You not a fan of universal basic income buddy? While Iâm not sold on it it should be looked at. The current welfare system is far from perfect and not equipped to deal with the oncoming tsunami of lost jobs due to automation. We need to start looking at alternative models of welfare housing and taxation to try ensure the rich donât just keep getting richer and everyone else gets left behind fighting over the scraps.
1 Like
Universal Basic Income has no fixed meaning as it has not been implemented in any country yet, although there are several pilot programs and proposals. What I am proposing (and itâs not my idea, read Fair Shot by Chris Hughes) means there is a defined living wage that all working people should be guaranteed, if you are below that level the government brings you to that level. Universal in that context means every working person gets a living wage.
Youâre just strawmanning at this stage by defining the concept in black and white, stuck on the Yang proposal to give everyone 1K a month (a daft proposal as why would Jeff Bezos need help?, but at least it getâs the conversation going).
Those denying that UBI is necessary have their heads in the sand regarding whatâs coming on the road with automation, robotics and AI, there will be massive numbers on low income compared to today. The numbers of people working in low paying service jobs has increased substantially in the past few decades and will skyrocket when automation and AI replaces well higher paying jobs.
So now you say that Universal Basic Income has no fixed meaning
Thatâs despite the fact that the subject came up specifically because of what Yang is proposing, which does have a specific meaning, which you initially waded in on behalf of, and is a proposal which you now agree is nonsense
Thanks for that
Universal means a specific payment for everybody, so yes, that includes Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and LeBron James
If you maintain otherwise, that automatically means you believe we already have âUniversal Basic Incomeâ because we already have a social welfare system which ensures those without a job have a basic income
One of the arguments of those in favour of âuniversal basic incomeâ is that because it is a universal payment, it eliminates administration costs
If the payment is not actually universal, it doesnât eliminate administration costs, it has to be means tested
If the payment is universal, ie for everybody, itâs pissing billions of public money at those who donât need it and taking it away from where it needs to be
The nature of social welfare systems is that they arenât simple - money has to be targetted specifically if itâs to be used efficiently
My strong belief is that itâs a trojan horse for the gutting of public services in favour of privatisation of everything, as well as upward wealth redistribution
I donât believe everybody who advocates universal basic income has this aim but I believe many on the right who are in favour of it do
Correct, Universal Basic Income has no fixed meaning, there are dozens of proposals as to how it could be implemented and several ongoing pilot programs. I donât support Yangâs specific proposal but the value of his proposal is it brings UBI into the discussion and he is the only candidate proposing it.
Bringing up social welfare is very pertinent, as the dole is actually a disincentive to work and keeps people in poverty or near poverty. There are plenty low income jobs to be had, millions of them in the US, but people on welfare wonât take them because they donât pay a living wage and welfare pays as much or more. Itâs a failed system that has failed for decades. If people knew they would be guaranteed a living wage they would be more inclined to work. I truly believe most people want to work but there has to be an incentive to work.
Iâm not a fan of giving everyone a universal payment â just those that need it.
My guess is for most is that it would simply work as a tax credit. So not too different from now.
In terms of the overall welfare budget, it should see other things come way down.
Even as a fiscal conservative and someone wary of the behavioral implications of the welfare state, I am very much open to the idea of the UBI if the labour market keeps changing but clearly it is a huge decision. The trial Finnish results were not great obviously but not sure that your back of the envelope figures really get to the substance of what it is about.
In fairness Sidney, just over 100 years ago the Liberals in the UK introduced the OAP and caused a constitutional crisis through trying to tax the wealthy more. Within 35 years the full Welfare State came to be. Things change in the public finances all the time and can do quite quickly.
If you make the minimum wage currently (day roughly around 18k per annum if working full time), you pay less than 500 euro per annum in income tax and USC, with no PRSI paid.
The tax people pay is mostly through VAT and other consumption taxes.
We already have it to a degree through our progressive tax system. UBI could be a way to simplify a welfare system that has become quite unwieldy. Of course there are larger taxation and public policy implications apart of that.
the problem isnt tax â the problem, as you allude to, is inflation. ⌠a fat lot of good UBI is to you if inflation is rocketing the other way and all the advantages in society remain out of touch for a lot of people.
Like what?
a villa in Spain
Your maâs gee.
So you say people wonât take jobs because they donât pay enough
Yet youâve previously stated youâre against the minimum wage, never mind the living wage
You say that social welfare is a disincentive to work despite the fact that there is an incentive to work actually built into it
Then you admit that social welfare is not a disincentive to work, itâs actually poor wages that are the disincentive
Yet you say that a payment with no incentive to work built into it will incentivise work
This is comedy stuff
I would say that anybody with a brain recognises that inequality of wealth is one the key issues of our time
Universal basic income isnât the way to fix it, oh and it does have a meaning - universal means everybody
If not everybody is paid then itâs not universal, itâs called income supplementation which has to be means tested
If the income supplementation replaces the existing social welfare payments and is set a level that is too low to provide even a modest existence, then that is a recipe for increased absolute poverty, itâs just another way of screwing the poor
You truly have a difficult time understanding basic concepts. Iâve never said Iâm against the minimum wage, Iâm against doubling the minimum wage which will have the impact of destroying small businesses and reducing the number of jobs. At the end of the day we want more jobs, not less, and more people working, not less. Most Democratic nominees for president are advocating for a $15/hour minimum wage, itâs not that much of a surprise that most of them have never ran a business. How many restaurants do you think would still be in business if the minimum wage was hiked to $15/hour?
If you look at the labor participation rate in the US and long term unemployed, millions of people are declining to work, and live in near poverty as there is no difference between working a minimum wage job and welfare. The question is what would inventivize these people to work, one solution is to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, the alternative is for the government to supplement low income to $15/hour. The difference is you donât destroy the businesses that actually provide the jobs.
Itâs interesting that leftists have switched the narrative from income inequality to wealth inequality. Wealth inequality has always been with us and always will be, it is true there are more rich people today due to the tech explosion. What is your solution to wealth inequality?, surely addressing income inequality is a better goal? I have no issue with the rich and richest earners being asked to pay more taxes to fund UBI.
You also ignore the automation/robotics/AI question which will result in millions of good paying jobs being lost and more and more people working low wage jobs. Whatâs your solution to that?
Mars colonists or Psychonauts?
Space cadets
It isnât myself who has trouble understanding what the word âuniversalâ means.
Ireland has a minmium wage of the equivalent of 11 US dollars per hour.
We have almost full employment.
Automation has been with us for hundreds of years. Of course millions of jobs will be made obsolete. But plenty of new types of jobs will likely be created. Thereâs never been a time when that process wasnât happening.
Universal basic income depends on the idea that mass unemployment of the type never seen before will happen due to automation.
Nobody knows whether that will be the case, it may not be at all.
Whatever happened to your faith in the free market? Now youâre looking for government to literally subsidise a massive proportion of wages because you think Americans arenât capable of running businesses.
Taxes on the rich address wealth inequality. You say youâve no problem with them. Yet your posting history on this forum would disprove such a notion as youâve consistently said you support Republican economic policy. Cutting taxes on the rich has always been the central plank of that.
A few months ago you were shouting âvroom vroomâ about the US economy. Now itâs âmillions of people are declining to workâ because theyâre wouldnât be paid enough and youâre suggesting massive government subsidisation of wages.
Maybe since you decided you wanted to support Kamala Harris, the penny is finally dropping for you that Republican economic policy has always been a crock of shit?
Yes, the Irish economy is doing relatively very well. For the same reasons the US economy is doing relatively well, successive government policies that are pro business and business friendly, low corporate tax rates, investment in technology, etc. American multinationals are a huge part of that, providing about 200 thousand well paying jobs, along with the service industries and small businesses that support them and get an indirect benefit. All the things you are opposed to essentially.
Free market capitalism is what leads to wealth creation and prosperity, countries that are the most free in terns of economics are also the most prosperous and some of the best places to live, Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the UK, Switzerland, etc. The US was ranked 18th and has jumped to 12th in the past few years due to rolling back regulations and lower corporate taxes. The reality is the closer countries get to free market economies, the better the standard of living and opportunities for everyone.
UBI is one way for those on low income to share in the wealth, without onerous taxes on businesses. Itâs by no means the only answer but if implemented in a sensible fashion would be beneficial in reducing poverty. I havenât heard you suggest any alternatives.
Trump will cure cancer and aids in his second term.