91–100 of 809 posts
> Whatever income participants earned was deducted from their basic income at 50 per cent
That is equivalent to a massive 50% tax rate on every dollar earned. It seems to me the whole point of UBI is that its universal and not conditional on how much you earn otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed that a lot of people who are born rich still choose to work.
Absolutely true, but they also tend to work in jobs where they have essentially full control over how much they work, when they work, etc. And in some cases, that might still end up being much more lucrative than a "normal job". But I'm sure that in many cases, it doesn't - we just don't hear about it, because they're still rich, and nobody really knows what they're really doing anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are guaranteed income, you aren't bound to specific regions or locations. You can move to places with cheaper land and healthcare systems with less overcrowding. You can work less lucrative jobs in those locations and find customers for your work because everyone including the local residents of those rural areas, will have new money to spend. Local regions would see an influx in cash, allowing for small busin…
A lot of people rely on friends as non-monetary resources. If I get locked out of my car right now I'll call a family member to bring me a spare key. If my car is acting up I have a friend that will look at it for me. I do a lot of tech support in return, not necessarily in exchange for other services in a direct way. It's just being part of a community. At least in my world (midwest US) I cannot imagine moving to an…
My wife and I are friends with a young single mother who, until recently, didn't have such a network (my wife met her through a mentoring program). She grew up in the foster system, suffered abuse, and went to an alternative high school. Her network consisted of family members who were themselves barely scraping by, as well as school friends who were in similar straits. If your network doesn't have the resources to support you, it's not nearly as valuable.
All that being said, I have a similar feeling on moving away from our community; but our network has a lot of people (family, friends, and acquaintances) with money and connections.
So most people 'kept working' but 25% quit, I think that kind of validates that a lot of people will quit, which is the concern. 25% is a lot. It'd be interesting to see numbers from those who were not employed, i.e. how many gained employment. The bits about 'having to drop future plans' isn't fair. Of course, people will have to adjust after losing a major source of income.
In the US, with ~250 million people being eligible, a $1000 UBI would cost ~$3 trillion. That's almost the entire budget of the US. How is this even remotely realistic right now? Even if you can cut other spending in half due to it, you'd need an additional $1.5 trillion in "income" essentially. Is that something that would even be possible? How many rich people are there to tax?
So most people 'kept working' but 25% quit, I think that kind of validates that a lot of people will quit, which is the concern. 25% is a lot. It'd be interesting to see numbers from those who were not employed, i.e. how many gained employment. The bits about 'having to drop future plans' isn't fair. Of course, people will have to adjust after losing a major source of income.
So most people 'kept working' but 25% quit, I think that kind of validates that a lot of people will quit, which is the concern. 25% is a lot. It'd be interesting to see numbers from those who were not employed, i.e. how many gained employment. The bits about 'having to drop future plans' isn't fair. Of course, people will have to adjust after losing a major source of income.
> The project worked by recruiting low-income people and couples, offering them a fixed payment with no strings attached that worked out to approximately $17,000 for individuals and $24,000 for couples. Why discriminate so heavily against couples? It creates every incentive to lie about your relationship status. Or to avoid sharing a household altogether, creating greater economic inefficiencies and less built in soc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most money is spent on housing and health care In Canada? Would not an increase in demand for such things lead to a corresponding increase in supply? Or is there something I don't know about supply restrictions in Canada?
Coming from Germany (not Canada, but maybe closer to Canada than the US in terms of spending): Housing absolutely , health care probably not for most people. But yeah, if you live on full time minimum wage here that's ~1200€ per month, of which probably 500-800 depending on where you live will go to rent. And if it's 800, it would probably be 1800 if everyone got 1000€ per month. So in that sense, he might be right.…
It all depends on why development isn't happening, but I have a really hard time imagining that supply would not increase even if the major restrictions are due to other factors than development costs.
The issue I see with basic income is that most money is spent on housing and health care. These two things are supply constrained so it's more of an auction for who can afford them. With basic income, we may just raise the cost of those things. This problem wouldn't appear in a study that distributed to only some individuals. We need to solve the regulatory or otherwise organizational problems of these things to prov…