. It works fine with the engine off.  Cars without electric power steering will also not lose steering ability with an engine off - you will lose power assist, but if you're moving (i.e. rolling down a hill) power assist is largely unnecessary.  Also, brakes will work -- the hydraulic brake system is not reliant on the engine to function.  Yes, you'll lose the power assist -- but they will still work.  If you'd like to debate the basics of how cars function, we can continue that in a different thread.

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #277 on: March 28, 2019, 11:18:57 AM »
Mike, and never acquire a serious illness, disability, etc.

Australia has public health care and disability support, doesn't it?

Andrew Yang has some interesting ideas on UBI.   I think the trouble is how to prove them out.    You can't very well switch this on for the entire country to see if it works well or not.

UBI is being tried out several places in the world, often in a city at the time, and sometimes only among a certain group of people.
https://interestingengineering.com/the-15-most-promising-universal-basic-income-trials

None of these is testing UBI.  All of these are giving people a bonus for a *set period of time* and the subjects know this.  In many cases the money comes from outside the experiment; to truly test UBI you would need to fund the experiment in the same way you would fund a real, permanent UBI plan.  Finally, most of these programs only give the money to a small set of people, not the entire population.  It's like testing if a car moves by putting it on a hill, with no engine, and then declaring that your car works because it rolled down the hill.

So you know your brakes, steering, suspension, and electrical systems function. ;)

You're demanding an impossible test and then declaring what studies do exist to be irrelevant because they don't test everything. It's like saying it's impossible to walk on the moon because nobody's done it, and then blowing off all other spaceflight because it didn't include walking on the moon so it's irrelevant.
Yeah good luck drawing conclusions about how a car breaks or steers without the engine in it.

I’m claiming people tend to look at these trials and draw conclusions that are incorrect.  “See, people on UBI don’t stop working”.  Well you can’t really conclude that since the expirement is a set time, so it’s just a temporary windfall—most wouldn’t stop working on those conditions. 

And none of these experiments examine the effects of the increased tax burden on everyone. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am getting the distinct impression that you believe so firmly that it could never work that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that it might.

Btw I have a car with electric power steering. It works fine with the engine off.  Cars without electric power steering will also not lose steering ability with an engine off - you will lose power assist, but if you're moving (i.e. rolling down a hill) power assist is largely unnecessary.  Also, brakes will work -- the hydraulic brake system is not reliant on the engine to function.  Yes, you'll lose the power assist -- but they will still work.  If you'd like to debate the basics of how cars function, we can continue that in a different thread.

Not at all.  I just don't see these simple studies as actually studying the actual societal impact of UBI.  They examine one aspect of a UBI system, and they do so imperfectly.  And then people look at it and conclude UBI is wonderful and why haven't we been doing it for years, because they don't understand how science works, or they let their political beliefs cloud their objective interpretation of what is going on.  What makes it worse is the authors of these "studies" often paint conclusions as if they had examined a real UBI system. 

My point with the car is to demonstrate a silly experiment, and compare it to these so-called UBI studies.  If you have a car that would normally have an engine, but test how the car rolls down a hill, any data you collect on the car is mostly useless.  You can't test the breaks, or the steering, or much else for that and compare those results to how the car will actually function when running as a complete system.  Steering, breaking, acceleration, all change because the engine has mass and changes the weight distribution of the car.  Similarly, you can't test UBI by giving a limited set of people money that comes from an outside source, for a temporary period of time.  Any results you get aren't going to play out the same when you actually start taxing other people to get the money, nor are people going to behave the same when they know the experiments ends and the "free" money stops. 

We don't live in a world where all meaningful employment has been automated away, nor are we close to such a world.  Historically every time something has been automated or made more efficient other jobs opportunities have been created which have more than offset the job loss of the automation.  It's possible AI and automation will do away with most jobs but we really can't know at this point.  The problem we have now is wealth inequality, but there are other less drastic, or more productive ways, to address this than UBI. 

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #278 on: March 28, 2019, 02:41:57 PM »
Starguru, in fact there are many societies which have in effect a UBI, because there are many countries which offer unemployment benefit or other pensions to absolutely every citizen indefinitely - so long as they jump through bureaucratic hoops. And some countries like my Australia, take these bureaucratic hoops and add conditions to them, so that if someone is 5' late to an appointment (which starts 40' late anyway, but they still have to check in as arrived on time) they're "breached" and lose their payment for six weeks.


In countries with strong social welfare systems, all a UBI would do is,


1. give that pension to people who are employed and getting a decent income already, and
2. remove the bureaucratic hoops and anxiety.


Now, we can argue about the effects of giving extra money to people who are already doing alright, but are we really going to argue that there will be negative effects from removing bureaucratic hoops and anxiety?


As I've noted before on this forum, the unemployed can get $12k annually as a pension after several initial appointments, putting in a form each fortnight, attending whatever half-arsed course the government sends them to, having a computer system assess any extra income they earn and debiting their benefit accordingly, and often wrongly, following it up with threatening letters, and being abused by the media.


Meanwhile my family on some $140k total income can get $12k annually in childcare rebates by filling out a form once a year online, if our income rises and we're entitled to less we can pay it back voluntarily and at leisure, and the media is constantly praising people like us and saying really we should be given bigger handouts. Last year when the government cut off childcare rebate to families on over $350k, The Age printed multiple articles discussing families who would thereby lose rebates, sympathetically portraying those families as struggling. Nothing about the unemployed guy on $12k.


It is unclear to me why the unemployed poor should be subject to bureaucratic hoops, abuse and anxiety for $12k, while the well-employed and well-off should have no bureaucratic hoops, praise and security for that same $12k.


We're already spending the money, the only question is whether the money is accompanied by bureaucracy and anxiety or not. I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why we need the bureaucracy and anxiety for anyone at all, let alone for some and not others.


Now, in other countries with poor social welfare nets, whether by choice or by lack of wealth in that country, that's a different thing. But countries like Australia, UK, Sweden, Germany and so on - we're already spending that money, we're already tossing it out to basically everyone, we already have a UBI in other names.

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #279 on: March 28, 2019, 03:07:29 PM »
Starguru, in fact there are many societies which have in effect a UBI, because there are many countries which offer unemployment benefit or other pensions to absolutely every citizen indefinitely - so long as they jump through bureaucratic hoops. And some countries like my Australia, take these bureaucratic hoops and add conditions to them, so that if someone is 5' late to an appointment (which starts 40' late anyway, but they still have to check in as arrived on time) they're "breached" and lose their payment for six weeks.


In countries with strong social welfare systems, all a UBI would do is,


1. give that pension to people who are employed and getting a decent income already, and
2. remove the bureaucratic hoops and anxiety.


Now, we can argue about the effects of giving extra money to people who are already doing alright, but are we really going to argue that there will be negative effects from removing bureaucratic hoops and anxiety?


As I've noted before on this forum, the unemployed can get $12k annually as a pension after several initial appointments, putting in a form each fortnight, attending whatever half-arsed course the government sends them to, having a computer system assess any extra income they earn and debiting their benefit accordingly, and often wrongly, following it up with threatening letters, and being abused by the media.


Meanwhile my family on some $140k total income can get $12k annually in childcare rebates by filling out a form once a year online, if our income rises and we're entitled to less we can pay it back voluntarily and at leisure, and the media is constantly praising people like us and saying really we should be given bigger handouts. Last year when the government cut off childcare rebate to families on over $350k, The Age printed multiple articles discussing families who would thereby lose rebates, sympathetically portraying those families as struggling. Nothing about the unemployed guy on $12k.


It is unclear to me why the unemployed poor should be subject to bureaucratic hoops, abuse and anxiety for $12k, while the well-employed and well-off should have no bureaucratic hoops, praise and security for that same $12k.


We're already spending the money, the only question is whether the money is accompanied by bureaucracy and anxiety or not. I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why we need the bureaucracy and anxiety for anyone at all, let alone for some and not others.


Now, in other countries with poor social welfare nets, whether by choice or by lack of wealth in that country, that's a different thing. But countries like Australia, UK, Sweden, Germany and so on - we're already spending that money, we're already tossing it out to basically everyone, we already have a UBI in other names.

This is interesting, and I don't know anything about Australia's social programs, but from everything I'm reading this Newstart program is designed to get people into the labor market.  They have to apply for jobs, take training, etc, and the longer they receive benefits the more intense the requirements become.  If this is accurate that it seems like it's the opposite of an UBI, which is an unconditional payment received just for being alive.  It's also interesting that you frame it as "jumping thru hoops" as the point seems to be to support people, but pressure them to get a job, and opposed to making people beg for an unconditional benefit.  Additionally, it seems like recipients in these programs are "asset tested", whether that means for savings or income, or both, I dont know.  But in any case, this definitely doesn't seem anything like UBI, which by design is just an unconditional payment give to everyone, job or no. 

SecondEngineer

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #280 on: March 28, 2019, 05:53:17 PM »
I think this is my first post so here goes.

It seems like the first question one should ask those who are against UBI should be the following:

Assume for this question that there exists a UBI plan that would work.
By work I mean that it would make it so that people with no other incomes could live a modest life with the caveat that employed people would suffer a negligible cost. You can define what exactly negligible means. Maybe it means there is absolutely no net cost to individuals. Maybe it means Early Retirees need to work for 2 extra years, and non-Early Retirees have slightly smaller houses. The point is you decide.
This plan will also work in the long term and will not have any blatant adverse effects on society as a whole (i.e. no loss in rate of innovation).
Call this plan the Magic Universal Basic Income Plan (MUBI).

Now, the question is, do you support enacting MUBI? To me, it seems like there are three answers:

1. YES I support MUBI.
In this case we can move onto debate whether MUBI is possible to implement, and never have to worry about whether it is morally sound.

2. NO I would not support MUBI.
In this case we can debate why MUBI is morally flawed without needing to worry (for now) if MUBI is possible

3. I refuse to engage with you on these terms, here is why this line of reasoning is flawed...

I think it would make the debates much more interesting under this framework because we can have more focused debates. The hardest part about this would be deciding on a definition of negligible above that two people can agree on.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #281 on: March 28, 2019, 06:08:49 PM »
Yes, I agree it is difficult to agree to what negligible means and what ethical framework (rights framework? utilitarian framework?) is appropriate in determining negligibility.

For example, I think it could be universally agreed that "no net cost to individuals" is 'negligible' across all frameworks.

Whereas having to work for an extra 2 years, to me, would seem to be a massive imposition to many.

There would also be debate about what 'modest' means. Does it mean - bare essentials to live? Bare essentials to have an opportunity to thrive? Or enough for a person to live comfortably even without strict rationing?

I'm not asking you to answer these questions, but I think those are the parts where people will have disagreements even before being able to answer whether they agree to MUBI or not.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #282 on: March 28, 2019, 06:30:17 PM »
I choose option 3!

If there were some way to guarantee no net cost to individuals I'd be open to experimentation.

But the government is involved.    They would want to create a new bureaucracy to manage the program.   Then special interest groups would lobby to have their existing social benefits maintained in addition to UBI.   Then there would be a multi-billion dollar contract with sap or ibm to automate everything.   And so on.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #283 on: March 28, 2019, 08:49:48 PM »
It's also interesting that you frame it as "jumping thru hoops" as the point seems to be to support people, but pressure them to get a job, and opposed to making people beg for an unconditional benefit.  Additionally, it seems like recipients in these programs are "asset tested", whether that means for savings or income, or both, I dont know.  But in any case, this definitely doesn't seem anything like UBI, which by design is just an unconditional payment give to everyone, job or no. 
Exactly.

The problem is that the unemployed are essentially of two kinds: well-qualified, and unqualified. The well-qualified ones all get jobs within 3 months or so. The unqualified ones tend to be long-term unemployed. They're long-term unemployed because the jobs just don't exist for them. And the government's not channelling them towards university degrees or trade apprenticeships, but towards short technical college courses that lead generally to no work, or at best to part-time casual work - where they typically earn not much more than they got on the dole.

By engaging in free trade we have outsourced our manufacturing jobs to China. By engaging in deregulation, weakening of unions and economic rationalisation (privatising everything) we have ensured that the low-skilled jobs which do remain are part-time casual, rather than permanent full-time. So we're pressuring people to go and get jobs which don't exist, or which won't earn them much more than the dole, and which will be very insecure.

This is why I characterise it as "jumping through bureaucratic hoops." Everyone knows it's bullshit, and at the end of all the paperwork and courses there's nothing for them. But they're required to do it anyway.

Meanwhile equivalent amounts of money are given to well-off middle class people without any hoops to jump through, and without anyone in the public questioning it seriously.

But the point is that financially-speaking, here in Australia and in other strong welfare countries, we are already spending $12,000 or more per adult citizen on welfare. Some are getting nothing (employed single childless people), but some are getting something (the dole), some are getting more (single mothers, and middle class families with children in childcare), some more still (aged pension), and some are getting shitloads (disabled, though typically not directly, but indirectly through paying for wheelchairs and physio and carers and so on).

The money's already being spent on people. The only questions are how much we give to each person, and whether we simply give it to them or put them through a lot of bureaucratic bullshit along the way. Apart from employing a bunch of people unproductively (bureaucrats to harass the unemployed), the only reason to keep the bureaucratic hoops for this lot but not that lot is... well, moral judgement. We want to keep our moral judgements.


I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with my day than wonder which of the particular 670,000 unemployed and 820,000 disabled and 2.4 million older people getting pensions and 1 million families receiving Family Tax Benefit A or B and god knows how many getting childcare rebates really deserve them. I just don't care. The money is being spent on them either way. Take away the bureaucracy and the judgement, make everyone's payments the same, and voila, there's your UBI.

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #284 on: March 29, 2019, 01:18:42 PM »
It's also interesting that you frame it as "jumping thru hoops" as the point seems to be to support people, but pressure them to get a job, and opposed to making people beg for an unconditional benefit.  Additionally, it seems like recipients in these programs are "asset tested", whether that means for savings or income, or both, I dont know.  But in any case, this definitely doesn't seem anything like UBI, which by design is just an unconditional payment give to everyone, job or no. 
Exactly.

The problem is that the unemployed are essentially of two kinds: well-qualified, and unqualified. The well-qualified ones all get jobs within 3 months or so. The unqualified ones tend to be long-term unemployed. They're long-term unemployed because the jobs just don't exist for them. And the government's not channelling them towards university degrees or trade apprenticeships, but towards short technical college courses that lead generally to no work, or at best to part-time casual work - where they typically earn not much more than they got on the dole.

By engaging in free trade we have outsourced our manufacturing jobs to China. By engaging in deregulation, weakening of unions and economic rationalisation (privatising everything) we have ensured that the low-skilled jobs which do remain are part-time casual, rather than permanent full-time. So we're pressuring people to go and get jobs which don't exist, or which won't earn them much more than the dole, and which will be very insecure.

This is why I characterise it as "jumping through bureaucratic hoops." Everyone knows it's bullshit, and at the end of all the paperwork and courses there's nothing for them. But they're required to do it anyway.

Meanwhile equivalent amounts of money are given to well-off middle class people without any hoops to jump through, and without anyone in the public questioning it seriously.

But the point is that financially-speaking, here in Australia and in other strong welfare countries, we are already spending $12,000 or more per adult citizen on welfare. Some are getting nothing (employed single childless people), but some are getting something (the dole), some are getting more (single mothers, and middle class families with children in childcare), some more still (aged pension), and some are getting shitloads (disabled, though typically not directly, but indirectly through paying for wheelchairs and physio and carers and so on).

The money's already being spent on people. The only questions are how much we give to each person, and whether we simply give it to them or put them through a lot of bureaucratic bullshit along the way. Apart from employing a bunch of people unproductively (bureaucrats to harass the unemployed), the only reason to keep the bureaucratic hoops for this lot but not that lot is... well, moral judgement. We want to keep our moral judgements.


I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with my day than wonder which of the particular 670,000 unemployed and 820,000 disabled and 2.4 million older people getting pensions and 1 million families receiving Family Tax Benefit A or B and god knows how many getting childcare rebates really deserve them. I just don't care. The money is being spent on them either way. Take away the bureaucracy and the judgement, make everyone's payments the same, and voila, there's your UBI.

That's all well and good, but your missing the point that in a true UBI scenario *all* (adult) Australians would be getting paid.  In other words, when you say "the money is already being spent", objectively the money involved in a true UBI system is clearly NOT being spent.  I can't seem to find what percentage of people in Australia are receiving some sort of welfare, but it seems reasonable it would increase your welfare spending 100-200%, at least, depending on the details.  From what I see marginal tax rates are 45% for every dollar over 180k, which subjectively is pretty high.  I guess it's up to Australians to decide if they wan't their taxes to go up to support something like this, still not understanding the societal impacts it would have. 




JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #285 on: March 29, 2019, 02:02:53 PM »
It's also interesting that you frame it as "jumping thru hoops" as the point seems to be to support people, but pressure them to get a job, and opposed to making people beg for an unconditional benefit.  Additionally, it seems like recipients in these programs are "asset tested", whether that means for savings or income, or both, I dont know.  But in any case, this definitely doesn't seem anything like UBI, which by design is just an unconditional payment give to everyone, job or no. 
Exactly.

The problem is that the unemployed are essentially of two kinds: well-qualified, and unqualified. The well-qualified ones all get jobs within 3 months or so. The unqualified ones tend to be long-term unemployed. They're long-term unemployed because the jobs just don't exist for them. And the government's not channelling them towards university degrees or trade apprenticeships, but towards short technical college courses that lead generally to no work, or at best to part-time casual work - where they typically earn not much more than they got on the dole.

By engaging in free trade we have outsourced our manufacturing jobs to China. By engaging in deregulation, weakening of unions and economic rationalisation (privatising everything) we have ensured that the low-skilled jobs which do remain are part-time casual, rather than permanent full-time. So we're pressuring people to go and get jobs which don't exist, or which won't earn them much more than the dole, and which will be very insecure.

This is why I characterise it as "jumping through bureaucratic hoops." Everyone knows it's bullshit, and at the end of all the paperwork and courses there's nothing for them. But they're required to do it anyway.

Meanwhile equivalent amounts of money are given to well-off middle class people without any hoops to jump through, and without anyone in the public questioning it seriously.

But the point is that financially-speaking, here in Australia and in other strong welfare countries, we are already spending $12,000 or more per adult citizen on welfare. Some are getting nothing (employed single childless people), but some are getting something (the dole), some are getting more (single mothers, and middle class families with children in childcare), some more still (aged pension), and some are getting shitloads (disabled, though typically not directly, but indirectly through paying for wheelchairs and physio and carers and so on).

The money's already being spent on people. The only questions are how much we give to each person, and whether we simply give it to them or put them through a lot of bureaucratic bullshit along the way. Apart from employing a bunch of people unproductively (bureaucrats to harass the unemployed), the only reason to keep the bureaucratic hoops for this lot but not that lot is... well, moral judgement. We want to keep our moral judgements.


I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with my day than wonder which of the particular 670,000 unemployed and 820,000 disabled and 2.4 million older people getting pensions and 1 million families receiving Family Tax Benefit A or B and god knows how many getting childcare rebates really deserve them. I just don't care. The money is being spent on them either way. Take away the bureaucracy and the judgement, make everyone's payments the same, and voila, there's your UBI.

That's all well and good, but your missing the point that in a true UBI scenario *all* (adult) Australians would be getting paid.  In other words, when you say "the money is already being spent", objectively the money involved in a true UBI system is clearly NOT being spent.  I can't seem to find what percentage of people in Australia are receiving some sort of welfare, but it seems reasonable it would increase your welfare spending 100-200%, at least, depending on the details.  From what I see marginal tax rates are 45% for every dollar over 180k, which subjectively is pretty high.  I guess it's up to Australians to decide if they wan't their taxes to go up to support something like this, still not understanding the societal impacts it would have.

Is that all-inclusive? If so it doesn't seem that bad, considering I'm paying 34.57% over $75k in the US. $157,501+ would be a smidge less than 44.57% (43.42% effective at $157,501, as you have a 10% bump in federal tax but you stop paying Social Security at $128,400).
« Last Edit: March 29, 2019, 02:06:29 PM by JLee »

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #286 on: March 29, 2019, 02:57:58 PM »
Is that all-inclusive? If so it doesn't seem that bad, considering I'm paying 34.57% over $75k in the US. $157,501+ would be a smidge less than 44.57% (43.42% effective at $157,501, as you have a 10% bump in federal tax but you stop paying Social Security at $128,400).

If by "all-inclusive" do you mean does it fund UBI?  No it doesn't their current rates cover only the current level of welfare.  The 45% is the top marginal rate on federal income tax from what I can tell; Im not sure what other taxes they pay.  For a true UBI their welfare spending would go up by at least 100-200%, meaning their tax rates would need to rise.  For income of $75k, you are squarely in the 22% bracket in the US.  Are you including SS tax in that, are you self employed?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #287 on: March 29, 2019, 03:05:36 PM »
Is that all-inclusive? If so it doesn't seem that bad, considering I'm paying 34.57% over $75k in the US. $157,501+ would be a smidge less than 44.57% (43.42% effective at $157,501, as you have a 10% bump in federal tax but you stop paying Social Security at $128,400).

If by "all-inclusive" do you mean does it fund UBI?  No it doesn't their current rates cover only the current level of welfare.  The 45% is the top marginal rate on federal income tax from what I can tell; Im not sure what other taxes they pay.  For a true UBI their welfare spending would go up by at least 100-200%, meaning their tax rates would need to rise.  For income of $75k, you are squarely in the 22% bracket in the US.  Are you including SS tax in that, are you self employed?

By all-inclusive I mean is that the total income tax paid. My point was to illustrate that, if that's the totality of their income tax, it's barely different than some places in the US.

I am including FICA and state income taxes. 

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #288 on: March 29, 2019, 03:08:13 PM »
Is that all-inclusive? If so it doesn't seem that bad, considering I'm paying 34.57% over $75k in the US. $157,501+ would be a smidge less than 44.57% (43.42% effective at $157,501, as you have a 10% bump in federal tax but you stop paying Social Security at $128,400).

If by "all-inclusive" do you mean does it fund UBI?  No it doesn't their current rates cover only the current level of welfare.  The 45% is the top marginal rate on federal income tax from what I can tell; Im not sure what other taxes they pay.  For a true UBI their welfare spending would go up by at least 100-200%, meaning their tax rates would need to rise.  For income of $75k, you are squarely in the 22% bracket in the US.  Are you including SS tax in that, are you self employed?

By all-inclusive I mean is that the total income tax paid. My point was to illustrate that, if that's the totality of their income tax, it's barely different than some places in the US.

I am including FICA and state income taxes.

no its the top marginal rate of their federal tax schedule, and does not include any other taxes.  Much like saying these so called UBI experiments actually examine UBI, it's disingenuous to compare the sum of all your different tax types to a single marginal rate....

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #289 on: March 29, 2019, 03:10:00 PM »
Is that all-inclusive? If so it doesn't seem that bad, considering I'm paying 34.57% over $75k in the US. $157,501+ would be a smidge less than 44.57% (43.42% effective at $157,501, as you have a 10% bump in federal tax but you stop paying Social Security at $128,400).

If by "all-inclusive" do you mean does it fund UBI?  No it doesn't their current rates cover only the current level of welfare.  The 45% is the top marginal rate on federal income tax from what I can tell; Im not sure what other taxes they pay.  For a true UBI their welfare spending would go up by at least 100-200%, meaning their tax rates would need to rise.  For income of $75k, you are squarely in the 22% bracket in the US.  Are you including SS tax in that, are you self employed?

By all-inclusive I mean is that the total income tax paid. My point was to illustrate that, if that's the totality of their income tax, it's barely different than some places in the US.

I am including FICA and state income taxes.

no its the top marginal rate of their federal tax schedule, and does not include any other taxes.  Much like saying these so called UBI experiments actually examine UBI, it's disingenuous to compare the sum of all your different tax types to a single marginal rate....

...

Quote from: JLee
Is that all-inclusive? If so

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #290 on: March 29, 2019, 05:33:56 PM »
I worry about the failure modes of UBI.  Civil unrest?

I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps governments like the US and Canada should become adept at paying/managing their existing public workers before they build a monolith that a large swath of the population depends on.  I'm referring to the annual US fed shutdown and the Canadian Phoenix payroll failures here.  How about we fix those first?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #291 on: March 29, 2019, 06:08:14 PM »
45% rate is not all inclusive. There is a 2% medicare levy - which is compulsory - thus it is really 47%. New Labor government will raise that to 49%. In addition, you are required to pay approx $1,000 pp per year for private health insurance, otherwise you pay a 1.5% penalty and so your marginal rate goes up to 50.5%.

Note that only those on incomes of about $30,000+ pay the 2% medicare levy, only those on $90,000+ pay the 1.0-1.5% penalty for not having private insurance, and our other marginal rates are much lower.

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8894
  • Location: the woods
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #292 on: March 29, 2019, 08:07:10 PM »
I worry about the failure modes of UBI.  Civil unrest?

I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps governments like the US and Canada should become adept at paying/managing their existing public workers before they build a monolith that a large swath of the population depends on.  I'm referring to the annual US fed shutdown and the Canadian Phoenix payroll failures here.  How about we fix those first?

I'm undecided on ubi, but mass civil unrest is more likely without it, in a hypothetical future with a majority or even significant minority of the population unable to find work.

Agreed that governments should pay the people working for them!

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #293 on: March 29, 2019, 08:29:21 PM »

That's all well and good, but your missing the point that in a true UBI scenario *all* (adult) Australians would be getting paid.

Australia expects to spend $191.8 billion on social welfare in FY2019-20. (source 1). There are slightly different figures given elsewhere (source 2). This doesn't count privately-paid maternity or paternity leave, which are really just privately-supplied welfare.

As at end 2018 we had 16,222,366 registered voters (source 3), which basically represents almost all adult citizens, there are just 100,000 or so who became citizens or turned 18 after the last election and aren't registered yet.

Dividing the social welfare budget by the number of adult citizens get us $11,823 per person. This is pretty close to the $1,000 a month suggested by this Andrew Yang fellow. So that's the money that's already being spent, it's just a matter of how we choose to spread it out, what criteria we use and how many bureaucratic hoops we set up, and so on.

I would suggest that for a UBI to be financially viable, we'd have to alter the marginal tax rates so that people on relatively high income effectively get no benefit from it. It just adds to income, and obviously someone on $20k of part-time work would get a great benefit from an extra $12k, the person on $300k won't get much extra benefit.

Again, I don't see it happening. The aged pension is the single-biggest part of social welfare, and they get $23k; no government will get re-elected if it cuts older people's income by $9k. And really people on disability pensions (also $23k) will need more than that in carer and medical support. Some guy recovering from a severe heart attack can usually look after himself, but someone post-stroke or with severe cerebral palsy needs a lot of care, often 24 hour care, and that costs a lot, especially since the fashion nowadays is to contract everything out, which means higher prices, and the "they're disabled" is like "it's a wedding" - as soon as you mention it, the price goes up.

So it's not going to happen, but that's not because it costs too much, or because the unemployed would stop looking for work if they got income support - they already do get income support, and they want work but it's just not out there. Countries with strong social welfare systems are already spending massive amounts on it.

The real reason it won't happen is the votes of older people, the greater needs of the disabled, but most of all - we'd have to stop moral judgements of the poor. Nobody wants to give up their moral judgements.

The lawyer posting in these threads begrudges the $12k spent on the unemployed, but I've no doubt he's got more than $12k of tax deductions going on, like negative gearing and franking credits, deductions aimed at helping the rich get richer. The poor need to be punished, the rich need to be subsidised, it's the retarded mirror version of the communist stupidity. We like our moral judgements, we do.

Anyhow: the obstacles to UBI are not financial.


If robots were taking our jobs, The salaried classes would be fine, we'd just create more bullshit jobs. Robots would get Robot Quality Inspectors who tick boxes on a checklist, there'd be Robot Salesmen, and Robot Permit Officers, and supervisors for all of them. We're never going to see mass automation, though. That's a fantasy like commercial fusion power, flying cars and living on Mars. We just don't have the resources. It's not going to happen. Western jobs are going because Third Worlders are doing them instead, not because robots are doing them.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #294 on: March 30, 2019, 01:22:21 AM »
No, I don't begrudge the $12k a year that goes to the unemployed. I don't have any issues with newstart, DSP or the like. I have problems with family tax A and B, the age pension for those who already own their homes, childcare rebates for middle class Australians, and all the other huge middle class welfare that's completely unnecessary.

As for "helping the rich get richer", you must have forgot the memo which said, according to OECD figures:
(a) Australian Gini coefficient hasn't gone up since 2008.
(b) Australia has the OECD's 2nd highest proportional intake of income tax.
(c) Australia's overall tax churn (income tax + welfare spending) is the OECD's most efficient [efficient meaning progressive].

So no, Australia does not help the rich get richer. It does everything it can to help the poor get richer. The fact that the poor cannot do so is a matter for them. And I make no moral judgment. I let the market do that.

Hula Hoop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
  • Location: Italy
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #295 on: March 30, 2019, 01:50:15 AM »
The populist parties that are in government here in Italy just brought in what I think is UBI (reddito di cittadinanza - or citizenship income).  I was at the post office the other day to mail a package and there was a new button on the ticket machine that said "claims for reddito di cittadinanza" on it.  From what I've read, it's around Euro 500 a month for a single person. 

However, it may not work as well here as it might in some other countries with, ahem, better civic sense.  A huge swath of the population here, particularly in the South but also in the North works under the table.  I personally know several people who run businesses "in the black" (ie under the table without paying any tax) and employ several people also under the table.  Several of the parents at my kids' school work under the table.  Unemployment is high, taxes are astronomical and people take what they can get. They also do it so that they can get social benefits on the side (ie. government allowances, free school lunches, free daycare etc.)  So a lot of people are working under the table and then applying for the citizenship income as a supplement.  Another thing that is happening is that a lot of people are getting divorced on paper and/or moving out of their partner's home on paper in order to get a higher citizenship income as apparently if you live by yourself you get more money.  Also, people who own their own homes get less money so a lot of people are putting the homes in a relative's name and then moving into rented accommodation in order to get the higher amount. All kinds of shenanigans.  This probably says more about Italy though than it does about the concept of citizenship income.  But so far, it's not looking good.

ETA - here is a decent article about it in English: https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/06/what-is-italy-s-new-citizens-income-scheme-euronews-answers
« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 01:57:59 AM by Hula Hoop »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #296 on: April 01, 2019, 12:58:44 PM »
45% rate is not all inclusive. There is a 2% medicare levy - which is compulsory - thus it is really 47%. New Labor government will raise that to 49%. In addition, you are required to pay approx $1,000 pp per year for private health insurance, otherwise you pay a 1.5% penalty and so your marginal rate goes up to 50.5%.

Note that only those on incomes of about $30,000+ pay the 2% medicare levy, only those on $90,000+ pay the 1.0-1.5% penalty for not having private insurance, and our other marginal rates are much lower.

From a US perspective, that is astonishingly inexpensive -- if I combine what my employer pays and what I pay for my health insurance, that's 9.42% of my gross salary.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #297 on: April 01, 2019, 07:00:35 PM »
The US is widely-acknowledged to be bizarre and incomprehensible when it comes to healthcare. You spend more publicly on it than any other country in the world, including every country with a public system - and you don't even get a public system for that. It's like your having the most expensive military in the world and then losing to Afghan goatherds with 40 year old AK-47s. You are a country whose inhabitants go on about freedoms while having the largest prison population in the Western world.

Your system is astonishingly inefficient and ineffective, and is not a good one to reference when considering UBI or... well, anything else at all.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #298 on: April 01, 2019, 09:18:48 PM »
The US is widely-acknowledged to be bizarre and incomprehensible when it comes to healthcare. You spend more publicly on it than any other country in the world, including every country with a public system - and you don't even get a public system for that. It's like your having the most expensive military in the world and then losing to Afghan goatherds with 40 year old AK-47s. You are a country whose inhabitants go on about freedoms while having the largest prison population in the Western world.

Your system is astonishingly inefficient and ineffective, and is not a good one to reference when considering UBI or... well, anything else at all.
I'd love to see more bottom-up structures in health care; guidance that focuses on stuff like diet, sleep and exercise.  The bedside manner could be improved.  Getting medicine closer to the home and heart seems like it would now pay off better than ever more sophisticated engineering.  I'm not sure how to accomplish this though.

I feel like it could tie in with the general sentiment of UBI.  A healthier lifestyle could be integrated with less busy-body workload.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Universal basic income: forced early retirement
« Reply #299 on: April 02, 2019, 05:46:49 AM »
45% rate is not all inclusive. There is a 2% medicare levy - which is compulsory - thus it is really 47%. New Labor government will raise that to 49%. In addition, you are required to pay approx $1,000 pp per year for private health insurance, otherwise you pay a 1.5% penalty and so your marginal rate goes up to 50.5%.

Note that only those on incomes of about $30,000+ pay the 2% medicare levy, only those on $90,000+ pay the 1.0-1.5% penalty for not having private insurance, and our other marginal rates are much lower.

From a US perspective, that is astonishingly inexpensive -- if I combine what my employer pays and what I pay for my health insurance, that's 9.42% of my gross salary.

You may pay a lot more in health insurance but we pay a lot more in income tax and other personal taxes. Our income tax:GDP ratio is the highest in the OECD.

I would gladly swap tax rates between Australia and the US even if I had to pay 9.4% for healthcare rather than the 3.5% that I do now.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!