It is currently 03/28/24 4:48 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next   Page 1 of 3   [ 54 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
 Post subject: Universal Basic Income
PostPosted: 09/13/19 3:18 pm • # 1 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Since Andrew Yang brought this up in the Democratic Debates I think it would be interesting to get some idea of what people think about it. Here's a place to start.:

Basic income, also called universal basic income, citizen's income, citizen's basic income in the United Kingdom, basic income guarantee in the United States and Canada, or basic living stipend or universal demogrant, is a periodic payment delivered to all on an individual basis without means test or work requirement.[2] The incomes would be:
Unconditional: A basic income would vary with age, but with no other conditions. Everyone of the same age would receive the same basic income, whatever their gender, employment status, family structure, contribution to society, housing costs, or anything else.
Automatic: Someone's basic income would be automatically paid weekly or monthly into a bank account or similar.
Non-withdrawable: Basic incomes would not be means-tested. Whether someone's earnings increase, decrease, or stay the same, their basic income will not change.
Individual: Basic incomes would be paid on an individual basis and not on the basis of a couple or household.
As a right: Every legal resident would receive a basic income, subject to a minimum period of legal residency and continuing residency for most of the year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Good idea? Bad idea? Why? Why not?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 3:24 pm • # 2 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
I think it is fine, but I like the idea of a $15FMW better. :)


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 3:46 pm • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
macroscopic wrote:
I think it is fine, but I like the idea of a $15FMW better. :)

Excuse my ignorance please, but what is "FMW"? ~ :o

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 3:56 pm • # 4 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Federal Minimum Wage


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 3:58 pm • # 5 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
I like the idea of both. I don't see one as an alternative to the other.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 4:13 pm • # 6 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
macroscopic wrote:
Federal Minimum Wage

Thanks, mac ~

CM, in all honesty, I've never even thought about a universal basic income and I need some time to think about your intriguing question ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 4:28 pm • # 7 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Is something I'm not fully convinced about Sooz, but it seems to me to have a lot of positive aspects.

That's why I'd like to get some other perspectives.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 4:38 pm • # 8 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Cattleman wrote:
Is something I'm not fully convinced about Sooz, but it seems to me to have a lot of positive aspects.

That's why I'd like to get some other perspectives.

I can think of plenty of "positive aspects", CM ~ where I'm having a problem is who decides how much is meaningful/necessary at what ages and how could it ever be funded ~ :ey

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 6:13 pm • # 9 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
Think about all those jobs falling to the wayside over the next decade due to automatisation.
Even China is building huge factories without the need of human labor.
What are nations going to do with all the people out of jobs?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 6:45 pm • # 10 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
I suspect you'd let the economic statisticians loose in determining what the rates should be Sooz.

As for funding I can think of a number of ways. Obviously you'd have to change tax rates so that, for a majority of people they'd be paying out as much as they were receiving, so it would be revenue neutral to that extent.
And then there's the fact that it would actually replace a variety of "welfare" programs - which might actually be revenue positive since it would eliminate much of the current bureaucratic nonsense which tries to attach moral elements to those kinds of payments. But there are lots of people in the US who really wouldn't notice if their income tax went up by 10 or even 20 thousand a year. Although, of course, they would scream about it.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/13/19 7:06 pm • # 11 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
This is an interesting take on the issue:

https://medium.com/basic-income/what-is ... b8e5051f60


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/14/19 10:25 am • # 12 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I'm not convinced UBI is a solution but can't think of anything else that would work.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/14/19 3:01 pm • # 13 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Its not just about the unemployment thing from my perspective, its also about treating people with a little bit of dignity.

From the Finnish report:

"What it seems to suggest is that even just a little bit more freedom, dignity, and security goes a very long way.
Across measure after measure, basic income improved what was measured:

Life Satisfaction: Those provided with standard benefits in Finland rated their satisfaction with life as a 6.76 on a scale of 0 to 10. Those provided a partial basic income rated their life satisfaction as a 7.32. That’s an 8.28% improvement.

Trust: Among the unemployed in Finland, trust in others is lower than the population as a whole (possibly because they’re unemployed), but being provided a partial basic income instead of standard benefits increased their trust in other people by 6%, the legal system by 5%, and politicians by 13%. (Note: this supports previous findings)

Confidence: 58% of those provided partial basic income were strongly or quite strongly confident in their futures, compared to 46% provided standard benefits — a 26% improvement. 42% were strongly or quite strongly confident in their financial situation, compared to 30% — a 40% improvement. 29% were strongly or quite strongly confident in their ability to influence society, compared to 22% — a 32% improvement.

Physical and Mental Health: 55% of those provided partial basic income considered their physical and mental health to be good or very good, compared to 46% provided standard benefits — a 20% improvement. (Note: this supports previous findings)

Concentration: 67% of the partial basic income group felt they could concentrate well or very well, compared to 56% on standard benefits — a 20% improvement. (Note: this supports previous findings)

Depression: A loss of interest in things once considered enjoyable is a key sign of the onset of depression. Among those provided partial basic income, only 25% felt that way during the previous year, compared to 34% of those provided standard benefits — a 36% improvement.

Financial Security: 39% of those receiving partial basic income felt they were barely getting by or finding it difficult to make ends meet, compared to 49% of those provided standard benefits — a 26% improvement.

Stress: 55% of the partial basic income group felt little to no stress at all, compared to only 46% of those provided standard benefits — a 20% improvement. (Note: this supports previous findings)

Attitudes Toward UBI: 68% of those receiving partial basic income strongly agreed that a nationwide UBI would make it easier to accept job offers, compared to 42% of those provided standard benefits — a 62% increase. 51% felt a nationwide UBI would make it easier to start a business in Finland, compared to 39% of those provided standard benefits — a 31% increase. 65% felt Finland should now adopt UBI, compared to 49% provided only standard benefits — a 33% increase."


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/16/19 12:59 pm • # 14 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I don't think a Basic Universal Income where everybody just gets a chunk of money every month or whatever is a particularly useful idea. In a free market society prices would just rise to eat it up. I would much prefer a basic income similar to Canada's minimum income program for seniors where all seniors are guaranteed an income of at least $1300 a month. Most don't need it because they already have more than that in pensions and other income. Many of the others receive Old Age Pension and Canada Pension which reduces the amount needed to top up the $1300. Only a few receive the full amount. The $1300 doesn't provide a ritzy living but it makes the difference between a frugal existence and homelessness for seniors.

I see no reason why something similar could not be expanded to the general population. There would even be some savings in the reduction of the number of programs that exist at various levels of government to help these people.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/16/19 2:14 pm • # 15 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
The point, as I see it, is to make a basic income a right, and to replace the current system where welfare payments are seen as "handouts". If everyone gets the payment, automatically, then the whole bureaucratic process of ensuring the recipients are "deserving" disappears.

We've just gone through the mill getting my wife (and my, it turns out) her Social Security. Apart from being painfully complex, it ended up costing us quite a bit of money.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/16/19 4:44 pm • # 16 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
This is also part of Yang's proposal (although its not the way I would do it):
https://www.yang2020.com/blog/ubi_faqs/ ... ic-income/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/17/19 1:55 pm • # 17 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
Redistribution of wealth is always a controversial topic. Some people don't mind paying taxes for services/ value received but it is difficult to convince people to pay taxes so everyone gets paid. With the tax structure skewed against the middle and low middle classes and the rich hatred of socialism you can expect lots of pushback against this idea. I don't see it gaining any real traction any time soon.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/17/19 3:32 pm • # 18 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Well, maybe not in the US.

Which is ironic, because of all the wealthy western nations the US is the one that needs it the most. And that is an economic as well as a social and political "need".


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/17/19 5:34 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Cattleman wrote:
The point, as I see it, is to make a basic income a right, and to replace the current system where welfare payments are seen as "handouts". If everyone gets the payment, automatically, then the whole bureaucratic process of ensuring the recipients are "deserving" disappears.

We've just gone through the mill getting my wife (and my, it turns out) her Social Security. Apart from being painfully complex, it ended up costing us quite a bit of money.


I think the attitude that welfare payments are a "handout" is pretty much restricted to the United States. There are some Canadians who think - or, at least talk - that way but I think most civilized countries consider some kind of basic living income, whether you call it welfare or Guaranteed Basic Income to be a right not a privilege. I don't think you would get very much support for the idea of just handing out money for the heck of it or without regard for whether the person needed it or not.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/17/19 5:52 pm • # 20 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
But determining who doesn't and doesn't "need it" is an expensive, and bureaucratic nightmare. The beauty of this scheme is that it eliminates all of that, and the cost is supported by higher income (or possibly wealth) taxes, then the "need" element can be sorted out there (at least roughly).

I don't know about Canada, but here the "dole bludger" BS is regularly pumped up by the right-wing media and used by right-wing Parties.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/17/19 6:04 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
you know what is funny about that argument?

in business, the best market to serve is the one with maximum disposable income, for obvious reasons.

when this same principle is applied to tax policy, the right wing hollers about it, but it makes just as much sense. you won't put a rich guy in the poor house by surcharging him 5%. he will find a way to make it up, generally speaking, and probably buy anyway.

I think the way the rich have crafted a counterargument for this is fascinating (ie "job creators"). but the truth is that the consumer runs everything in consumer societies. the only thing that keeps them from seizing control is keeping them busy and/or unaware of that fact.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/18/19 10:05 am • # 22 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
macroscopic wrote:
you know what is funny about that argument?

in business, the best market to serve is the one with maximum disposable income, for obvious reasons.

when this same principle is applied to tax policy, the right wing hollers about it, but it makes just as much sense. you won't put a rich guy in the poor house by surcharging him 5%. he will find a way to make it up, generally speaking, and probably buy anyway.

I think the way the rich have crafted a counterargument for this is fascinating (ie "job creators"). but the truth is that the consumer runs everything in consumer societies. the only thing that keeps them from seizing control is keeping them busy and/or unaware of that fact.


Yes. People with money are better customers. The rich can put themselves out of business if their workers can't afford their products. I don't understand how capitalists lose sight of this.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/18/19 12:01 pm • # 23 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
queenoftheuniverse wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
you know what is funny about that argument?

in business, the best market to serve is the one with maximum disposable income, for obvious reasons.

when this same principle is applied to tax policy, the right wing hollers about it, but it makes just as much sense. you won't put a rich guy in the poor house by surcharging him 5%. he will find a way to make it up, generally speaking, and probably buy anyway.

I think the way the rich have crafted a counterargument for this is fascinating (ie "job creators"). but the truth is that the consumer runs everything in consumer societies. the only thing that keeps them from seizing control is keeping them busy and/or unaware of that fact.


Yes. People with money are better customers. The rich can put themselves out of business if their workers can't afford their products. I don't understand how capitalists lose sight of this.


me neither. it is called "the Virtuous Cycle". I guess they don't teach that in business school, now that the neoliberal survivalists have taken over.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/18/19 2:39 pm • # 24 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Its actually a variation of the "tragedy of the commons" or, if you prefer, the "invisible boot". "Free market" ideology is built upon the notion of the "invisible hand" - the fact that people acting purely in their purely individual self-interest produce unintended socially beneficial outcomes. And they do - quite often. However, it becomes ideological nonsense when they assume this is always the case.

The point is that there are also "invisible boot" type cases. That's when acting in apparently purely self-interested ways, not only harms the community as a whole, but ultimately the very people taking those actions.

Business attitudes to wages is a perfect example. In terms of pure self-interest it is to the benefit of every individual business to pay their workers as little as possible. That means that their goods can be produced as cheaply as possible and they can outsell their competitors. And this, apparently, produces the social benefit of reducing the price of goods.

That does make sense, but only if you only look at the "supply" side of the economy.

It would work perfectly, except that every Business has the same motivation, and if they are allowed free-rein, they will all take the same action. The overall result is to reduce the income of the majority of the population which, in turn, reduces the demand for their products - and everyone is worse off.

In other words individual businesses only ultimately benefit if they are the only ones to take action to reduce wages. But when all (or lots) of businesses do the same thing its counter-productive.

The collective interest of business (and of society as a whole) is in direct opposition to the individual interests of businesses.

That is the dilemma they find themselves in.

A Universal Basic Income would help overcome that problem in two ways. Firstly it would provide a base-level of consumption which would boost demand. Secondly, and more importantly, it would strengthen the ability of labor unions to resist attempts to reduce wages.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 09/18/19 3:52 pm • # 25 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
CM- that is precisely right. the thing that capitalists do, from a propaganda perspective, is pretend that we are all angels.

we are not. and the chief devil among them is currently the president.
he is a man that is utterly without virtue.

I am not sure about the last sentence, however. if UBI was implemented, what would stop anyone from lowering the FMW to, say FMW(current) - $12000/2080 = $1/hr? after all, the government is picking up the tab.......

alternatively, why not just raise FMW by 12000/2080 => $13/hr?


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next   Page 1 of 3   [ 54 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.