211–220 of 348 posts
A better idea might be to do it in a village and compare with another village that doesn't have it. But even this cannot fully replicate the nation wide effects of UBI. How about immigration laws? Germany is in EU, anyone can move to Germany and ask for UBI.
Waste of effort and money to prove nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no proof that would actually appease you. That's not a reason to not even try to offer anything though. You could start with a trial of these 120 persons (select from all classes of society), give them UBI and double their taxes to make it realistic, because the UBI has to be paid somehow. If plenty of them would have less money during this trial and still find UBI worth it, that would be a strong signal.…
One possible trial that would interest me is a UBI, implemented on a county-wide basis somewhere. It might be possible to find a county containing a single city, somewhere near the center so people can't easily just move immediately outside the border of where the UBI applies, where a high enough fraction of the people in that town are in favor of a UBI to pass some resolution to create a county-wide income or proper…
I don't know whether there are upper limits on local taxes. One of Germany's local funding is business tax ("Gewerbesteuer"), which communities regulate by setting their multiplier, the lower limit is 200% (of the taxation base), with most between 350% and 450%. The highest I know of is 900%.
Property tax also varies between 200% (minimum) and 1800% (according to Wikipedia), so there's some room as well.
Combined with an initial donation, that may be possibl. If it's somewhere where people don't naturally move to (e.g. not a major population center), the moving-effect might be very welcome as well, repopulating the area.
New money is created by chartered banks as debt on their balance sheets by fiat through fractional reserve banking practices. This is how money is created and distributed in the USA; centralized in ~4500 institutions and a few tens of thousands of people deciding things. It would be just as easy, though controversial, to remove this pure profit stream from the banks and instead give it directly to people.
Of course people would probably re-invent the banking system in a distributed way. But then at least it would be clear that the money banks are literally making isn't through some business skill or value addition or even the physical services they provide: it's from being able to magic up new money for circulation.
There is plenty of money for basic income. The system for basic income already exists and is the foundation of modern society. It just needs to be made universal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free? That's not how it went. People find new ways to create value all the time, and yet every time we invent anything new people keep saying "all the jobs are going away." It has yet to happen in spite of the agricultural, industrial, and now tech revolutions.
Which new way of creating value will be immune to automation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why UBI was supported by right leaning economists like Milton Friedman. If we believe that people in wealthy societies should have a minimal standard of living including basic food, housing and health care then we can provide it through the market in the form of a basic income It will avoid the perverse incentives that lead people to get costly health care in the ER (which is then covered by other patient…
Friedman proposed a negative income tax which is different, and arguably better, than a standard flat payment.
These studies don't really prove anything. Common arguments in favor of these studies - "They prove people don't quit work on UBI!" - No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing. "They prove people won't spend it on drugs, booze, and lotto tickets!" - No. If you make $1k from a job and $1k from a pilot program…
To play devil's advocate here: Yes, with UBI we're basically taxing ourselves to pay ourselves , it will hurt productivity and will cause inflation . But at least in a country like Germany, where I live, that is already happening for decades via our ever-growing, convoluted, amounts of government welfare programs, subsidies and redistribution schemes. A UBI would then at least have the benefit of cutting out the bure…
If this expense is compensated by extra taxes on individuals then it is pointless.
If it means making sure that unemployed people receive a guaranteed minimum income then it already exists.
If it means merging all benefits into a single one then it is just a simplication and also already exists, e.g. recently in the UK.
UBI, as in 'everyone gets a payment', only makes sense if there is a source of wealth that does not depend on people to tap into. That's why it is often discussed in the context of massive automation, because then it has merit (basically robots work and you receive their 'wages').
I think UBI is a failed project from the beginning. We dont need UBI per se we need to provide basic utilities at fraction of the cost or for free. Housing should be free so should be food. We are incredibly efficient when it comes to building real estate or producing food. We can set a basic standard for quality of housing and food (you get seasonal fruits,veggies,bread,flour,chicken etc etc). You should be incentiv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about fairness at all: it's about poverty traps, and getting people out of them. With the learned understanding that if you give things to the poor, you also have to give them to the rich, because the rich are unable to look at any pie they can't have a slice of without wanting to destroy it.
I always saw the "also giving it to the rich" as much more about avoiding the bureaucratic overhead, social stigma and other associated downsides of trying to ensure that only the poor get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What UBI skeptical people want to know is where is the proof that we can afford to tax ourselves to pay ourselves, where is the proof that it won't hurt long term productivity, and where is the proof that it doesn't cause inflation. A 120 person 36 month trial program cannot answer any of these questions. There is no proof that would actually appease you. There is no way you could measure the effect on inflation wi…
> There is no proof that would actually appease you. That's not a reason to not even try to offer anything though. You could start with a trial of these 120 persons (select from all classes of society), give them UBI and double their taxes to make it realistic, because the UBI has to be paid somehow. If plenty of them would have less money during this trial and still find UBI worth it, that would be a strong signal.…
1. I'd image the poster would have the same objections. It's not large enough, etc.
2. Why double their taxes at all? You could just give them less UBI. I don't see how this makes any sense. What's point of having UBI if you have less money than you started out with. You've just invented a useless tax, which we already have in spades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rules (just imagine if a person playing Monopoly started with ten times the initial amount of money). I prefer a definition of fairness that is actually achievable[1]: everyone has at least the bare minimum, regardless of fitness and deserving. You can quibble abo…
> Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. You are redefining fair to mean equal. I don't want equal at the expense of fair. Inheritance is a made up rule, and as such can be unmade without having to change the definition of fairness. But second, age is thing, older people tend to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, even without inheritance. Younger people tend…
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." --Anatole France (I always meant to get a more precise source for this quote.)