Split UBI - Split From Breakdown In Civil Order

[Loren Pechtel]

I keep thinking of all the ways this ($15K UBI) could be so beneficial. Think about a pregnant woman could afford to work fewer hours if she needed to and maybe even stay home longer after the baby is born, benefiting the whole family as she takes the time she needs for her body to recover and to get herself and baby in a good schedule. 6 weeks is not enough, even if you have a very healthy pregnancy and healthy baby and delivery. It would help promote breastfeeding, reduce postpartum complications and result in a healthier and happy baby and mom. The other parent would benefit as well, having less stress to be the sole provider. The baby’s UBI could offset the cost of good quality daycare when mom is ready to return to work.

Of course it would be beneficial.

At least until the money runs out. Then it's detrimental to everyone - including this mother and her newborn.

You are writing as though money in the economy (including the government) was the same as how you and I look at our bank accounts: a finite amount of dollars, hopefully replenished periodically by paychecks, be they SS payments, payment from our jobs, our pensions, our investments, whatever. But the US economy is much larger than that. And its income comes from...taxes. Which we all pay. Including all of the businesses frequented by all the people who have enough funds and the need and desire to utilize their products and services. While those who live under whatever the established threshhold would be might pay zero of their UBI dollars in INCOME taxes, directly, many/most of their purchases are taxed. And most of those UBI dollars would be spent, putting money into the hands of merchants and service providers, who would employ workers directly or indirectly through their suppliers, and so on. In other words, the power of the UBI dollars (or any dollars) is multiplied as the dollars change hands. And of course, as businesses increase their earnings, and as their workers increase their earnings, so do the taxes paid increase.

And you have a fantasy that your change will increase the economy enough to pay for it. This is even less sensible than the Republican mantra that tax cuts will grow the economy enough to pay for them.

 

[Elixir]

And you have a fantasy that your change will increase the economy enough to pay for it.

You have insufficient basis to determine that it's a fantasy, unless like Emily, you are conflating what is being proposed with handing out 330 million $15k checks.

 

[Emily Lake]

40% of the GDP makes it affordable (i.e. the resources are there to support it for the long haul under certain assumptions/conditions). I would say that more than 50% would make it unaffordable under any condition, but that is just me.

Okay, you're talking about more than doubling taxes to take us from the current 18.5% of GDP to 40% of GDP. You say it's supportable for the long haul under certain assumptions and conditions.

What are those assumptions and conditions? I don't need specifics, but it would be incredibly helpful to least have some inkling of what kind of assumptions and conditions you have in mind.

I have nothing in mind. Spending 40% of GDP is affordable and sustainable in a number of advanced European countries, which suggests it would not be bankrupt the US economy. A chunk of that 40% of spending includes what will be duplicate spending and unneeded spending (on bureaucracy, etc....). Clearly there would have to be major restructuring in a number of gov't programs and the tax code to keep the overall expense around 40% of GDP.

In other words, I think a reasonable and viable UBI program in the USA that does not bankrupt or destroy our economy is feasible but only if we as a nation agree to a major restructuring of government spending and taxation. Which is why I said much earlier I don't think it is going to happen any time soon.

How can you say that it's sustainable under a certain set of assumptions and conditions, yet have no idea at all what those assumptions are? Not the specific value of the assumptions, but even the category of them?

Right now what you're saying is "Well, if everyone all agreed to do things totally differently, then it would work". Well, duh. If everyone agreed to completely do everything different, we wouldn't need UBI, and straight up marxism would be a fantastic idea. The problem is that marxism relies on unanimous adoption of a set of fundamental values that are likely antithetical to human nature, and inherently assumes that nobody within that culture will exploit the gaping loopholes.

UBI isn't quite that extreme... but it's not really all that far off. It requires a fundamental shift in outlook and culture, and it requires that there are no freeloaders, and nobody who will exploit the system. But humans are opportunistic of the whole, and at least some portion of humans will 100% take advantage of others to get a leg up.

 

[Emily Lake]

I keep thinking of all the ways this ($15K UBI) could be so beneficial. Think about a pregnant woman could afford to work fewer hours if she needed to and maybe even stay home longer after the baby is born, benefiting the whole family as she takes the time she needs for her body to recover and to get herself and baby in a good schedule. 6 weeks is not enough, even if you have a very healthy pregnancy and healthy baby and delivery. It would help promote breastfeeding, reduce postpartum complications and result in a healthier and happy baby and mom. The other parent would benefit as well, having less stress to be the sole provider. The baby’s UBI could offset the cost of good quality daycare when mom is ready to return to work.

Of course it would be beneficial.

At least until the money runs out. Then it's detrimental to everyone - including this mother and her newborn.

You are writing as though money in the economy (including the government) was the same as how you and I look at our bank accounts: a finite amount of dollars, hopefully replenished periodically by paychecks, be they SS payments, payment from our jobs, our pensions, our investments, whatever. But the US economy is much larger than that. And its income comes from...taxes. Which we all pay. Including all of the businesses frequented by all the people who have enough funds and the need and desire to utilize their products and services. While those who live under whatever the established threshhold would be might pay zero of their UBI dollars in INCOME taxes, directly, many/most of their purchases are taxed. And most of those UBI dollars would be spent, putting money into the hands of merchants and service providers, who would employ workers directly or indirectly through their suppliers, and so on. In other words, the power of the UBI dollars (or any dollars) is multiplied as the dollars change hands. And of course, as businesses increase their earnings, and as their workers increase their earnings, so do the taxes paid increase.

Why do you think that workers earnings will increase, when one of the benefits you mention is that people will work fewer hours? The pool of taxable income will decrease, but this is supposed to somehow generate more tax-based revenue?

Look, I don't know how else to say this. Year 1 is great. Chance are that years 2 through 5 are also pretty good. It's years 6 and beyond that are a problem.

It's not the immediate impact of the early UBI stages - it's the long term impact on a dynamic system that is the risk, and that's where things start to break down.

1. I don't think that I DID say that people would work fewer hours. I have talked about a lot of low wage workers having to work multiple jobs, none with benefits, to attempt to make ends meet, and the personal and societal costs to both, but I don't recall (and don't have time to search my posts to verify) saying that people would work less hours--just that it would be possible for people to stop juggling 3+ jobs.

The part of your post that I quoted very explicitly talks about people working fewer hours. Like, that is a fundamental selling point of your perspective, Toni!

I've talked about how UBI could actually fuel the economy but you just claim that after year 2 or 5 or whatever, it would 'all fall apart' but you haven't shown or even described that. You just think it would be a drain on the economy rather than a stimulus. Look, for people at my current household income and above, UBI could and SHOULD be taxed at 100% or close to it. Sure, hubby and I would love an extra $30K/year--who would not except for multimillionaires and billionaires? But we don't need it to live our nice middle class lives. So, yes, Bill Gates and I should both get that $15K UBI--and have to pay 100% tax on every last cent of it. Even though Bill Gates has earned in the time it has taken me to type out this sentence I'm currently typing more than I have earned my entire life.

Okay, let's start here. You and your husband would love an extra $30K per year, but you're okay with being given $30K and then having every cent of that taken back as taxes. Fine. That's no change for you.

How do you feel about being given $30K, having every cent of that $30K being taken back as taxes, and also having your tax rate on the rest of your income increased? How do you feel about having your after-tax income reduced to support UBI? Is there a level at which such an increased tax burden does become a problem for you? How low are you willing to allow your take-home income to go?

Re: shorter working hours since you brought it up:

The idea of a 32 hr work week is being kicked around already. In some careers, it's more the norm. Example: some nurses at some hospitals work 3 x 12 hr shifts/week and get paid for 40 hrs. Amazon also does that for some workers. I spent years working 10 hrs shifts, that sometimes turned into 11-12 and occasionally more, but I only got paid for hours I actually worked on the clock. The concern is that it would reduce productivity. I think that has been demonstrated to not be the case. If productivity is not reduced, why should wages be reduced?

This is not even taking into consideration jobs being taken over by machines and by AI.

It's also not even considering the very, very considerable drain on the economy poverty is already causing. NOT because we are subsidizing those who cannot or do not provide adequately for themselves--we don't do that very well as it is. If we did, we would not be having this discussion.

Being poor is exceptionally stressful and it's also pretty darn expensive. Stress causes all sorts of mental health and physical health issues, which are costly to address. They are also costly to leave unaddressed, particularly when a lot of those who live in poverty are also raising children, so the effects of that stress, which quite often include reliance on various substances in order to cope, exacerbation of mental health issues, increased obesity, diabetes, and all the accompanying physical ailments and disabilities.

I don't disagree with that. I support addressing poverty as well as mental health, etc.

I disagree with the method by which we should address them.

You (and others) act like my opposition to UBI means that I'm opposed to addressing poverty in a meaningful way, and that's just plain false. I oppose UBI because I don't believe it will fundamentally alter the underlying problems that have led to the poverty in the first place, and because I believe it represents a material financial risk to everyone who is not in poverty.

I think addressing poverty is a fantastic goal; I oppose investing in approaches that aren't going to accomplish that.

 

[Elixir]

I disagree with the method by which we should address them.

What achievable method do you recommend?

 

[Emily Lake]

. I DO support providing meaningful assistance to those in need. So pretty much the total opposite of the strawman position you've assigned to me.

Why then, does it consistently sound like you automatically associate any suggestion of such help with the UBI=15k*n strawman model?

That would be because you're using a totally unique and personally bespoke interpretation of UBI that makes it not-universal and not-basic. And because you've taken such a special pleading view of UBI, you have failed to grasp my arguments.

I think you have restricted your thinking to the unachievable. I just don’t know why. Is it intentional?
We COULD be talking about ways to ensure that a basic income of 15k$ is universally guaranteed to every American, instead of vexing about the cost of providing 15k to every warm body that takes home nine, eight, seven, six, or high five figures.
But you’re stuck there, and don’t want to move.

By all means, please offer up some proposal for how to ensure a basic income of $15K to every American, and tell me how you're going to accomplish that.

 

[Emily Lake]

And you have a fantasy that your change will increase the economy enough to pay for it.

You have insufficient basis to determine that it's a fantasy, unless like Emily, you are conflating what is being proposed with handing out 330 million $15k checks.

Dude, that's LITERALLY what LD proposed. It's not a fantasy to take what someone else proposes at face value.

 

[Emily Lake]

I disagree with the method by which we should address them.

What achievable method do you recommend?

I've answered this in multiple ways, multiple times. You should try actually reading. Here, let me help you out:

I don't think that changing tax structures is the ONLY thing needed.

<sigh> I have a generalized complaint. Not just to you, Jimmy, but to pretty much everyone. You guys keep looking at one single thing at a time, and thinking you have a solution. But it's not a single thing, it's a dynamic system of interconnected things. You can't look at *just* low income people and say "give them more money". That's nothing more than "let them eat cake". You have to look at the drivers of that income, and what else is connected to them, and what the net effects are on the entire system. And that includes a realistic consideration of the risks involved in any proposed solution, including tail risks and the associated costs of those low-likelihood events. Value at Risk is something that needs to be thought about as you're working through these things.

UBI has *risks*. UBI is *expensive*. You're complaining about the US spending $100B on SNAP? As LD has so kindly shared with us, UBI would cost 50 times as much, and that only gets us a poverty level income base. That's not a solution to the actual underlying problems.

So what are the actual problems when it comes to income disparity in the US? Some of it is certainly overly generous taxes on the highest brackets, we can increase those a bit. But we have to consider the dynamics involved - if the rate increases too much you risk capital flight. And then you have $0 to tax at high rates, and your entire tax revenue ends up decreasing. Additionally, as the US currently operates, those wealthy people are almost all associated with corporations that have a shameful degree of influence on congressional policy - so if you hike the rate too much, you end up with those wealthy people exerting corporate influence to squash it.

Some of the disparity is the result of those policies toward corporations in the first place. It would make a whole lot of sense to address *those* policies *before* you try to increase the rates on the top brackets, then you mitigate one of the risks noted above. And like I said in my recent post above, I'm not talking about just increasing the corporate tax rate, but actually changing the definitions of what is taxable in the first place. I think I gave a fairly good description of the dynamics there, so I'm not going through it all again, except to repeat that this would help to reduce income disparity by disincentivizing astronomical compensation in the first place.

Those are some of the *first* things I would do... but that's not even remotely all that should be addressed. Poverty in the US isn't just a case of income inequality. A whole lot of it is the result of opportunity inequality - and that gets into a much more complex realm. EDucation needs an overhaul, and at a minimum, public schools shouldn't be funded based on local property taxes. Talk about a disastrous trap - that results in low income kids having shitty public educations, which doesn't give them the skills necessary to rise out of that income when they grow up. We need to address how we fund education, and we need to make sure that ALL kids are given the same OPPORTUNITIES for growth.

But education alone isn't enough, because you can give a kid the very best opportunities and it's useless if they can't access them. School needs to include healthful and adequate food for all children, and preferably that would extend to preschool (which should also be public in my opinion) and all the way through some post-secondary school. I think that university, college, and trade school training programs should be considered part of our public school system. I think there needs to be some serious consideration given to what kinds of requirements are in place with respect to maintaining grades within universities, and perhaps a limit to the number of years of school that is publicly funded (I know people who would be eternal students if it were all free, and that's not a net benefit to the country as a whole). I'd also argue that all of those tertiary education systems should include dormitories and food, but that is open to debate.

For all this to happen, we still need those public assistance programs. We'll probably need to increase those programs.

Anyway, my point here isn't that I have some magical solution - I'm sure I don't. My point is that all of these things (and more probably) need to be addressed... and none of them can be solved by just giving people free money. I also don't think that my proposals are going to cost materially *less* than UBI - certainly not in the early years at least. We're still going to have to increase taxes (preferably corporate tax as already discussed). But I also think that this approach is going to be more effective and is more sustainable.

In particular, I think this approach has a significantly higher likelihood of producing better results in a shorter period of time. And by doing so, the tax burden is self-limiting. As more kids obtain the skills and opportunities to be successful and independent, the less we'll need to public assistance programs designed to overcome poverty, and the less taxes we need to collect, and the less income disparity there will be.

My objections aren't about the intent or the idea. They're about the strategy. To solve these problems, you need to be able to define a goal and then build a pathway that will actually accomplish that goal in a way that ensures long-term success and sustainability.

 

[Elixir]

And you have a fantasy that your change will increase the economy enough to pay for it.

You have insufficient basis to determine that it's a fantasy, unless like Emily, you are conflating what is being proposed with handing out 330 million $15k checks.

Dude, that's LITERALLY what LD proposed. It's not a fantasy to take what someone else proposes at face value.

You will revert to that at any excuse, Emily.

I disagree with the method by which we should address them.

What achievable method do you recommend?

Why not move on and tell us about your vision for remedying the situation, instead of martialling your entire intellectual force to the defense of your definition of the UBI acronym?

 

[Elixir]

Okay Emily … why is UBI pie in the sky, but “healthy food for children” or “changing the definitions of what is taxable” are right there on the table?
Achievable?
No more so than MY definition (right or wrong, you know what it is) of UBI.
And IMO your suggestions would be facilitated/enabled by my UBI.

my point here isn't that I have some magical solution - I'm sure I don't

None of us do. Knowing that, do we simply say “wouldn’t it be nice to give all the kids healthy food” or “let’s redefine what is taxable” or “let’s send everyone $15k”?
Maybe that’s all we CAN do.
I don’t think so.

 

[Emily Lake]

Okay Emily … why is UBI pie in the sky, but “healthy food for children” or “changing the definitions of what is taxable” are right there on the table?
Achievable?

Because the things I propose address the actual underlying discrepancy in opportunity.

Changing corporate tax law would make a much more effective long term change to income disparity by removing and mitigating an existing perverse incentive. It would also increase short-term tax revenues by a substantial amount - and a short term increase is necessary to fund the other programs I support.

Substantial overhaul of the educational system to ensure actual quality education that doesn't provide preferential treatment to children in wealthy areas would need to be funded - but once a generation or two has had an education that is fair, they have the tools to be self-sufficient. In order to take advantage of those educational opportunities, they need access to healthful food, and security. All of those things take money - it might not even be less money that UBI. The difference is that UBI does NOT address the root causes, it's a band-aid.

No more so than MY definition (right or wrong, you know what it is) of UBI.
And IMO your suggestions would be facilitated/enabled by my UBI.

I'm far more supportive of your needs-based supplemental income approach than you seem to think. But it's not UBI I like your approach better than that proposed by bilby or LD, but that still doesn't make it UBI.

 

[bilby]

Most countries are 'fiat currency issuers.'

Yes.

Most rely on income from taxes and fees and bonds, etc. to fund operations.

No. As I just explained, they don't need anything to fund operations; That's the defining feature of fiat money.

Taxes are necessary to give fiat money value. They are not necessary to give currency issuers money to issue.

 

[Elixir]

Okay Emily … why is UBI pie in the sky, but “healthy food for children” or “changing the definitions of what is taxable” are right there on the table?
Achievable?

Because the things I propose address the actual underlying discrepancy in opportunity.

Changing corporate tax law would make a much more effective long term change to income disparity by removing and mitigating an existing perverse incentive.

Changing it how, exactly? Which existing Party would support such an idea?

It would also increase short-term tax revenues by a substantial amount - and a short term increase is necessary to fund the other programs I support.

How? I’m not disagreeing, just real short on specifics.

Substantial overhaul of the educational system to ensure actual quality education that doesn't provide preferential treatment to children in wealthy areas would need to be funded - but once a generation or two has had an education that is fair, they have the tools to be self-sufficient.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Given license to steal from the rich, the first things I’d finance would be early education and law enforcement professionals. Over time I think it would obviate the need for UBI-type support systems.

In order to take advantage of those educational opportunities, they need access to healthful food, and security. All of those things take money - it might not even be less money that UBI. The difference is that UBI does NOT address the root causes, it's a band-aid.

UBI (my version) would be shorter term, is the only advantage. Ideally we’d do all those things.

No more so than MY definition (right or wrong, you know what it is) of UBI.
And IMO your suggestions would be facilitated/enabled by my UBI.

I'm far more supportive of your needs-based supplemental income approach than you seem to think. But it's not UBI I like your approach better than that proposed by bilby or LD, but that still doesn't make it UBI.

Okay - how about XYZ … or to avoid confusion,
#£%¥ ?
Seriously - it COULD just be called a very progressive tax scale and a commitment to use some of the proceeds to support those who cannot support themselves.

 

[Toni]

Most countries are 'fiat currency issuers.'

Yes.

Most rely on income from taxes and fees and bonds, etc. to fund operations.

No. As I just explained, they don't need anything to fund operations; That's the defining feature of fiat money.

Taxes are necessary to give fiat money value. They are not necessary to give currency issuers money to issue.

This is not actually relevant to this discussion.

 

[Toni]

I keep thinking of all the ways this ($15K UBI) could be so beneficial. Think about a pregnant woman could afford to work fewer hours if she needed to and maybe even stay home longer after the baby is born, benefiting the whole family as she takes the time she needs for her body to recover and to get herself and baby in a good schedule. 6 weeks is not enough, even if you have a very healthy pregnancy and healthy baby and delivery. It would help promote breastfeeding, reduce postpartum complications and result in a healthier and happy baby and mom. The other parent would benefit as well, having less stress to be the sole provider. The baby’s UBI could offset the cost of good quality daycare when mom is ready to return to work.

Of course it would be beneficial.

At least until the money runs out. Then it's detrimental to everyone - including this mother and her newborn.

You are writing as though money in the economy (including the government) was the same as how you and I look at our bank accounts: a finite amount of dollars, hopefully replenished periodically by paychecks, be they SS payments, payment from our jobs, our pensions, our investments, whatever. But the US economy is much larger than that. And its income comes from...taxes. Which we all pay. Including all of the businesses frequented by all the people who have enough funds and the need and desire to utilize their products and services. While those who live under whatever the established threshhold would be might pay zero of their UBI dollars in INCOME taxes, directly, many/most of their purchases are taxed. And most of those UBI dollars would be spent, putting money into the hands of merchants and service providers, who would employ workers directly or indirectly through their suppliers, and so on. In other words, the power of the UBI dollars (or any dollars) is multiplied as the dollars change hands. And of course, as businesses increase their earnings, and as their workers increase their earnings, so do the taxes paid increase.

Why do you think that workers earnings will increase, when one of the benefits you mention is that people will work fewer hours? The pool of taxable income will decrease, but this is supposed to somehow generate more tax-based revenue?

Look, I don't know how else to say this. Year 1 is great. Chance are that years 2 through 5 are also pretty good. It's years 6 and beyond that are a problem.

It's not the immediate impact of the early UBI stages - it's the long term impact on a dynamic system that is the risk, and that's where things start to break down.

1. I don't think that I DID say that people would work fewer hours. I have talked about a lot of low wage workers having to work multiple jobs, none with benefits, to attempt to make ends meet, and the personal and societal costs to both, but I don't recall (and don't have time to search my posts to verify) saying that people would work less hours--just that it would be possible for people to stop juggling 3+ jobs.

The part of your post that I quoted very explicitly talks about people working fewer hours. Like, that is a fundamental selling point of your perspective, Toni!

I've talked about how UBI could actually fuel the economy but you just claim that after year 2 or 5 or whatever, it would 'all fall apart' but you haven't shown or even described that. You just think it would be a drain on the economy rather than a stimulus. Look, for people at my current household income and above, UBI could and SHOULD be taxed at 100% or close to it. Sure, hubby and I would love an extra $30K/year--who would not except for multimillionaires and billionaires? But we don't need it to live our nice middle class lives. So, yes, Bill Gates and I should both get that $15K UBI--and have to pay 100% tax on every last cent of it. Even though Bill Gates has earned in the time it has taken me to type out this sentence I'm currently typing more than I have earned my entire life.

Okay, let's start here. You and your husband would love an extra $30K per year, but you're okay with being given $30K and then having every cent of that taken back as taxes. Fine. That's no change for you.

How do you feel about being given $30K, having every cent of that $30K being taken back as taxes, and also having your tax rate on the rest of your income increased? How do you feel about having your after-tax income reduced to support UBI? Is there a level at which such an increased tax burden does become a problem for you? How low are you willing to allow your take-home income to go?

Re: shorter working hours since you brought it up:

The idea of a 32 hr work week is being kicked around already. In some careers, it's more the norm. Example: some nurses at some hospitals work 3 x 12 hr shifts/week and get paid for 40 hrs. Amazon also does that for some workers. I spent years working 10 hrs shifts, that sometimes turned into 11-12 and occasionally more, but I only got paid for hours I actually worked on the clock. The concern is that it would reduce productivity. I think that has been demonstrated to not be the case. If productivity is not reduced, why should wages be reduced?

This is not even taking into consideration jobs being taken over by machines and by AI.

It's also not even considering the very, very considerable drain on the economy poverty is already causing. NOT because we are subsidizing those who cannot or do not provide adequately for themselves--we don't do that very well as it is. If we did, we would not be having this discussion.

Being poor is exceptionally stressful and it's also pretty darn expensive. Stress causes all sorts of mental health and physical health issues, which are costly to address. They are also costly to leave unaddressed, particularly when a lot of those who live in poverty are also raising children, so the effects of that stress, which quite often include reliance on various substances in order to cope, exacerbation of mental health issues, increased obesity, diabetes, and all the accompanying physical ailments and disabilities.

I don't disagree with that. I support addressing poverty as well as mental health, etc.

I disagree with the method by which we should address them.

You (and others) act like my opposition to UBI means that I'm opposed to addressing poverty in a meaningful way, and that's just plain false. I oppose UBI because I don't believe it will fundamentally alter the underlying problems that have led to the poverty in the first place, and because I believe it represents a material financial risk to everyone who is not in poverty.

I think addressing poverty is a fantastic goal; I oppose investing in approaches that aren't going to accomplish that.

Well, we generally expect our taxes are likely to go up. Our taxes will definitely change when my husband retires ( I’ve already retired). But I have NEVER resented paying taxes, including when I was earning very little and paying my own social security taxes because my employer did not withhold them ( long story). I see my taxes as the fair and just price I pay for living in society. I’m fortunate. We can cover our needs and a lot of our wants and we believe we will be able to do this after fully retired. So perhaps I’m just more fortunate than you are or perhaps I just have a fundamentally different way of seeing society. I don’t know.

What I believe is that society is better off when everybody is able to meet their basic needs and has the ability to achieve more than just surviving. I believe that society is better when people are seen as and treated equal—which is the point of the Universal in UBI. I believe that individuals are better off when everybody is able to meet their basic needs and to have a chance at achieving some of their dreams. I believe that families are more stable—and that makes society more stable when there is less stress about whether you can make re t and keep the power on and feed everyone and not have a heart attack when someone outgrows their shoes or puts a hole in their jeans or you need a car repair.

My observation is that most people really do want to work and to support themselves. Of course there are people who are unable to work and some who aren’t willing to work. There are people who work only to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads and there are people whose work gives their lives meaning and purpose. And those who work to fund their ability to pursue creative endeavors or adventures.

I have family members who had/have to work years after they should have been able to retire for the sake of their own health. I know people who struggle to pay their very basic bills. These are all good people who work full time or as close to full time as they can get. And of course I know woolen I think could try harder and make better decisions.

UBI would certainly ease a lot of this. Because it is UNIVERSAL, no one can look down on anyone else for having it, unlike subsidized housing, SNAP, Medicaid, etc.

 

[laughing dog]

40% of the GDP makes it affordable (i.e. the resources are there to support it for the long haul under certain assumptions/conditions). I would say that more than 50% would make it unaffordable under any condition, but that is just me.

Okay, you're talking about more than doubling taxes to take us from the current 18.5% of GDP to 40% of GDP. You say it's supportable for the long haul under certain assumptions and conditions.

What are those assumptions and conditions? I don't need specifics, but it would be incredibly helpful to least have some inkling of what kind of assumptions and conditions you have in mind.

I have nothing in mind. Spending 40% of GDP is affordable and sustainable in a number of advanced European countries, which suggests it would not be bankrupt the US economy. A chunk of that 40% of spending includes what will be duplicate spending and unneeded spending (on bureaucracy, etc....). Clearly there would have to be major restructuring in a number of gov't programs and the tax code to keep the overall expense around 40% of GDP.

In other words, I think a reasonable and viable UBI program in the USA that does not bankrupt or destroy our economy is feasible but only if we as a nation agree to a major restructuring of government spending and taxation. Which is why I said much earlier I don't think it is going to happen any time soon.

How can you say that it's sustainable under a certain set of assumptions and conditions, yet have no idea at all what those assumptions are? Not the specific value of the assumptions, but even the category of them?

Right now what you're saying is "Well, if everyone all agreed to do things totally differently, then it would work". Well, duh. If everyone agreed to completely do everything different, we wouldn't need UBI, and straight up marxism would be a fantastic idea. The problem is that marxism relies on unanimous adoption of a set of fundamental values that are likely antithetical to human nature, and inherently assumes that nobody within that culture will exploit the gaping loopholes.

UBI isn't quite that extreme... but it's not really all that far off. It requires a fundamental shift in outlook and culture, and it requires that there are no freeloaders, and nobody who will exploit the system. But humans are opportunistic of the whole, and at least some portion of humans will 100% take advantage of others to get a leg up.

It does not require there are no "freeloaders" or that nobody will exploit the system - there are no large scale systems that can avoid such outcomes. I think you are simply arguing for the sake of it. Which is why I don't see the point in going into details, because one can always quibble about a detail.

 

[Emily Lake]

Okay Emily … why is UBI pie in the sky, but “healthy food for children” or “changing the definitions of what is taxable” are right there on the table?
Achievable?

Because the things I propose address the actual underlying discrepancy in opportunity.

Changing corporate tax law would make a much more effective long term change to income disparity by removing and mitigating an existing perverse incentive.

Changing it how, exactly? Which existing Party would support such an idea?

Aye, there's the rub. Neither of our current stupid parties would support any idea that actually has a chance to work effectively. That's a problem with the US political system. Neither of them is going to support UBI either though - for essentially the same reasons. Both parties are beholden to corporate interests.

It would also increase short-term tax revenues by a substantial amount - and a short term increase is necessary to fund the other programs I support.

How? I’m not disagreeing, just real short on specifics.

I outlined them previously, but I'll go through it again.

Right now, all salaries and compensation, as well as "goodwill" efforts, are deducted as expenses prior to the calculation of what is considered taxable corporate income. For all intents, corporations are only taxed on their profits. For a lot of companies, they pay their executives extremely high salaries, with extremely high bonuses - and all of that comes out as expenses. It reduces profit, and thereby reduces taxes... but it allows those companies to give themselves ridiculous wages. In addition, most executives have non-wage compensation that is extremely rich - company funded life insurance, richer health benefits, vehicle allowances, etc.

One of the things I propose is to place a cap on the total compensation level that can be recorded as an operating expense. Companies could still choose to pay their CEO $12M per year plus another $5M worth of non-wage comp... but they would only be allowed to record $300K of that as an operating expense. The rest of that would be required to come out of corporate profits - AFTER taxes are deducted. This mitigates a current perverse incentive to pay executives ever-increasing compensation, and it creates a situation where the only time a company is going to be willing to pay a CEO millions and millions is when they are actually doing such an incredible job that the company feels it's worthwhile to invest that profit in retaining that executive. $300K is my starting figure - it may not ultimately be the "right" cap, but it at least sets the idea in something concrete.

The same thing goes for goodwill - these are community endeavors, charitable donations, etc. that companies engage in. These are treated as expenses prior to the calculation of taxable income. There are a lot of things that companies do because it makes them appear nice to consumers - it buys them good PR. But it's not as "charitable" as it seems, because it also helps them avoid taxes. And sad as it is, there's a whole lot of goodwill stuff that happens that looks good but doesn't actually accomplish much. Moving those sorts of things to after tax would increase the amount of taxable income the company has, and would also result in companies being a lot more careful about what they're doing - they'll want to make certain that such charitable work actually results in beneficial outcomes, not just nice sounding press releases.

Those are two things off the top that I think would be worthwhile. But I'm also not a tax accountant, and I'm pretty sure there are a lot of other things that could be done to close some loopholes and increase the amount of taxes collected from corporations - and that's all before any discussion of raising the corporate tax rate.

Substantial overhaul of the educational system to ensure actual quality education that doesn't provide preferential treatment to children in wealthy areas would need to be funded - but once a generation or two has had an education that is fair, they have the tools to be self-sufficient.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Given license to steal from the rich, the first things I’d finance would be early education and law enforcement professionals. Over time I think it would obviate the need for UBI-type support systems.

In order to take advantage of those educational opportunities, they need access to healthful food, and security. All of those things take money - it might not even be less money that UBI. The difference is that UBI does NOT address the root causes, it's a band-aid.

UBI (my version) would be shorter term, is the only advantage. Ideally we’d do all those things.

No more so than MY definition (right or wrong, you know what it is) of UBI.
And IMO your suggestions would be facilitated/enabled by my UBI.

I'm far more supportive of your needs-based supplemental income approach than you seem to think. But it's not UBI I like your approach better than that proposed by bilby or LD, but that still doesn't make it UBI.

Okay - how about XYZ … or to avoid confusion,
#£%¥ ?
Seriously - it COULD just be called a very progressive tax scale and a commitment to use some of the proceeds to support those who cannot support themselves.

XYZ it is!

 

[Elixir]

For all intents, corporations are only taxed on their profits.

For literal reelz that’s the case. It discourages growth of startups and small companies and favors mega conglomerate entities.
At a point when my last concern became profitable, we were so impaired by upfront taxes on growth … lots of outlay for hardware, specialized contractors etc we had to borrow beyond the scale of our actual growth. I’ve whined about it here when it was happening- paying more out of pocket in taxes than I took home, for a net real income of zero or less. If I had been personally less solvent at the time, it would have meant giving it up.

Companies could still choose to pay their CEO $12M per year plus another $5M worth of non-wage comp... but they would only be allowed to record $300K of that as an operating expense.

I think the cap would need to somehow relate to the size of the Company and it would probably have to start closer to 3m than 300k, or it would never pass.

The rest of that would be required to come out of corporate profits - AFTER taxes are deducted.

Heh, wouldn’t some stockholders have a fit!

The same thing goes for goodwill - these are community endeavors, charitable donations, etc. that companies engage in. These are treated as expenses prior

Again, a cap would be good.
When there was an Earthquake in Nepal, an old high school girlfriend who had lived there, called me up asking for gear donations. We had somewhere near 100 traction splints that we had received as tradeins during a product intro. All makes, models, ages and condition. A couple of genuine collectors items. We paid to ship them all to Nepal, and were able to deduct that. But none of the value of the matériels, because of how some prior reporting was done. No big deal, but you can bet that a “real” Company would have had their shit together to deduct a massively inflated value

 

[ZiprHead]

Austin experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. They said they spent the no-strings-attached cash mostly on housing.

A guaranteed-basic-income plan in Austin that gave low-income residents $1,000 a month appeared to reduce housing insecurity.

www.businessinsider.com

The link was as far as I got before the paywall slammed down.

 

[Elixir]

Austin experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. They said they spent the no-strings-attached cash mostly on housing.

A guaranteed-basic-income plan in Austin that gave low-income residents $1,000 a month appeared to reduce housing insecurity.

www.businessinsider.com

"After a year, fewer participants said they were unable to afford to eat a balanced meal."

WTF?? Whythehell should I have to pay so they can eat a balanced meal?
They should just go break into someone's house while the owner is on vacation, and gorge themselves. Maybe pick up a few pieces of electronics to pawn on their way out. Taxes would go down, and everyone gets what they deserve. Right, right?