Topic: Universal Basic Income: Ideas on how to make it work? - page 2. (Read 725 times)

UBI is identical to SS in that both payout benefits derived from tax hikes.

If a person had a choice of pension plan and their options were social security, 401k, IRA roth or a basic savings bank account. No one would choose SS. It pays negative returns. Its the worst investment on top of being the worst managed and structured system.

UBI is identical to SS in that its a big government, big tax, big spending program that would payout negative returns. Surplus tax revenues collected from UBI would be redistributed towards war in the middle east, free healthcare for illegal immigrants and other dubious special interests.

Over the long term, UBI like social security, doesn't solve real problems. It only creates worse ones.




Heavy.com disables comments by default to further close their publication to honest peer review. If you read that quotation carefully, you might notice it makes no sense.



Read the 2nd half of the quotation above, carefully.



Commentary on UBI normally doesn't amount to more than political propaganda.

Claiming that UBI is popular with the right is the same as saying Jesus supports socialism/communism.

UBI is like strapping windmills and solar panels on top of a tesla electric car. Expecting the additional energy generated to compensate for the added weight. There's a law of diminishing returns which applies here that proves it won't work even before its attempted.

But some are determined to --try it-- anyway.

Maybe it is due to them not comprehending basic logic/science.

It is really a great challenge for the Universal Basic Income (UBI) to be implemented due to various reasons that involves of course (1) the limited resources of the government when it comes to financial capability to support its people specially at times like this the almost all countries that are directly affected by the pandemic is experiencing an economic declination making them very limited to have a source for financial resource that will cover the needs of its people. (2) How the people are being recognized to be capable of acquiring and to belong on the said program of the government because we do have 3 social classes and excluding the upper class which I am pretty sure they won't barge to argue anymore not being included in the said program, still it would be hard to classify the two social classes because many people do not have record on local government units about their salary record to classify them as lower class or middle class.

In our country, financial assistance have made by filling out forms which excludes those rich people from filling out the forms and that is where our local government units filtered out those that are in need to have financial support and then passed it to the national government. But even if such have already been solved through that way, still that financial assistance have lasts only for two months due to limited financial resources and speculation of corruption on the national funds intended to support the needy. Such program of wealth distribution or UBI is a great idea but the execution or implementation is the hardest part of it that national government must think of their own way but still the main limiting factor is really the financial capability of the nation.

Sure, governments can do that if they want. It's kind of a throwback to Soviet-style communism, though, so I'm not sure why anyone would think it's a good idea. Also this suggestion is utterly different to UBI; I'm not sure how you've made a connection. UBI does not involve nationalising industries, forcing clothes on people, rationing food, or limiting consumer choice. UBI is simply a more equitable distribution of wealth.


Many countries are running (or considering running) limited trials; the idea is gaining a lot of momentum. Certainly no country has been running full UBI for all citizens for a long period of time, I'll agree on that. But the argument of "this thing hasn't been done before, therefore it's a bad idea" is not particularly convincing. If everyone went along with that, we'd still be living as we were thousands of years ago.
And on your point of "nothing is free and it can never be"... once again, UBI is redistribution of what is already there. There is nothing 'free' or created out of nothing.
Alice has $8, Bob has $2. I redistribute this so Alice has $7 and Bob has $3. You can't argue that this is impossible, where will all this money come from? That doesn't make sense.


Again, we are not giving people free money. The £10k was purely illustrative, but we are not giving people £10k on top of what they already receive after tax. We are giving on top of what they receive before tax is applied. This is a crucial difference. I am certainly not suggesting a £10k UBI involves everyone in the country gaining £10k post-tax income. The average person would not be expected to gain at all, other than having the UBI segment guaranteed rather than from employment.
UBI involves taxing people more, removing the expensive welfare bureaucracy, and then giving the proceeds from these two approaches equally to everyone, to ensure that everyone can afford to live. Poor people gain. Average people see no change (other than having a safety net). Rich people lose some money. That's all. The specific figures involved are speculative, that's why countries are trialling it (or considering trialling it).


I should add, although we disagree completely with one another, I enjoy the discussion. If everyone agreed all the time, we would never question anything and we'd never advance.


---
Edit, additional:


Negative income tax is a different method to UBI, which results in a similar outcome. Below is a good summary. Which option you prefer is probably dependent on your ideological perspective with regards to taxation. There's a compare-and-contrast scenario at the link below, too.
_{https://www.scottsantens.com/negative-income-tax-nit-and-unconditional-basic-income-ubi-what-makes-them-the-same-and-what-makes-them-different#:~:text=A%20negative%20income%20tax%20(NIT,and%20taxes%20different%20amounts%20back.}

Okay leave everything aside. Let's agree with you that tax revamping can do this. If it's so easy to restructure tax revenues and everything. Why don't governments just make daily necessities of life free for every citizen? Why don't the governments just decide let's buy from the farmers in bulk and everyone can get that ration for free. Further that all basic necessities like simple clothes would be free for everyone let's set a limit to it that every person will get this much ration plus clothing free every month despite of what they earn/do. Why don't governments just simply increase taxes, collect revenues and run this scheme permanently? Expense of such a scheme would be much lesser than that on Universal Basic Income.

Tell me one country which has such a scheme running for long period of time for all citizens? Any Country? NO!! because practical reality is that nothing is free and it can never be. Limited Resources, Unlimited wants. A very basic rules of Economics!

Fun Fact: You know how much taxes are collected in UK already? It's 36% of GDP roughly £13,500 for every adult and even then there is a fiscal deficit in the economy which means they generate more money. Now for giving every person £10,000 you will need to double the taxes roughly upto 72%. Source of these numbers: Google. And yes UK is one of those countries with highest GDP per capita think of rest of the world. Wealth redistribution looks good in theory only practical problems are the reason why no government/state has been able to do it ever.

Again with Friedman's concept of negative income tax, a person can still have a job and still get basic income (partially).
Let's say tax-free income is up to $2,000 monthly, and the excess (taxable) income is taxable by 20%.
- If a person has zero income (-$2,000), he shall receive $2,000 * 20% = $400 UBI monthly;
- If a person has $1,000 income (-$1,000), he shall receive $1,000 * 20% = $200 UBI monthly. So his total income will be $1,200;
- If a person has $2,000 income (0), he receive no UBI, but he pay no taxes.
- If a person has $5,000 income (+$3,000), he shall pay $3,000 * 20% = $600 tax.

*Above figures are just an illustration, not sure if it's too big or too small.

Why would I be shocked that some countries have very low GDP per capita? I'm sure that's obvious to everyone. UBI is a form of wealth redistribution. It doesn't involve creating new money out of nothing, it doesn't magically make everyone rich or eliminate corruption or raise entire countries out of poverty. No-one ever suggested that solves all the problems in the world. But it does reduce inequality.


It's not my idea. Although my example illustration should be fairly simple to understand.


No, I'm not saying that, please read it again. I said: "There would have to be some tax changes, yes, particularly at the top-end". The bit about the tax-free allowance is saying that UBI partially funds itself. If you get £10k UBI, that increases the amount of tax you pay on your earnings even without adjusting tax bands, because the UBI takes up most of your tax free allowance.

UK tax bands up to £150k income:
up to £12.5k - no tax
£12.5k - 50k - 20% tax
£50k - 150k - 40% tax

Say you earn £60k a year, the first £12.5k is tax free, the next £37.5k is taxed at basic rate 20%, the next £10k is taxed at higher rate 40%.
Now say you get paid £10k per year UBI. You still earn your £60k from your job, but now of that £60k, the first £2.5k is tax free, the next £37.5k is taxed at 20%, the final £20k is taxed at 40%.

Obviously this increases tax revenue, which can partially fund UBI.
It can also partially be funded by the massive simplification to the welfare system - everyone gets the same basic amount, eliminating wasteful bureaucracy.

But this won't fully fund it. You'd also need to increase tax percentages. Take that person who earns £60k, a fairly decent salary in the UK. It might be reasonable to increase tax such that with their £10k UBI plus their income, they have the same amount of money coming in from UBI + salary as they did from salary alone in the old system.
Poor people would tend to gain under UBI. Rich people would tend to lose. Average people would not really notice much of a change. The difference being that the UBI is guaranteed, a universal safety net.
UBI does not mean giving out new money to everyone, it does not mean everyone becoming richer.... it's just a form of wealth redistribution!

That is not UBI then. That is social welfare. In most countries you allready get that for unemployed if you are actively searching for a job.  UBI is that every single citizen no matter who. Or Bill Gates or Mother Theresa or Messi or Lebron James all get the same amount of money each month. There is no social welfare office needed anymore that decide who will get help and who not. All money that will be given away is thrown into one bag and evenly divided out.

Right now many are cheating and are getting help others that should get it dont get it. Right now many are employed to decide who get it and who not. With UBI all is known in advance and no need to pay people doing it.  

In country where I live. Parents of kids that dont earn that much get some help. There is a limit like ( I will throw random numbers)  If family per every member earn less then $500 a month, then for every kid they get $100 a month. So there is a family where one parent earn a lot and other less. They dont marry. And then one parent gets this pay. Other family that overall earns exactly the same dont get it, because parents are married. Our old government had idea to make UBI for kids. So every kid would automatically get it no matter how rich their parent are. Sadly the government was replaced in March and it was not implemented.

What is happening today not only in the United States, but also in other countries, can in no way be called an attempt to eradicate poverty from society. It seems that the government continues to act in a different direction, aggravating the situation, dividing the interests of the state and the people.