71–80 of 169 posts
Governments and people have been living on credit for decades. Governments borrow from retirement funds to meet current obligations. Many people have failed to save enough, or even worse have large debt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UBI is a redistribution expense, that means, the government takes taxes from richer people, and distribute it to everybody. Retirement is an entitlement pyramid, that means, people pay the government for it to take care of older participants, and by doing so they get entitled into receiving something in proportion to what they paid. Besides it being a pyramid, a UBI scheme where total received is proportional to tota…
> Retirement is an entitlement pyramid, that means, people pay the government for it to take care of older participants This is news to those who retire and live on investment income.
Even just maintaining stored retirement wealth depends on this. Think about prices for services when there are large numbers of rich retired people with needs, but few young people willing to provide them.
The point is, think outside the national box. This is easier to do if you properly comprehend the challenges and limitations while younger. For US citizens, just leaving the country pretty much guarantees cheaper access to medical care.
I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…
That's backwards. How do the people that run todays pension funds expect to own up to the fact that they've been technically bankrupt for quite a while?
The only reason the pension age is pushed upwards is to mask the fact that the money in the funds required to fulfill their obligations simply isn't there. The easiest way to do that is to start paying out later, a number of folks that would have otherwise been eligible will simply die in the intermediary and those that don't will pay into the pot for a couple more years.
UBI is a scheme that does not involve pension funds at all.
Which is it? There won't be jobs, so we have to figure out Guaranteed Income or other alternatives, or there will be jobs and we'll continue working later. I'm tempted to suggest the first is more likely, but be prepared for the 2nd.
I'm currently writing a list of things to consider when creating a UBI scheme (concerns that I often don't see addressed), and this is an easy way to illustrate one of them. One simple way to implement "single payer" healthcare in the US would be to slowly expand the medicare (US program for people 65 and older) coverage by moving the age lower every year. Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI w…
> How do people who think a feasible UBI future is possible square with this? That's backwards. How do the people that run todays pension funds expect to own up to the fact that they've been technically bankrupt for quite a while? The only reason the pension age is pushed upwards is to mask the fact that the money in the funds required to fulfill their obligations simply isn't there. The easiest way to do that is to…
These aren't paid out from a pot but comes from general taxation, the same as presumably a UBI system would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that capital is mobile, and that mobility is arguably increasing due to digitisation. In other words, if a country raises tax rates on returns to capital, capital simply relocates somewhere else. I've suggested a solution above (or it might be below by now), but it's complex...
USA already has worldwide tax jurisdiction. The more difficult problem with capital taxation is how to accurately value an asset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do people who think a feasible UBI future is possible square with this? That's backwards. How do the people that run todays pension funds expect to own up to the fact that they've been technically bankrupt for quite a while? The only reason the pension age is pushed upwards is to mask the fact that the money in the funds required to fulfill their obligations simply isn't there. The easiest way to do that is to…
It's worth noting that the above doesn't relate to pension funds but the state pension. These aren't paid out from a pot but comes from general taxation, the same as presumably a UBI system would.
When visiting the US, I was struck by how many elderly workers there were in restaurants, subways etc. Japan was similar. In Australia, I never see this. The reasons are presumably: 1. Australia has ok free healthcare 2. The baby boomers have generated massive wealth over the last 50 years because of the property market. Point 2 certainly won't be repeated for the next generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Very similarly, a simple way to incrementally implement UBI would be to lower the "retirement age" every year Why would you first give UBI to the richest people (old people at the peak of their careers with a lifetime of savings)? Sounds backwards to me.
You'd give UBI to those least able to work and generate an income.