Okay so now you know heâs not promising people free money but espousing universal basic income. Thatâs something I suppose⌠You muppet. Just admit you dont have a clue what policies hes pushing and leave it at that. I dont think you have a notion how politics works. If he can push his policy ideas in to the public consciousness thats job done. Not everything is a conspiracy.
I think itâs demonstrably true that you donât have a notion how politics or anything else works, hence your interest in Yang
Universal Basic Income is free money with no expectation to work whatsoever
Itâs a fantasy idea which would have all sorts of negative unintended consequences
Is the dole free money?
My understanding of the dole is that it is money that is designed to tide people over until they can find a job and can be withdrawn if the person is making no effort to find a job
Thatâs what youâd expect in any decent system - itâs a safety net
Universal basic income is no such thing - itâs an incentive to never work
It would be a woefully irresponsible use of public money and anybody who supports it needs their head examined
Fascist
1 Like
Youâre getting very alt-right in your views lately, it must be related to supporting Elizabeth Warren, a Republican voter most of her adult life.
Welfare as it exists today doesnât work, and effectively in many cases is free money for doing nothing and incentivizes people to do nothing. Yangâs proposal is a very basic version of UBI, but it brings the idea into the public square for debate which is good. I think most people once they understand the concept better would support low income workers being subsidized up to a living wage by the government. It beats raising the minimum wage to $15 as that would put a lot of small businesses out of business. There are tens of millions employed in the US in service industries that have very thin margins, mandating an effective doubling of the minimum wage would be counterproductive as it would result in fewer jobs or fewer businesses.
It will have to be done in time anyway as automation, robotics and AI will replace most low income jobs and many well paying jobs.
You say welfare as a safety net doesnât incentivise work
Yet mass welfare that specifically incentivises against work is better
Looooollllzzz
I never had you down as a communist
You donât understand the idea of Universal Basic Income, do some research.
Most people who can work want to work, the numbers of people working massively outnumbers those on the dole. The issue is that in a service economy as most of the developed world now is, most jobs are minimum wage and low income workers struggle to make ends meet or have any decent standard of living. So you have two options, mandate a minimum wage increase to say $15 an hour, or have the government make up the difference. Iâve explained why the first idea is bad one.
The great majority of people who would benefit from UBI are low income workers, not people who donât want to work. Thereâs little that can be done about the latter group anyway.
I do understand it which is why I can see itâs a nonsense, itâs actual communism though itâs also an idea which has been bizarrely pushed by the far right and crackpot right-wing economists like Friedman
Universal basic income would massively increase the amount of people who donât want to work
And thatâs a best case scenario
More realistically youâre looking at massive wage inflation because why would people work if theyâre getting enough free money and donât need to work
Businesses wouldnât and couldnât function because they wouldnât be able to pay those wages
So you get a massive death spiral in the economy
The cost of a universal basic income would be astronomical, in Irelandâs case youâre talking 30 or 40 billion, maybe much more as prices would not be stable
That means no public services that actually benefit society
But that was what Friedman wanted
Also such a system cannot exist in isolation in one country, especially within the European Union
Universal Basic Income is mainly being pushed by the left and has much more support on the left than the right, truly bizarre from you. I can only conclude that anything that is supported by any right or right leaning individuals is inherently wrong in your view and must be labelled as fascist, etc.
Youâre worried about âmassive wage inflationâ from a program where the government tops up the wages of low income workers to a living wage, but yet support candidates who are calling for a doubling in the minimum wage, which would have a much bigger impact on wage inflation and drive countless small businesses out of business. Think that through.
Iâve no idea where you got your numbers from for Ireland. Ireland has a working population of 2.2 million, and the minimum wage is about 10 Euro. Letâs say a living wage is 15 Euro an hour, you would have to top up low income individuals to 15. Whatever the cost of that, itâs not 30-40 billion, given most workers earn more than 10/hour and a lot earn much more than 15/hour. Back of the envelope I would say it would cost about 5 billion, money well spent imo as itâs money that goes back into the economy and should also reduce welfare programs. Irelandâs spending budget is north of 60 billion already, so 5 billion itâs not that big a number.
Again, I think youâre missing the fact that most people want to work and also work towards higher income jobs during their work lives. The reality is itâs hard for unskilled younger people nowadays to earn a living wage, nothing wrong with giving them a helping hand. I agree it cannot be a disincentive to work, but for most people it wouldnât be.
I didnât call anything fascist, but nice straw man.
Universal basic income by definition is universal.
There are 3.18 million people of working age in Ireland - ie. aged 15 to 64.
Current social welfare payment is âŹ203 per week. A basic income by definition cannot be below that.
203 x 52 x 3.18m = 33.568 billion.
And thatâs your basic starting point. It doesnât include pensions, it doesnât include child benefit or any other form of social welfare payment.
The current social welfare budget is âŹ20.5bn.
Universal basic income is just another way of redistributing wealth towards the richest and a grossly inefficient managing of resources at the expense of health, education, transport, housing and other vital state services.
Youâre some crank. 
Pick apart the figures there, so.
My figures for Ireland are directly equivalent to what Yang is proposing in the US, by the way - heâs proposing $12k per citizen.
Another problem with the proposal is you canât test it, by definition - it could only be tested with a full roll out - because you canât replicate the conditions it would be rolled out in, or replicate the intricacies and idiosyncracies of the human behaviour of millions of people, in any trial.
In Ireland youâd be looking at a total social welfare budget well in excesss of âŹ40 billion at least, possibly over âŹ50 billion, and thatâs without the unintended consequences.
Total misrepresentation of what Iâm talking about and a major fail on basic math.
1 million of your working age number are in school, in college, or living with their parents, so exclude them and you are dealing with a 2.2 million working population, some of whom need help. Most of that 2.2 million have a livable wage, as in working and earning more than 15/hour, in many cases much more. I donât know what percentage of workers are on minimum wage in Ireland but in the US it is less than 5%. Nobody sensible is suggesting giving 1000 a month to Jeff Bezos or the richest in Ireland who donât need it. Universal Basic Income by itâs very definition is targeted towards those on low income, not the broad population, most of whom donât need it.
How the fuck can a universal basic income redistribute wealth to the rich? Even by your standards this is nonsensical. It is way to provide a living wage to low income workers, nothing more, nothing less. The fact you would argue against it demonstrates you have no regard for working people, your interest is in ideology that has been proven over and over to fail.
@sidney has hit the nail on the head here. Itâs a preposterous idea that would actually mince the economy. By itâs definition itâs not means tested so would have to be paid to people who donât need it, would drive inflation bananas and who the fuck would do a menial low paid job if they got paid this for free. Sidney has schooled the yank again.
Arenât you the fella who sells half his cows for next to nothing and gives the other half away for free? Iâd imagine economics arenât your strong point.
3 Likes
Sure you meet all sorts on TFK. Thereâs lads who go for gay swims at midnight and fill vending machines in schools at noon.
1 Like
As I understand it you only give it to people who are earning below a certain figure to top them up to a certain figure. People already earning the living income donât get the top up. It would obviously have to be means tested which would be a complicated process. âBy definition itâs not means testedâ, WTF are you talking about, as if youâve a fucking notion.
It would result in significant inflation, I donât know if itâs a good idea or not, but youâre talking complete shite.
1 Like
Your first problem is you donât understand what the word âuniversalâ means
Thatâs where all the other problems with your post stem from
What youâre talking about there isnât âuniversal basic incomeâ
