151–160 of 236 posts
In the US, we gave money to people during the pandemic. Worker shortages in low-skill labor resulted and inflation hit 10%. I think that's the major flaw - young, childless people without responsibility see no reason to work, when they can watch Netflix all day, either paying their mom some token rent or sharing a flop house with a bunch of friends.
[flagged]
Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to buy groceries with, never mind rent or any other basic needs). A large population with basic needs met and nothing particular they have to do is untested. I don't really know how that will end, but I fear it may not end especially well. Let's be real: no one wo…
True, but the problem is that unless it's introduced, with the intention of it being permanent, there's no way of proving it would work that would satisfy its detractors. And even then, if it's introduced somewhere and works there, people would still argue that it doesn't work in their country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 70% corporate tax rate will get you another Reagan. What do you mean? We still have Reagans, they never went away. > It's a fast track to destroying entrepreneurship, reducing competition to introduce new, better products or lower prices of existing products. Right America wasn’t even remotely an economic power until the 80’s. How could I forget? > Furthermore, even if you went full Stalin and confiscated the entir…
They'll get elected in 49-state blowouts like he did, and for the same reason. America's economy went from nowhere to #1 under a regime of almost no tax and regulation at all during the 1800's until 1914. Even then, corpo's aren't actually paying 70%; there's a ton of loopholes and deductions. A high tax rate like that just favors the large incumbents and makes it hard for small businesses with no tax lawyers to get…
Again you are speaking as though this isn't status quo. A huge slice of our political landscape is people who still think trickle down economics works, tons of politicians are elected running on platforms for tax cuts. Reagan's politics live on and are largely responsible for how shit the world has become over the last 4 decades or so.
> Even then, corpo's aren't actually paying 70%; there's a ton of loopholes and deductions.
Then close them.
> a) it's confiscation
I don't care.
> b) they won't magically keep churning out 12T in assets every time you confiscate it. Its wealth, not income.
Yes, and I am suggesting the tax be based on net worth, not income.
> c) the money isn't locked up in anything; how can you possibly believe this. It's invested in the economy. It's lent out to businesses and governments in the form of bonds. It's deployed capital in the form of stock.
It's not going to the workers, which is why we need UBI. People asked "How do we pay for it" and I have answered that. I don't care about lending to businesses, I definitely don't care about the debt traps set for the global south's nations, and frankly, I don't really give a shit about the economy either. We hear all about how great the economy is doing year over year, and me and my friends get more and more broke as it does. If the economy's doing great, it's not doing great for me or anyone I care about, and insofar as that's the case, why the fuck should I care if it continues to do great?
What goods an economy that doesn't serve the workers? If the economy is doing so great, why am I paying through the nose for every fucking service and resource I need? If the economy is so great, why are so many people living check to check and barely making ends meet? If the economy is so great, why is every fucking thing getting more expensive? If the economy is so great, why does a house cost 8 years of salary?
Great for WHO? It ain't doin' shit for me personally.
> Economic literacy is in an absolute shambles. We need to urgently improve the teaching of economics to kids. Between this, the common misconceptions about inflation, supply and demand, and people not knowing the difference between net worth and income, I'm getting more and more worried.
I didn't say income, you did. I said "bank + assets" but if you want the fancy words, yes, net worth, held stock, bank accounts. Etc.
I would like to counter with first hand observed real world evidence. Raising the minimum wage near where I live (Seattle area) has raised the prices of everything. Rent seeking land owners raise their rents, which passes through to everything and absorbs the water trying to sate the parched desert. IMO either directly supplying what UBI is supposed to provide, or encouraging local supply to match the market need, th…
Yes, of course giving people money makes their lives better. It especially works when a very small subset of the population receives such treatment, such that their relative income is higher than those outside the experiment. The issue with UBI is that enacting it at scale has two huge problems: 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere. The easiest place to…
> 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere. Depends on the level it's set at, but as it's "Basic" it would just cover basic needs. It would replace unemployment benefit, the non-contributory portion of old age pensions, child benefit, and maybe a few other things. It would also simplify bureaucracy - no need to assess people's circumstances. There have been…
I have no doubt that eliminating programs and bureaucracy will lead to better efficiency. However, I'm not convinced it will be cheaper. I also question the efficacy if the money is less targeted towards those who need it most. It seems the tests are not addressing the aspect of removing other services.
Yes, of course giving people money makes their lives better. It especially works when a very small subset of the population receives such treatment, such that their relative income is higher than those outside the experiment. The issue with UBI is that enacting it at scale has two huge problems: 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere. The easiest place to…
Here's where I call BS.
>Look at China's economic situation right now to see how ultimately unproductive that can be.
Isn't it a wee bit apples/oranges to say this about a totalitarian communist country with a converging set of issues (population pyramid, needs to import food, stressed water reserved, pollution)... nah it's definitely the rich people, we need to protect them! /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate welfare programs as much as the next libertarian leaning conservative, but overhead from means testing (and admin overhead generally) really isn't a major expense. Medicaid overhead is a grand total of 5% of the program. It's really just UBI advocates handwaving away the question of funding.
The cost of means testing isn't just what you see on a budget. It's also all of the people who are eligible, but incapable of demonstrating that fact because of some byzantine requirements imposed on them to show eligibility[0]. There will, of course, be people who consider this to be a feature, not a bug. That's an ideological difference outside the scope of this comment. [0] Source: I know someone applying for long…
Yes, of course giving people money makes their lives better. It especially works when a very small subset of the population receives such treatment, such that their relative income is higher than those outside the experiment. The issue with UBI is that enacting it at scale has two huge problems: 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere. The easiest place to…
I feel like that reality and its implications are missing from most discussions of UBI, not to mention the inverse: it becomes politically beneficial to give away more money, even if it isn't sustainable.
Yes, of course giving people money makes their lives better. It especially works when a very small subset of the population receives such treatment, such that their relative income is higher than those outside the experiment. The issue with UBI is that enacting it at scale has two huge problems: 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere. The easiest place to…
>"Yes, of course giving people money makes their lives better. It especially works when a very small subset of the population receives such treatment, such that their relative income is higher than those outside the experiment." I've never seen a UBI experiment which demands that the participants pay more in taxes and forfeit all other welfare benefits in exchange for the payment. Every "experiment" so far has been m…
And maybe we could measure some negative impact if someone making $100,000/year had to pay $5000 more in net taxes than they do now, but maybe we're not that concerned about a small impact on someone who already makes a lot of money.