Topic: Universal Basic Income: Ideas on how to make it work? - page 3. (Read 702 times)
There are many variations of universal basic income. The most basic of these proposals will simply replace social security unemployment compensation and public assistance programs with the basic income per citizen. The US Basic Income Guarantee Network supports the plan saying it is trying to force workers into poverty as a way to alleviate poverty. Hard work and a fast-paced economy have not come close to eradicating poverty. A universal program like the Basic Income Guarantee could alleviate poverty group states. The group is most helpful as a universal process.
If it is really universal (i.e given to everybody) it will create inflation. If it's only given to some, it will not be very different from the existing systems of support for the most disadvantaged, which consist of a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the poor.
It is universal since it is given same amount to everyone. It will not increase country spending's since it will just redistribute founds that are already given to people. Just that UBI will give same to all instead of a lot to some and none to others. UBI is very different from the system that exist in most countries.
I don't think you should be eligible for basic income if you have a job. I would understand its for people who are unemployed or who earn less than the basic income. In the end its just another form of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. It should be paid out of taxes and not the printing press to avoid inflation. Due to technology advancement the human factor in the workforce keeps getting forgotten. In 20 years less and less people will be needed as most production jobs will be done by robots.
It's a good idea to think about the people left behind. A universal basic income could be a good start.
money isn't free. When it's created it reduces the overall credibility of the currency UBI would mean creating more and more currency. Imagine govt aren't able to meet our expenses with 30-50% taxes how much taxes do you want?
UBI doesn't mean creating more money. There would have to be some tax changes, yes, particularly at the top-end, but I don't think it would be excessive. Removal of the tax-free allowance on its own would generate huge revenue. People currently aren't taxed on the first £12.5k (for the UK)... if we had £10k UBI, then you'd only earn £2.5k before you'd get taxed, so an extra £10k would become taxable... and if you're a higher-rate tax payer, then an extra £10k at higher rate, too... and that's without adjusting the bands at all.I would use every UBI payment I got as capital towards building and maintaining my businesses.
If you already have a decent income, chances are that UBI wouldn't mean that your total income would increase, because of off-setting through tax changes. What it would mean is that if your business failed completely, you'd still have some guaranteed UBI coming in. UBI isn't magic money printer, it's a form of wealth redistribution. If you already have a decent income, chances are you wouldn't gain - except through living in a more equitable and harmonious society.If people only have just enough to put food on the table and not much else, they're still going to need work, and all the power will remain with employers all the same. That's why I think it has to be enough to lift people above the poverty line.
You're probably right. But even if the UBI takes people up to the poverty line and no further, they'd still gain some small amount of power.
If it is really universal (i.e given to everybody) it will create inflation. If it's only given to some, it will not be very different from the existing systems of support for the most disadvantaged, which consist of a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the poor.
It is universal since it is given same amount to everyone. It will not increase country spending's since it will just redistribute founds that are already given to people. Just that UBI will give same to all instead of a lot to some and none to others. UBI is very different from the system that exist in most countries.
money isn't free. When it's created it reduces the overall credibility of the currency UBI would mean creating more and more currency. Imagine govt aren't able to meet our expenses with 30-50% taxes how much taxes do you want?
UBI doesn't mean creating more money. There would have to be some tax changes, yes, particularly at the top-end, but I don't think it would be excessive. Removal of the tax-free allowance on its own would generate huge revenue. People currently aren't taxed on the first £12.5k (for the UK)... if we had £10k UBI, then you'd only earn £2.5k before you'd get taxed, so an extra £10k would become taxable... and if you're a higher-rate tax payer, then an extra £10k at higher rate, too... and that's without adjusting the bands at all.I would use every UBI payment I got as capital towards building and maintaining my businesses.
If you already have a decent income, chances are that UBI wouldn't mean that your total income would increase, because of off-setting through tax changes. What it would mean is that if your business failed completely, you'd still have some guaranteed UBI coming in. UBI isn't magic money printer, it's a form of wealth redistribution. If you already have a decent income, chances are you wouldn't gain - except through living in a more equitable and harmonious society.If people only have just enough to put food on the table and not much else, they're still going to need work, and all the power will remain with employers all the same. That's why I think it has to be enough to lift people above the poverty line.
You're probably right. But even if the UBI takes people up to the poverty line and no further, they'd still gain some small amount of power. 
About Master Friedman's opinion, we should tell the whole story about it. What he proposed was to remove subsidies and give the fund directly to all people. Hence:
- It's not adding UBI on top of current government subsidies but reallocates them, therefore rational from the budgeting view.
- It simplifies bureaucracy (or removing government), let's say the Health Department no longer manages social health program since people are free to choose to manage their own health program. Less government, less bureaucracy, fewer inefficiencies, are equal to more money for UBI.
- Since everyone will be provided with UBI, then people are free to choose what they are going to do with it. They might use it for stupid things, but hey, it's freedom! So when you see SJ Warriors crying about how the government didn't take care of the poor, you can say, "it's UBI! they are poor because of their own stupidity."
The key is, instead of the government manages tax payer's money, let's distribute it directly to the people and let them free to choose what to do with it.
- It's not adding UBI on top of current government subsidies but reallocates them, therefore rational from the budgeting view.
- It simplifies bureaucracy (or removing government), let's say the Health Department no longer manages social health program since people are free to choose to manage their own health program. Less government, less bureaucracy, fewer inefficiencies, are equal to more money for UBI.
- Since everyone will be provided with UBI, then people are free to choose what they are going to do with it. They might use it for stupid things, but hey, it's freedom! So when you see SJ Warriors crying about how the government didn't take care of the poor, you can say, "it's UBI! they are poor because of their own stupidity."
The key is, instead of the government manages tax payer's money, let's distribute it directly to the people and let them free to choose what to do with it.
Shouldn't the answer to this simply be enough money to lift the poorest of the poor out of the poverty line? I mean, that's kind of the point, right?
What it also does, is to grant bargaining power to prospective employees. In a country with high unemployment and people desperate for work, the employers can pay a pittance, and someone will still take the job, even if they know they are being exploited. UBI gives prospective employees the option to refuse a job if the conditions are exploitative.This still wouldn't be effective if said UBI doesn't lift people out of poverty though. If people only have just enough to put food on the table and not much else, they're still going to need work, and all the power will remain with employers all the same. That's why I think it has to be enough to lift people above the poverty line.
You could maybe get away with a smaller amount -- I mean, something has to be better than nothing, right, especially for the poorest of the poor. It would at least solve the issue of hunger, but the issues you outlined, not as much. If the problem is companies not hiring to protect their bottom line, then it might be easier to address that with legislation over actually implementing UBI. They're shit out of luck either way anyway; you either cripple them with massive taxes to fund UBI, or you force them to spend more on labor.
Universal bacis income will make everything worse. People who works will maintain people who too lazy for them
Maybe, but I doubt it. I would use every UBI payment I got as capital towards building and maintaining my businesses. For a lot of people, it could mean the difference between staying self-employed and contributing to the small business economy, and being forced to work for a large corporation like Amazon or Uber.
We should be thinking about what kind of economy we want: one ruled by Jeff Bezos and his ilk, or one where small businesses can thrive.
~
I don't agree with this assessment at all. You are talking about people trying to outbid each other for very limited quantities of products. And we aren't talking about giving everyone extra money; UBI is a form of wealth redistribution. Tax brackets will have to be adjusted accordingly. It may be that if you earn $50k after tax now, you would still earn $50k after tax under UBI, the difference being with say the bottom $10k guaranteed as UBI, and the upper $40k coming from your employment (at a higher tax rate, or without the initial lower-earnings tax-free threshold). UBI is not about magically creating free money.Programs like UBI have existed for decades (if not centuries) and been commented upon by famous economists like Milton Friedman.
Yes, Friedman was broadly in favour of UBI:The silence of real commentary on the issue is deafening.
Not really. Discussion of UBI is becoming louder and louder. There have been a lot of trials in recent years, and the idea is spreading. It is popular with the left because it reduces social inequality. It is popular with the right because it reduces welfare bureaucracy. It is popular with long-term thinkers who can see it as a solution to the unemployment caused by the ever-increasing automation of jobs. ~
I don't agree with this assessment at all. You are talking about people trying to outbid each other for very limited quantities of products. And we aren't talking about giving everyone extra money; UBI is a form of wealth redistribution. Tax brackets will have to be adjusted accordingly. It may be that if you earn $50k after tax now, you would still earn $50k after tax under UBI, the difference being with say the bottom $10k guaranteed as UBI, and the upper $40k coming from your employment (at a higher tax rate, or without the initial lower-earnings tax-free threshold). UBI is not about magically creating free money.Cnut237 and I were having a conversation about wealth distribution in this thread, where he mentions UBI. So rather than derailing that thread I'm going to open it here.
In case you don't know what UBI means it is a program for all citizens of a country, rich and poor, to be paid a fixed amount by their government and the goal of this program is to make sure everyone can pay for what they need. There are obviously many challenges to address before this works out, the most basic ones are:
- How much to pay? Since they're paying millions of people, they need to ensure they have enough money set aside for that, or UBI payments will deplete the government's money.
- What time interval to pay in - If this is not controlled we get the same consequence as paying too much at a time.
- Should people be filtered out based on financial status (EDIT: and employment status as well)? Presumably finance ministries of governments have records of every citizen's earnings (as in profit not balance), and a UBI proposal needs to be crafted meticulously to be very precise in the criteria for organizing everyone into (only a few) financial wellness categories, a vague set of requirements can be challenged by parliaments and get the proposal blocked.
- Corruption: Some of the budget can be stolen and laundered by people in charge of safekeeping it. Look at 1MDB for example, $700million was stolen from them with the help of the prime minister.
Let's assume people will be filtered by status, since giving everyone a fixed amount while keeping withing the budget risks not giving the most needy people enough money, the main hurdle faced here is parliamentary consensus of how to classify everyone in different categories so they can set different incomes for each group. And that's complicated because government budgets decrease and sometimes increase so you have politicians arguing that the income should be raised or lowered accordingly and this just entangles entire proposals.
We basically have nobody in power agreeing with each other on how much money to pay each person.
Hey hey no no you are absolutely wrong. Economy doesn't works like this. Otherwise every country would be doing this. It's because of few basic concepts of inflation. Income is equals to purchasing power of any person. The purchasing power in hands of every person would mean that every person in the Economy would be willing to pay higher price for goods. Let me explain this with an example:In case you don't know what UBI means it is a program for all citizens of a country, rich and poor, to be paid a fixed amount by their government and the goal of this program is to make sure everyone can pay for what they need. There are obviously many challenges to address before this works out, the most basic ones are:
- How much to pay? Since they're paying millions of people, they need to ensure they have enough money set aside for that, or UBI payments will deplete the government's money.
- What time interval to pay in - If this is not controlled we get the same consequence as paying too much at a time.
- Should people be filtered out based on financial status (EDIT: and employment status as well)? Presumably finance ministries of governments have records of every citizen's earnings (as in profit not balance), and a UBI proposal needs to be crafted meticulously to be very precise in the criteria for organizing everyone into (only a few) financial wellness categories, a vague set of requirements can be challenged by parliaments and get the proposal blocked.
- Corruption: Some of the budget can be stolen and laundered by people in charge of safekeeping it. Look at 1MDB for example, $700million was stolen from them with the help of the prime minister.
Let's assume people will be filtered by status, since giving everyone a fixed amount while keeping withing the budget risks not giving the most needy people enough money, the main hurdle faced here is parliamentary consensus of how to classify everyone in different categories so they can set different incomes for each group. And that's complicated because government budgets decrease and sometimes increase so you have politicians arguing that the income should be raised or lowered accordingly and this just entangles entire proposals.
We basically have nobody in power agreeing with each other on how much money to pay each person.
For example there is a good named X. There is only one quantity of X. Then there are only two people A & B in the economy having disposable incomes A of $80 and B of $100. Now if both want to buy the good they will bid on the prices which would increase the prices to a certain point but as here A is having merely $80 his purchasing power would end at $80 and B could quote anything above $80 let's say 90 to buy the product. Which would become the price
Now if every person in the Economy gets $100 basic income which means A has $180 and B has $200. the purchasing power would go up they will be willing to take prices upto $180 as after that A can't afford it and B would buy it. Now the same commodity priced at 90 would get priced at $190.
Think of this at the whole economic level because the goods/resources will always be limited. But the wants will always be unlimited. Some here argue the utility of the product doesn't increases with increased income so why would someone pay $180? But it's not because of utility of the product but diminution of currency that X get's a higher price.
I hope I was clear. This makes the idea of Universal basic income useless.
Universal bacis income will make everything worse. People who works will maintain people who too lazy for them
Programs like UBI have existed for decades (if not centuries) and been commented upon by famous economists like Milton Friedman.
There are lots of means tested welfare programs, especially in western countries, but UBI (unconditional basic income) has never existed before. Switzerland had a national referendum about basic income in 2016; it was rejected. I believe they are the only country to put the matter to a vote.
People discuss programs like UBI as if they're new. When in reality, they're virtually identical to social security. Which has existed for awhile now.
Social security is a social safety net for the retired and disabled. UBI is more intent on delivering payments to the active labor force. In fact, one of the arguments for UBI is that it empowers labor, giving workers more bargaining power regarding wages and workplace standards. It also gives workers freedom to pursue their own small businesses.
Programs like UBI have existed for decades (if not centuries) and been commented upon by famous economists like Milton Friedman.
Image link in case embed doesn't work: https://i.imgur.com/weKszn4.jpg
People discuss programs like UBI as if they're new. When in reality, they're virtually identical to social security. Which has existed for awhile now.
What we're lacking is honest and educated commentary upon how effective and efficient these types of programs have been from a historical perspective.
The silence of real commentary on the issue is deafening.
Image link in case embed doesn't work: https://i.imgur.com/weKszn4.jpg
- The first part of the quotation describes how to solve long term unemployment
- The second part of the quote describes how increasingly taxing work to subsidize non work is the opposite of everything he described to fix unemployment
People discuss programs like UBI as if they're new. When in reality, they're virtually identical to social security. Which has existed for awhile now.
What we're lacking is honest and educated commentary upon how effective and efficient these types of programs have been from a historical perspective.
The silence of real commentary on the issue is deafening.
Hmm, here's what I think when I heard about UBI:
The program needs funding, who or what will fund it? Taxing the rich? Will they cooperate?
Or use State-Owned Enterprise's (SOE's) profits? Or both?
If the government uses the ways above, there will be no inflation. But is it enough?
Another easy way is to print more money from thin air that will undoubtedly lead to hyperinflation.
The program needs funding, who or what will fund it? Taxing the rich? Will they cooperate?
Or use State-Owned Enterprise's (SOE's) profits? Or both?
If the government uses the ways above, there will be no inflation. But is it enough?
Another easy way is to print more money from thin air that will undoubtedly lead to hyperinflation.
The strength of UBI is there is no means test or work requirement, so it doesn't suffer from the bureaucratic mess of red tape [...] I would view it less as a welfare payment for poor people, and more as a tax on large corporations who are making living wages increasingly unattainable, payable directly to all citizens or residents.
Yes, I think that's how it has to work. An equal amount for everyone. Obviously this means that progressive income tax brackets will need to be tweaked accordingly. In part, for example, the removal of an initial tax free allowance; you earn $1 a year, you would be taxed on that $1. And UBI is only partially self-funding; we would probably need a wealth tax or some other taxation of the ultra-rich to make it viable.Shouldn't the answer to this simply be enough money to lift the poorest of the poor out of the poverty line? I mean, that's kind of the point, right?
The point is to reduce inequality, yes, but UBI is in large part a solution to the current (and coming) wave of automation. Automation in the past has created new jobs in new spheres. People moved from agriculture to industry to offices. What is happening now is automation of office jobs (and skilled jobs in general), and we will soon be at the point where a lot of jobs can be done better and more cheaply by machines. The anticipation is a huge level of unemployment. UBI means a minimum to live on. It means that if there is 1 full-time job available, this can be split between several part-time employees, so that each has a decent standard of living (the alternative being one person gets the full-time job, and the others register for state benefits, which then need to be assessed). Many people will still want full-time jobs, and that's fine, we are just saying that full-time employment will no longer be a necessity. UBI takes away the inefficiency of managing a complex and expensive welfare system. What it also does, is to grant bargaining power to prospective employees. In a country with high unemployment and people desperate for work, the employers can pay a pittance, and someone will still take the job, even if they know they are being exploited. UBI gives prospective employees the option to refuse a job if the conditions are exploitative.
Well, something like that (not necessarily giving out money) should be for the needy (actual needy). But I don't think it's a good idea to give able-bodied people who aren't adding good value to society (when they can) such basic income. There should be something good and valuable most people are good at and talented in that can benefit their society rightly.
So instead of paying people huge amount for doing nothing, get them to do what they are good at and pay them what they deserve. You can only guarantee everyone his/her basic daily needs so they don't die or get into trouble due to not having the basic needs. There should be no condition for having the basic needs. Even prisoners deserve them. And the basic needs do not have to be in "cash" for the needy to spend on things they don't need.
I would prefer a system where those who work hard the right way, get lots of such guaranteed income to help them to continue to produce good value quickly for the good of society. And the needy are helped with the good things they need.
So instead of paying people huge amount for doing nothing, get them to do what they are good at and pay them what they deserve. You can only guarantee everyone his/her basic daily needs so they don't die or get into trouble due to not having the basic needs. There should be no condition for having the basic needs. Even prisoners deserve them. And the basic needs do not have to be in "cash" for the needy to spend on things they don't need.
I would prefer a system where those who work hard the right way, get lots of such guaranteed income to help them to continue to produce good value quickly for the good of society. And the needy are helped with the good things they need.
- How much to pay? Since they're paying millions of people, they need to ensure they have enough money set aside for that, or UBI payments will deplete the government's money.
Shouldn't the answer to this simply be enough money to lift the poorest of the poor out of the poverty line? I mean, that's kind of the point, right? It depends per country, but each should have their own metric. This should be what's ideal, at least.
- What time interval to pay in - If this is not controlled we get the same consequence as paying too much at a time.
I don't think there's really a sweet spot as far as this is concerned. It simply depends on how it's implemented and how well it's managed.
- Should people be filtered out based on financial status (EDIT: and employment status as well)? Presumably finance ministries of governments have records of every citizen's earnings (as in profit not balance), and a UBI proposal needs to be crafted meticulously to be very precise in the criteria for organizing everyone into (only a few) financial wellness categories, a vague set of requirements can be challenged by parliaments and get the proposal blocked.
By definition, everyone should qualify under UBI. If the goal is simply to provide money for the poor, then all we need to do is look into expanding existing social services like unemployment benefits, etc. True UBI is meant to treat everyone equally, nothing less.
- Corruption: Some of the budget can be stolen and laundered by people in charge of safekeeping it.
I don't think there's a real solution to this. Power can be used and abused, and that's really all there is to it. You can probably go after centralization, but that also means less organization, and an even smaller chance for this to work.
In an ideal world, everyone should be guaranteed at least a comfortable standard of living. UBI can provide that, which is why I like the idea. The devil is in the details, however, and I'm not entirely sure how possible it is for this to be implemented.
Cnut237 and I were having a conversation about wealth distribution in this thread, where he mentions UBI. So rather than derailing that thread I'm going to open it here.
In case you don't know what UBI means it is a program for all citizens of a country, rich and poor, to be paid a fixed amount by their government and the goal of this program is to make sure everyone can pay for what they need. There are obviously many challenges to address before this works out, the most basic ones are:
- How much to pay? Since they're paying millions of people, they need to ensure they have enough money set aside for that, or UBI payments will deplete the government's money.
how much money to pay each person.
In case you don't know what UBI means it is a program for all citizens of a country, rich and poor, to be paid a fixed amount by their government and the goal of this program is to make sure everyone can pay for what they need. There are obviously many challenges to address before this works out, the most basic ones are:
- How much to pay? Since they're paying millions of people, they need to ensure they have enough money set aside for that, or UBI payments will deplete the government's money.
how much money to pay each person.
We can't concentrate on government finance I don't think is ideal because politicians can't released any money to the masses because of their selfishness.
Looking out how much government will pay us is not the problem.
The problem should be,has government accepted to pay people?
If yes the money is not going to be circulate properly because their most be atoms of embezzlement.
- How much to pay? Since they're paying millions of people, they need to ensure they have enough money set aside for that, or UBI payments will deplete the government's money.
To be sustainable, it would need to be a function of ongoing tax revenue, so it would differ from country to country based on economic output and tax structure.
What time interval to pay in - If this is not controlled we get the same consequence as paying too much at a time.
Rent and billing cycles are usually due on a monthly basis. That seems reasonable enough if the goal is meeting basic needs.
Should people be filtered out based on financial status (EDIT: and employment status as well)? Presumably finance ministries of governments have records of every citizen's earnings (as in profit not balance), and a UBI proposal needs to be crafted meticulously to be very precise in the criteria for organizing everyone into (only a few) financial wellness categories, a vague set of requirements can be challenged by parliaments and get the proposal blocked.
The strength of UBI is there is no means test or work requirement, so it doesn't suffer from the bureaucratic mess of red tape, government waste, human error, and months of waiting time we see with unemployment and other benefits.
I would view it less as a welfare payment for poor people, and more as a tax on large corporations who are making living wages increasingly unattainable, payable directly to all citizens or residents.
Jump to: