Split UBI - Split From Breakdown In Civil Order

[Emily Lake]

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.

 

[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.

 

[bilby]

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?

Because there's no mechanism that achieves that goal without incidentally denying it to some people who do need it; And because trying to work out who does or doesn't need it is itself a hugely expensive exercise, that is largely an inefficient duplication of the work of the IRS.

Pay everyone a UBI; Have the IRS calculate their income tax liability (in a greatly simplified way, as lots of tax breaks for low income people cease to be relevant or necessary); Collect the taxes (which in most cases will exceed the UBI payment anyway).

A person who currently pays $30k/yr in personal income tax might, under the new system, get a UBI of $30k and be liable for $60k in taxes.

That seems inefficient; but it's FAR less inefficient than having a huge bureaucracy devoted to trying to work out exactly who meets the criteria in your means test.

 

[bilby]

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.

YES!!!!

That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

 

[Elixir]

Collect the taxes (which in most cases will exceed the UBI payment anyway).

We need a more progressive taxation schedule to make that truly fair.
But we already need that, without UBI.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

 

[Emily Lake]

A person who currently pays $30k/yr in personal income tax might, under the new system, get a UBI of $30k and be liable for $60k in taxes.

WTF kind of tax do you have in mind, because that seems abusive.

Plus "we're going to give you $30K of free money, and then we're going to tax that free money at 100%" seems like a pretty tough sales pitch.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

YES!!!!

That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

It's a shit idea. Especially when paired with your prior-post's scheme to tax that UBI at 100%.

 

[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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) He's talking about $60k for a family of four. Rich?!

2) Despite the mantra of tax the rich there simply aren't enough of them to fund things. Most of the tax burden is paid by the upper middle class for the simple reason that there are far more of them.

 

[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.

But then you don't get to exclude the money that currently is going to SS from government expenditures.

Once again, you're throwing numbers around without connection to the real world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

The whole point of a UBI system is to remove means testing from the picture. Means testing is expensive, if enough people qualify you're better off simply covering everyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Because there's no mechanism that achieves that goal without incidentally denying it to some people who do need it; And because trying to work out who does or doesn't need it is itself a hugely expensive exercise, that is largely an inefficient duplication of the work of the IRS.

Pay everyone a UBI; Have the IRS calculate their income tax liability (in a greatly simplified way, as lots of tax breaks for low income people cease to be relevant or necessary); Collect the taxes (which in most cases will exceed the UBI payment anyway).

A person who currently pays $30k/yr in personal income tax might, under the new system, get a UBI of $30k and be liable for $60k in taxes.

That seems inefficient; but it's FAR less inefficient than having a huge bureaucracy devoted to trying to work out exactly who meets the criteria in your means test.

I have no problem with this part of it. It's just the numbers do not work.

And it's actually not inefficient in the case of the IRS--they're doing the work anyway, changing the number has almost no bearing on how much work must be expended.

 

[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.

But then you don't get to exclude the money that currently is going to SS from government expenditures.

Who is doing that? Not me.

Once again, you're throwing numbers around without connection to the real world.

I am not libertarian.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A person who currently pays $30k/yr in personal income tax might, under the new system, get a UBI of $30k and be liable for $60k in taxes.

WTF kind of tax do you have in mind, because that seems abusive.

Plus "we're going to give you $30K of free money, and then we're going to tax that free money at 100%" seems like a pretty tough sales pitch.

That's not what he's saying. Rather, the tax rates will go up. How I would do it is the UBI payment isn't considered income in the first place, but the standard deduction and the 0% tax bracket go away. Income is taxed from the first dollar. There would be a point where the UBI money balanced the increased tax and that's what he's talking about. (But that would be a fairly narrow income band.)

There are two fundamental problems with UBI:

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[bilby]

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.

YES!!!!

That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

It's a shit idea. Especially when paired with your prior-post's scheme to tax that UBI at 100%.

...for a person who already pays $30k/yr in income tax.

 

[bilby]

And it's actually not inefficient in the case of the IRS--they're doing the work anyway

Er, yes, that was my point.

 

[bilby]

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.

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.

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.