Split UBI - Split From Breakdown In Civil Order

[Gospel]

2) It's a trap. If society takes a downturn and can't afford UBI you will have a whole bunch of people with no useful job skills. Putting them back to work would be a slow process.

The inherent drive of the free market to maximize profits will naturally complement Universal Basic Income (UBI) programs. For instance, companies might entice workers with offers like, 'Join us, and we will match your contributions from your UBI with stock investments, enabling you to significantly increase your wealth using government-provided funds! All you have to do is move boxes from point A to point B!'.

Just sayin, never underestimate the free market.

 

[ZiprHead]

What's the point in giving it and turning around and taxing it away?

Because many people do not need the support. Letting rich people keep that unneeded money would just increase the income disparity and make less money available to those that need it.

Or, and I know this is a crazy idea so hear me out... Or how about we don't give it to the people who don't need it?

Then it will be criticized as an entitlement and welfare. And we know how much right wingers love welfare. UBI removes that distinction.

Pretty sure right wingers love UBI about as much as they love welfare. I don't see how you're coming out ahead on this.

Plus, "stick it to the right wingers" is not as big a selling point as you seem to think

No sticking to the right wingers involved. And UBI will be given to lefties and righties alike. When the money starts coming in, they will change their minds very quickly.

 

[Toni]

you have to assume that everyone will continue to produce at the same level they did when they weren't getting free money for having been born.

We observe that people who could afford to retire to a subsistence level lifestyle mostly choose not to do so. People like luxuries, and are prepared to work for them.

They're willing to work for those luxuries when the income-per-hour is a reasonable trade-off to the time it takes to get enough to afford the luxuries. People who are bringing in near SSI level incomes pre-retirement almost never continue working afterwards.

Your assumption that they would not work doesn't match what we observe peopke doing, and I sincerely doubt that it matches your own position - if someone offered you a subsistence level income for life, if you quit work tomorrow, would you quit?

Likely if you have a modest pension fund, and have been in the workforce for a while, somebody effectively IS offering you that option. Are you likely to take it?

If not, why do you imagine many others would?

I already answered this. In fact I answered it in the exact same post to which you are responding. It's literally in the same fucking post, so why are you asking me the same question again?

This year, no. If 50% of my income is taken as taxes, but I get $30K of it back, I'm still doing great. But my sister and her boyfriend would - $30K is more than they each make right now, there'd be no reason at all for them to work. They'd actually come out ahead, since they're not excluded from taxes. They'd end up with a higher effective income than they currently get. The same is true for... about a third of the people in the US. So let's assume that 50% of those are kids or retirees who aren't being taxes anyway... and you still end up with about 15% of the US workforce being better off not working at all than they are now.

Well sure, you might say... but wouldn't they want to continue working and get $35K instead of $30K? You're assuming that the desire to have a slightly better standard of living is more influential than the desire to not work at all and have 100% leisure time.

So a chunk of people are going to stop working. And that means that in year 2, it's not 50% of my income, but 55% of my income that is taken as taxes. Then it's 60%, then 70%, then 80%. My standard of living reduces with every tax increase, because my effective income gets smaller and smaller. At some point, you're asking me if I would be willing to work at my same job - which has a high degree of responsibility, accountability, and effort involved - so I can have $10K of after-tax salary plus $30K of free money? Nah. I wouldn't. At that point... probably a lot sooner than that... I can quit my job, move to the middle of nowhere and get a goat or two, take up painting, and long walks, and not have to do anything at all.

People who are earning near SSI pre-retirement are not earning much money at all—and likely the work they are doing is unpleasant. Most people who have had to live that way are happy to give up that work and have more free time.

But here I burst everyone’s bubble. Once you retire your life is most emphatically NOT nothing but leisure. Written as a retired person. And whatever you do takes at least twice as long as you anticipate which is at least three times longer than it did when you were in your 50’s.

 

[Tigers!]

But here I burst everyone’s bubble. Once you retire your life is most emphatically NOT nothing but leisure. Written as a retired person. And whatever you do takes at least twice as long as you anticipate which is at least three times longer than it did when you were in your 50’s.

And just imagine the difference to your 30s.

 

[Toni]

But here I burst everyone’s bubble. Once you retire your life is most emphatically NOT nothing but leisure. Written as a retired person. And whatever you do takes at least twice as long as you anticipate which is at least three times longer than it did when you were in your 50’s.

And just imagine the difference to your 30s.

Oh, yeah. Took me a fraction of the time to do what takes me all day now—and I was chasing kids around in my 30’s.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you have a point or do you not understand what “adjusted” means? If a SS recipient received $30K in retirement benefits without UBI, and UBI is $15K, then SS retirement benefits could be adjusted to $15K.

Sure. And if a working person is currently making $40K, and they get $15K in UBI, then the employer can just drop their salary to $25K.

They can try, but market salaries are influenced by market conditions.

They will succeed. The workers will have the same standard of living. It's not like the companies can absorb the increased taxes without changing the whole situation.

Your reaction is based solely on assumptions about specifics of the UBI and its financing, and poor economic reasoning.

Where do you propose to get the trillions to fund it? Costs will go up substantially, expect the economy to rebalance.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you have a point or do you not understand what “adjusted” means? If a SS recipient received $30K in retirement benefits without UBI, and UBI is $15K, then SS retirement benefits could be adjusted to $15K.

Sure. And if a working person is currently making $40K, and they get $15K in UBI, then the employer can just drop their salary to $25K.

They can try, but market salaries are influenced by market conditions.

They will succeed. The workers will have the same standard of living. It's not like the companies can absorb the increased taxes without changing the whole situation.

Your reaction is based solely on assumptions about specifics of the UBI and its financing, and poor economic reasoning.

Where do you propose to get the trillions to fund it? Costs will go up substantially, expect the economy to rebalance.

I showed that an UBI of 15K appears sustainable.

How the economy operates after an UBI is put into effect depends on the specifics of the UBI amount and how it is financed. The notion that companies could effectively reduce salaries by the UBI requires the implicit assumptions of strong market power on the part of employers and no change in the supply of labor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are two fundamental problems with UBI:

1) The numbers don't work. Eventually that will change.

The numbers do work. Total productivity is far more than adequate to feed, house, and clothe everybody; The reason people are hungry, ragged, or homeless is that the fruits of that productivity are unequally distributed.

You need huge tax rates to make it work. Back of the envelope, this requires doubling the tax rates.

As we are self employed our marginal tax rate is 37%. That would become 74%. Think that will fly???

2) It's a trap. If society takes a downturn and can't afford UBI you will have a whole bunch of people with no useful job skills. Putting them back to work would be a slow process.

On the contrary, under the current system there are a whole bunch of people who have neither the time nor the money to obtain useful job skills.

Most everyone has some useful skills.

Under a UBI, more people would have the time and money for education; And likely more people would want to be employed, as working conditions would need to improve very sharply. Nobody would work for an abusive boss, knowing that quitting wouldn't be a complete disaster for them financially, so bosses would need to make working much more attractive and pleasant, with shorter and/or more flexible hours, more collaborative decision making, and (for those jobs that cannot be made pleasant or enjoyable to do) higher wages.

There would be a massive shift in the kinds of employment that would be low paid vs high paid; And a huge shift in attitudes towards work by employees, and towards workers, by employers.

You're driving costs up considerably. Not only have you pretty much halved our income what's available will cost a lot more. I would guess that you cut our standard of living by at least 2/3. We are upper middle class, we are not wealthy.

And note that you have made the return on investment in education much less attractive. Unless you can get a really good job why spend the years in school that will have little impact on your standard of living? And you have basically required that the government fund college education because you have basically ensured they can't pay back loans (you don't take an education loan unless you believe the training will increase your after tax income by more than the loan payment. Now you need to add more to the budget, make the taxes even higher.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) It's a trap. If society takes a downturn and can't afford UBI you will have a whole bunch of people with no useful job skills. Putting them back to work would be a slow process.

The inherent drive of the free market to maximize profits will naturally complement Universal Basic Income (UBI) programs. For instance, companies might entice workers with offers like, 'Join us, and we will match your contributions from your UBI with stock investments, enabling you to significantly increase your wealth using government-provided funds! All you have to do is move boxes from point A to point B!'.

Just sayin, never underestimate the free market.

You need to look at the market.

UBI would greatly reduce the increase in standard of living from labor. You lower the reward, people do less.

This is once again infinite pool of money "economics". Only three of us have even looked at numbers, everyone else is simply taking it on faith that there is enough.

 

[bilby]

As we are self employed our marginal tax rate is 37%. That would become 74%. Think that will fly???

It's a very long way short of the highest marginal tax rates in US history, so why not? In 1964, the highest marginal rate for US income taxes was 90%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People who are earning near SSI pre-retirement are not earning much money at all—and likely the work they are doing is unpleasant. Most people who have had to live that way are happy to give up that work and have more free time.

Agreed. UBI would take out a decent chunk of the labor pool.

But here I burst everyone’s bubble. Once you retire your life is most emphatically NOT nothing but leisure. Written as a retired person. And whatever you do takes at least twice as long as you anticipate which is at least three times longer than it did when you were in your 50’s.

How is this relevant?

 

[bilby]

You lower the reward, people do less.

Observation suggests the opposite. The hardest workers are the lowest paid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I showed that an UBI of 15K appears sustainable.

No, you never addressed the problems.

How the economy operates after an UBI is put into effect depends on the specifics of the UBI amount and how it is financed. The notion that companies could effectively reduce salaries by the UBI requires the implicit assumptions of strong market power on the part of employers and no change in the supply of labor.

You seem to think you can stick the employers with a huge cost increase and they'll just have to take it.

Sorry, but few industries operate at the profit margins required to be able to absorb the additional costs. Wages will either crash or the jobs disappear entirely.

 

[bilby]

I showed that an UBI of 15K appears sustainable.

No, you never addressed the problems.

How the economy operates after an UBI is put into effect depends on the specifics of the UBI amount and how it is financed. The notion that companies could effectively reduce salaries by the UBI requires the implicit assumptions of strong market power on the part of employers and no change in the supply of labor.

You seem to think you can stick the employers with a huge cost increase and they'll just have to take it.

Sorry, but few industries operate at the profit margins required to be able to absorb the additional costs. Wages will either crash or the jobs disappear entirely.

Wages are supposed to crash.

Incomes should remain roughly the same.

 

[laughing dog]

I showed that an UBI of 15K appears sustainable.

No, you never addressed the problems.

You’ve never shown that it cannot possibly be sustainable.

How the economy operates after an UBI is put into effect depends on the specifics of the UBI amount and how it is financed. The notion that companies could effectively reduce salaries by the UBI requires the implicit assumptions of strong market power on the part of employers and no change in the supply of labor.

You seem to think you can stick the employers with a huge cost increase and they'll just have to take it.

Sorry, but few industries operate at the profit margins required to be able to absorb the additional costs. Wages will either crash or the jobs disappear entirely.

Your assertion of huge cost increases for employers is a cherry picked assumption. There is no necessary reason why an UBI would generate “ huge cost increases”.

 

[bilby]

Not only have you pretty much halved our income

Your income wouldn't change.

You would receive less of it directly from your employer, and more of it from government; But the net change should be close to zero.

 

[Toni]

People who are earning near SSI pre-retirement are not earning much money at all—and likely the work they are doing is unpleasant. Most people who have had to live that way are happy to give up that work and have more free time.

Agreed. UBI would take out a decent chunk of the labor pool.

But here I burst everyone’s bubble. Once you retire your life is most emphatically NOT nothing but leisure. Written as a retired person. And whatever you do takes at least twice as long as you anticipate which is at least three times longer than it did when you were in your 50’s.

How is this relevant?

Or: it would force businesses to pay decently in order to attract workers.

Or allow small businesses to employ people who would not have to try to live on starvation wages. Same thing with people who want careers in less financially remunerative industries—such as teaching, social work, etc. ( another solution would be for some city to decide to pay social workers and teachers and childcare workers and nursing home workers and those who provide needed support to the sick and dying or just injured or elderly.

It would provide subsistence for people while they are trying to launch a business, or write a novel or do art or care for a sick family member or small child or start or finish a degree or recover from an illness. It would help take some of the financial pressure off of parents of young children.

People do not exist to serve business. Business exists to serve people.

 

[bigfield]

Agreed. UBI would take out a decent chunk of the labor pool.

UBI would absolutely destroy the labour pool for shitty, low-paying jobs that employers can only fill because people are desperate to keep a roof over their head.

It should be our goal, as a society, to annihilate those jobs.

If employers can't get workers to work in shitty jobs then they will need to improve working conditions. With a UBI, workers will no longer suffer workplaces which have a callous disregard for employee safety and dignity.

Or allow small businesses to employ people who would not have to try to live on starvation wages.

It would provide subsistence for people while they are trying to launch a business

UBI could significantly improve market competition simply by making small businesses more resilient and able to survive even against corporate competitors.

(Assuming those small businesses deserve to survive. Fuck small business tyrants.)

 

[Gospel]

It's challenging to grasp the logic in staunchly defending a labor market that, despite substantial support over nearly a century, seemingly falls short in distributing wealth equitably among the majority rather than just a privileged few. Reevaluating our pro-business bias and exploring alternatives seems sensible. While UBI may not be the solution, and the current system isn't a complete failure, outright hostility towards policies that prioritize the worker over businesses strikes me as unreasonable, again, given we've been rolling out red carpets and tossing roses at their feet for a long ass time.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Agreed. UBI would take out a decent chunk of the labor pool.

UBI would absolutely destroy the labour pool for shitty, low-paying jobs that employers can only fill because people are desperate to keep a roof over their head.

It should be our goal, as a society, to annihilate those jobs.

If employers can't get workers to work in shitty jobs then they will need to improve working conditions. With a UBI, workers will no longer suffer workplaces which have a callous disregard for employee safety and dignity.

Or allow small businesses to employ people who would not have to try to live on starvation wages.

It would provide subsistence for people while they are trying to launch a business

UBI could significantly improve market competition simply by making small businesses more resilient and able to survive even against corporate competitors.

(Assuming those small businesses deserve to survive. Fuck small business tyrants.)

We don’t like small businesses and we don’t like larger “public ally traded companies. Do we like any companies?!!