41–50 of 474 posts
Didn’t George W Bush send a cheque out to every American? I figured that’s what Romney had in mind more than full scale UBI.
The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty s…
I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.
But where it lands has. House prices and Ferraris might be cheaper. Milk and rents will be more expensive.
The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty s…
I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.
We don't have to entirely speculate, we can look at existing evidence. Australia has the most liberal welfare in the world. Anyone over 18 can get $984 per month, and up to another $242 in rent assistance. [1] It has nothing to do with your previous employment history, or being fired, or anything like that. In fact, you can get it if you've never had a job in your life. You need to be "actively looking for work" whic…
I'm not sure there's a "what if" at all, more like a "when will". At some point, a UBI will become a necessity. The most likely other options are a dystopian nightmare or a complete overhaul of our basic economic principles (i.e. a post-scarcity Star Trek-esque society)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.
> Net money supply hasn’t changed But where it lands has. House prices and Ferraris might be cheaper. Milk and rents will be more expensive.
Even In your example if demand for houses goes down and demand for milk goes up, what prevents more land being used for dairy farming, more builders becoming farmers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.
Rich people aren't spending all their money on stuff, they're investing it. If wealthy people were to take all that wealth and start buying stuff (themselves or via redistribution through taxes to UBI), there isn't magically more stuff, so the price of stuff goes way up => inflation.
The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty s…
I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.
Similar logic to how raising tariffs doesn't hurt companies as much as they hurt customers because the cost is passed on (speaking from an American perspective, not considering tax systems like VAT).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should I pay for someone else doing nothing? I am close to 40% tax at the moment and I've been saving for a house for years (I earn too much to have any help on buying a flat). What the studies say is absolutely irrelevant because I cannot abide the principle. You're gonna pay one way or another... Some costs will be more monetary, some will be more health/crime-related, etc, but very few of us live in countrie…
> You're gonna pay one way or another. Only because nonsense like this is allowed. > Some costs will be more monetary, some will be more health/crime-related, etc, but very few of us live in countries where there is a general desire and will to force people to work. You should be looking for work. If you haven't tried looking for a job you get your benefits removed. Obviously the Elderly and Disabled should get help…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It (inflation) is besides the point really isn't it? Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those. > Why should the tax payer pay for someone sitting on their behind? There are a host of reasons, here's a few off my head: - We accept there will always be people we will pay to sit on their be…
> Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those. You completely missed the point. I am against the principle of me (a tax payer) paying for someone else not working unless they can't work (unable to work). The inflation argument is completely irrelevant. > If you want to rebut that last point b…
What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyone work.
Don't you think the world changes and that what worked before isn't necessarily going to work for all time? I mean, read a book about being a good housewife in the '60s if you want to see how far we've come in just 60 years.
I understand you're a bit put off by people getting "money for nothing" but as I said, maybe the facts here are showing you live a better life because you do pay a little for people to get money for nothing. i.e. crime is lower, people are happier, etc.
As I showed with facts, it's only 5% of the Australian population who live that way, and of course some of those would only get it until they do find a job. Certainly not all of them are slackers (of course, some are)
> When I am working I don't want to be paying my tax for someone sitting on their behind.
As I said, you need to keep it very clear in your head you are already paying for millions to do exactly that, and society as we know it would utterly crumble if we didn't. Who would pay for prisons, the elderly or handicapped?
The part I find most fascinating of all about this is how the media has conditioned people to be outraged about real and everyday people getting "money for nothing" and how they're slackers and are ruining the economy. Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.
Do you honestly think it's the 5% of people who choose to be slackers to the tune of $1000 a month who are causing a problem? or are you just outraged they are actual people who get to sit and do nothing while you go to work, but you can't feel that same outrage at a faceless corporation?