Universal / Basic Income

DipsetGeneral said:
JaysRcrak said:
I myself don't think I would support basic income.
We already know that with ANYTHING there is a certain percentage of people that will take advantage of a situation.
This would be one of those where a large number of people would take advantage.
Free money that you don't have too do anything for?!!

Nah I'm not with this one.
Unless someone can shed some light on the benefits this could provide.
Click to expand...

Co-signing the bolded. It's just like welfare. People took advantage of it and didn't use it to get on their feet. People use welfare and aim to receive it as if it were a lifelong goal.
Click to expand...

This taken advantage is a stupid argument. If implemented, It's free money, given to you as a right. How do you take advantage? It may seem like people come at your neck but you gotta pause and think before you speak.
 
RustyShackleford said:
-I don't get what the first question is asking. If people will get the money, they will spend it
Click to expand...

Some people in here have been saying it's a bad idea cause people would take advantage of it, whatever that means. If it's truly universal, and everyone gets supplemental income, theres nothing to really take advantage of.

RustyShackleford said:
-Taxpayers pay for it. All this is an upfront subsidy, that will be tax away from most people at the end of the year. People in the lower tax brackets that pay less income tax will get to keep the money, since they pay lil to no income taxes. And there are many ways we can making our tax code more progressive to pay for it, but yes, tax may have to increase depending how how many people you want to cover.

-It don't get the inflation argument, especially the hyperinflation argument. One, inflation is really low in America, and has been so for a while, even now we struggle to jump start it enough for the Fed to feel comfortable raising rates. If this is just used to cover the poor and working poor, then we would be paying out not that much more that we already give these people in benefits. Not only that, inflation is pretty easy to kill in the economy if we wanted too, we already did it before in the early 1980s.

-Yes we can pay our Social Security obligations. We are just reaching a point that without more revenue, we won't be able to make full benefit payments, but we will still be able to cover it like over 70% for decades to comes.

The economics of something like this is solid.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand it will be taxpayers money but say 30% of the population gets $2k a month, we are talking about apx. $2.5 trillion annually, 1/3 of US tax revenue.

What it comes down to, and what I was basing my argument on is a truly universal basic income where "everyone" gets it. If we are talking about just giving it to the people who are already on assistance thats hardly universal and all this talk is just hyperbole for an overhaul of the welfare system. I don't think getting rid of all the assistance programs and just giving people cash is a very good idea and I really don't see that happening, politically.

Theres no telling just how bad the job market would have to get for something like this to be implemented and for how many people exactly. But a true UBI, emphasis on the U, is not possible financially without a) printing money, hence the inflation argument (which btw is only low due to the international demand for dollars, I believe the world would choose to move away from the $ as the default currency if given the opportunity.) or b) significantly raising taxes which would tend to negate the benefits and/or delve into socialism.
 
Last edited:
FrankMatthews said:
RustyShackleford said:
-I don't get what the first question is asking. If people will get the money, they will spend it
Click to expand...

Some people in here have been saying it's a bad idea cause people would take advantage of it, whatever that means. If it's truly universal, and everyone gets supplemental income, there is nothing to really take advantage of.

RustyShackleford said:
-Taxpayers pay for it. All this is an upfront subsidy, that will be tax away from most people at the end of the year. People in the lower tax brackets that pay less income tax will get to keep the money, since they pay lil to no income taxes. And there are many ways we can making our tax code more progressive to pay for it, but yes, tax may have to increase depending how how many people you want to cover.

-It don't get the inflation argument, especially the hyperinflation argument. One, inflation is really low in America, and has been so for a while, even now we struggle to jump start it enough for the Fed to feel comfortable raising rates. If this is just used to cover the poor and working poor, then we would be paying out not that much more that we already give these people in benefits. Not only that, inflation is pretty easy to kill in the economy if we wanted too, we already did it before in the early 1980s.

-Yes we can pay our Social Security obligations. We are just reaching a point that without more revenue, we won't be able to make full benefit payments, but we will still be able to cover it like over 70% for decades to comes.

The economics of something like this is solid.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand it will be taxpayers money but say 30% of the population gets $2k a month, we are talking about apx. $2.5 trillion annually, 1/3 of US tax revenue.

What it comes down to, and what I was basing my argument on is a truly universal basic income where "everyone" gets it. If we are talking about just giving it to the people who are already on assistance thats hardly universal and all this talk is just hyperbole for an overhaul of the welfare system. I don't think getting rid of all the assistance programs and just giving people cash is a very good idea and I really don't see that happening, politically.

Theres no telling just how bad the job market would have to get for something like this to be implemented and for how many people exactly. But a true UBI, emphasis on the U, is not possible financially without a) printing money, hence the inflation argument (which btw is only low due to the international demand for dollars, I believe the world would choose to move away from the $ as the default currency if given the opportunity.) or b) significantly raising taxes which would tend to negate the benefits and/or delve into socialism.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response famb.

-Yes, I already conceded that taxes would have to be raised based on how you model the program, especially it your want this to be a major social security program.

-If everyone is eligible for it and gets the subsidy, then it is universal. No matter if taxes sweep it away for higher income folk. So yes, lower income folk will reap the most rewards. But if someone slides down the economic ladder for any reason, the payments are instantly there to help them more.

Using it has a replacement for the current welfare system would have many benefits, and that is why many free market loving capitalist like it. First, the would be less bureaucracy to sustain social programs, that allows the size of government to shrink. There will be economic efficiency gains because a lump sum subsidy will distort behavior less. The working poor can use their lump sum on what the need the most, whether it be food, housing, childcare, etc. You lose your job, welp no need to worry about applying for unemployment, get disabled, same thing. People, especially Lower income and minorities will have more economic leeway to educate themselves or explore entrepreneurial endeavors.

Yes, you lose the control to pursue other public policy goals (like sum reduction with housing, or nutrition with food), but an argument could be made that America wastes to much time and energy trying to discipline the poor. That it may be time to trust them more (our means tested program do show that most people do the right thing), and accept their will be free riders (because there will be, there is with nearly all government programs though)

I see nothing hyperbolic in considering there might be a better way to structure our social safety net. Not only that, there are many alternative suggestions that have come out of discussing such a thing, like the EIC. (And if you use it as a strictly welfare system replacement, we can still use means testing.)

-First: Inflation has been low for a minute:
View media item 2275721
-Second especially low oil prices leading to low inflation for goods, a strong dollar, a weak global economy, and slower healthcare inflation dragging down services is what is causing Inflation to be low currently:

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ults-more-cheap-oil-and-strong-dollar-lowdown

INFLATION has lingered beneath the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for nearly as long as the goal, set in January 2012, has existed. Lately, the misses have been whopping. Data released on September 28th showed that prices have risen by only 0.3% over the past year, according to the Fed’s preferred measure. Conventional wisdom says this shortfall has been caused by one-off factors; chiefly, tumbling oil and commodities prices. For months, the Fed has said that prices will pep up once these effects dissipate. Could it be wrong?

Conventional wisdom is right, up to a point. Core inflation, which excludes fuel and food prices, is a healthier 1.3%. Yet this is still too low. In a speech on September 24th Janet Yellen, the Fed’s chairman, said a strong dollar—another one-off factor—was partly to blame. The greenback is 15% cheaper than a year ago on a trade-weighted basis. This has made imports cheaper and kept costs down for firms that rely on imported parts. If Ms Yellen is right, and if the dollar does not rise further, core inflation should rebound in 2016, with the headline rate not far behind.

Yet not everyone is convinced. A strong dollar should drive the price of goods more than that of services. Clothes can be imported, but haircuts cannot. Excluding food and fuel, services inflation is 2.6%, whereas goods are getting cheaper. But this decoupling is hardly recent; services account for most core inflation since the turn of the millennium (see chart). Today, it is core-service inflation, not core-goods inflation, which has fallen furthest from its long run trend, according to David Mericle and Chris Mischaikow of Goldman Sachs. That suggests the dollar is not a pivotal factor.

What, then, has caused service inflation to slow? In theory, cheap fuel could bring down prices in some service industries by reducing costs. But with the exception of transportation, the relationship between an industry’s use of fuel and recent price moderation looks sketchy (see chart).


Instead, some of the factors in play are sector-specific. A sharp slowdown in health-care inflation has knocked about 0.4 percentage points off core inflation, reckon Messrs Mericle and Mischaikow, more than in any other industry. This is partly because of legislation: Obamacare reduced some payments to hospitals under Medicaid, a health-care programme for the poor. Demography could be chipping in, too. A greying population means more Americans are eligible for Medicare, government provided health care for the over-65s. Because Medicare pays hospitals less than private insurance, that pushes overall costs down.

The best across-the-board explanation for low core inflation, though, is slow growth in wages, which are the most important cost in many service industries. Both wage growth and service inflation reached highs exceeding 3.5% before the crisis; today, both are closer to 2.5%.

That helps to justify the Fed’s keen eye on the labour market. The unemployment rate, which was due to be updated after The Economist went to press, has been steadily falling. But how long it will be before this translates into higher wages is something of a mystery. Low inflation was a problem before the oil price and dollar acted up. It may still be a problem when they calm down.
Click to expand...

-American is a mixed economy, so called "socialist" programs help sustain our economy, not only on the production side but having a strong social safety net helps encourage economic activity and activities that will strengthen our economy. We as a country need to stop with the socialism fear mongering.
 
Last edited:
jjs136 said:
I'm in on this idea.

Rusty making some great points too
Click to expand...

View media item 842497
--------

General statement:

Although UBI has support from a wide range of people, it is still a highly complex issue, that needs to be considered and debated thoroughly.

However, as a society I think that we should at least be having healthy discussion about it, and how we help American workers/citizens.

There is plenty America can do before we go full blown social security for everyone. But like health care and education, I think it is time America start the march (even if it is slow one) towards these more socially democratic programs.
 
Last edited:
RustyShackleford said:
Thanks for the response famb.

-Yes, I already conceded that taxes would have to be raised based on how you model the program, especially it your want this to be a major social security program.

-If everyone is eligible for it and gets the subsidy, then it is universal. No matter if taxes sweep it away for higher income folk. So yes, lower income folk will reap the most rewards. But if someone slides down the economic ladder for any reason, the payments are instantly there to help them more.

Using it has a replacement for the current welfare system would have many benefits, and that is why many free market loving capitalist like it. First, the would be less bureaucracy to sustain social programs, that allows the size of government to shrink. There will be economic efficiency gains because a lump sum subsidy will distort behavior less. The working poor can use their lump sum on what the need the most, whether it be food, housing, childcare, etc. You lose your job, welp no need to worry about applying for unemployment, get disabled, same thing. People, especially Lower income and minorities will have more economic leeway to educate themselves or explore entrepreneurial endeavors.

Yes, you lose the control to pursue other public policy goals (like sum reduction with housing, or nutrition with food), but an argument could be made that America wastes to much time and energy trying to discipline the poor. That it may be time to trust them more (our means tested program do show that most people do the right thing), and accept their will be free riders (because there will be, there is with nearly all government programs though)

I see nothing hyperbolic in considering there might be a better way to structure our social safety net. Not only that, there are many alternative suggestions that have come out of discussing such a thing, like the EIC. (And if you use it as a strictly welfare system replacement, we can still use means testing.)

-First: Inflation has been low for a minute:
View media item 2275721
-Second especially low oil prices leading to low inflation for goods, a strong dollar, a weak global economy, and slower healthcare inflation dragging down services is what is causing Inflation to be low currently:

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ults-more-cheap-oil-and-strong-dollar-lowdown

INFLATION has lingered beneath the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for nearly as long as the goal, set in January 2012, has existed. Lately, the misses have been whopping. Data released on September 28th showed that prices have risen by only 0.3% over the past year, according to the Fed’s preferred measure. Conventional wisdom says this shortfall has been caused by one-off factors; chiefly, tumbling oil and commodities prices. For months, the Fed has said that prices will pep up once these effects dissipate. Could it be wrong?

Conventional wisdom is right, up to a point. Core inflation, which excludes fuel and food prices, is a healthier 1.3%. Yet this is still too low. In a speech on September 24th Janet Yellen, the Fed’s chairman, said a strong dollar—another one-off factor—was partly to blame. The greenback is 15% cheaper than a year ago on a trade-weighted basis. This has made imports cheaper and kept costs down for firms that rely on imported parts. If Ms Yellen is right, and if the dollar does not rise further, core inflation should rebound in 2016, with the headline rate not far behind.

Yet not everyone is convinced. A strong dollar should drive the price of goods more than that of services. Clothes can be imported, but haircuts cannot. Excluding food and fuel, services inflation is 2.6%, whereas goods are getting cheaper. But this decoupling is hardly recent; services account for most core inflation since the turn of the millennium (see chart). Today, it is core-service inflation, not core-goods inflation, which has fallen furthest from its long run trend, according to David Mericle and Chris Mischaikow of Goldman Sachs. That suggests the dollar is not a pivotal factor.

What, then, has caused service inflation to slow? In theory, cheap fuel could bring down prices in some service industries by reducing costs. But with the exception of transportation, the relationship between an industry’s use of fuel and recent price moderation looks sketchy (see chart).


Instead, some of the factors in play are sector-specific. A sharp slowdown in health-care inflation has knocked about 0.4 percentage points off core inflation, reckon Messrs Mericle and Mischaikow, more than in any other industry. This is partly because of legislation: Obamacare reduced some payments to hospitals under Medicaid, a health-care programme for the poor. Demography could be chipping in, too. A greying population means more Americans are eligible for Medicare, government provided health care for the over-65s. Because Medicare pays hospitals less than private insurance, that pushes overall costs down.

The best across-the-board explanation for low core inflation, though, is slow growth in wages, which are the most important cost in many service industries. Both wage growth and service inflation reached highs exceeding 3.5% before the crisis; today, both are closer to 2.5%.

That helps to justify the Fed’s keen eye on the labour market. The unemployment rate, which was due to be updated after The Economist went to press, has been steadily falling. But how long it will be before this translates into higher wages is something of a mystery. Low inflation was a problem before the oil price and dollar acted up. It may still be a problem when they calm down.
Click to expand...

-American is a mixed economy, so called "socialist" programs help sustain our economy, not only on the production side but having a strong social safety net helps encourage economic activity and activities that will strengthen our economy. We as a country need to stop with the socialism fear mongering.
Click to expand...

I think the discrepancy here is how you envision a UBI vs. how it is generally spoken about and what the name implies. Specifically, "If everyone is eligible for it and gets the subsidy, then it is universal. No matter if taxes sweep it away for higher income folk." I would argue that making everyone "eligible" for it then sweeping away the benefits for the vast majority of people doesn't make it universal. If your income is going to disqualify the majority then I don't think it is truly universal. I get that it is no more than a discussion at this point and there is no specific policy or guidelines to debate but most of what I have read regarding a UBI seems to be purposefully vague. Seems Switzerland even put this to a vote using the same vague language. In the OP article and other similar articles you have terms like "all citizens", "every american", "the vast majority of americans", "working or not" and "universal" which imply that this something everyone will be benefiting from. What you are talking about is something a very small portion of people will actually end up seeing any benefit from. At least a much smaller portion than "everyone". Mainly, people that are already seeing benefit from the existing social programs. Which is why I say it's hyperbole to refer to it as UBI with that type of language when all it really is, is welfare reform, not that there is anything wrong with that. In the OP article you have statements talking about accountants having more time to paint and lawyers having more time to play the drums and a general idealism surrounding the concept of a UBI which allows people more time to do the things they love. It seems disingenuous to me if in reality these peoples incomes are going to disqualify them from seeing any type of substantial benefit from a program which declares them eligible on Jan. 1st and essentially ineligible by Dec. 31st.

Having said all that, you made some very solid points regarding the reformation of social programs by way of a Basic Income structure for those who qualify. I have no issue with that at all, all I am saying is lets be honest about the conversation we are having and not make it seem like the majority of americans will be getting free money out of this. Personally I'm probably a little more left leaning so i can tolerate a little socialism if it's done responsibly and genuinely. I think a program similar to what you are describing which overwhelmingly benefits the lower income population is gonna be a tough sell politically when you are essentially drawing higher taxes from the rich to hand out cash to the poor.

Ultimately, the only reason UBI is being discussed is because of doomsday predictions regarding the future job market and sustaining an obsolete workforce. Like I said, theres no way to really know how vast this UBI thing would have to be to solve that problem but assuming it's as bad as they predict you are going to be looking at a much larger portion of the population that is going to need taking care of. When working full time is no longer an option and this so-called leisure time is purely un/underemployment. At that point you will be talking about taxing the super rich and corporations to supply basic necessities to the lower class and most of what is now the middle class. In that scenario the only reason the upper class would agree to such a redistribution of "wealth" is that it would be the only thing preventing our consumerist, debt-based economy from collapsing. Thats a little more socialism than I think I am willing to swallow. It's not even really socialism at that point, it's serfdom. Where is the upward mobility in that scenario? It's an insurmountable wealth gap. It's being floated as a way for lower income folks to get on their feet, get out from under the timeclock and have some freedom to innovate or develop entrepreneurship. But at a point when there are no jobs, high-technology, specialized/intensive education and lack of access to the means of production are serious barriers to entry for your average person drawing subsidy from the govt to pay for basic necessities. Without investing in education and creating a more advanced labor force, one that has more to offer than manual labor, seems like we're just creating a bunch or walking liabilities.


I don't want to get too sidetracked on the inflation discussion as it appears your version of the UBI is much more financially feasible or smaller in scope than the name would imply and wouldn't necessarily require "printing money". But I will say there is a difference between price inflation and currency inflation. The money supply is already magnitudes greater than what is required for the US economy to operate due to geopolitics and a global economic system that is (forcibly?) married to the $. The world is hamstrung by the default currency for global trade settlement and oil transactions. Currency inflation is a ticking time bomb, regardless of any doomsday job market scenario necessitating a social safety net larger than we can tax up.
 
Last edited:
the easiest way to think about a universal basic income is a consolidation/simplification of social programs like social security, unemployment, welfare, and the like...every person would receive the same amount, there'd be no need for readjustments if one loses employment or gets a raise in income; it may not be quite the solution it is proposed to be but it is worth exploring for a world where the pace of 'disruption' & 'innovation' maybe faster than people can adjust...
 
tokes99 said:
the easiest way to think about a universal basic income is a consolidation/simplification of social programs like social security, unemployment, welfare, and the like...every person would receive the same amount, there'd be no need for readjustments if one loses employment or gets a raise in income; it may not be quite the solution it is proposed to be but it is worth exploring for a world where the pace of 'disruption' & 'innovation' maybe faster than people can adjust...
Click to expand...

Yes I understand all that my arguments are 1) everyone is NOT "getting" the same amount if most people are gonna have to pay it all back through income tax. 2) depending on the pace of job disruption we will have a much smaller tax base and a much much more extensive and costly program than if it were implemented tomorrow. 3) whats the exit plan. Its not as if these blue collar and some white collar jobs are gonna come back and its not as if all these people are gonna be ready, willing or able to obtain STEM degrees. 4) none of these key points are being talked about in articles like the one in the OP. Are we doing this so accountants can paint and lawyers learn musical instruments or are we doing it because a vast amount of people wont be able to afford basic necessities? Its misleading.

Sinking trillions annually into reactive programs with no exit plan and doing nothing to address the root of the problem, namely the fact that american workers are becoming obsolete doesn't really seem like the answer to me. Seems like more of the rich get richer, poor get poorer, irreversibly.
 
tokes99 said:
the easiest way to think about a universal basic income is a consolidation/simplification of social programs like social security, unemployment, welfare, and the like...every person would receive the same amount, there'd be no need for readjustments if one loses employment or gets a raise in income; it may not be quite the solution it is proposed to be but it is worth exploring for a world where the pace of 'disruption' & 'innovation' maybe faster than people can adjust...
Click to expand...

Welfare rebranded as UBI
 
FrankMatthews said:
Yes I understand all that my arguments are 1) everyone is NOT "getting" the same amount if most people are gonna have to pay it all back through income tax. 2) depending on the pace of job disruption we will have a much smaller tax base and a much much more extensive and costly program than if it were implemented tomorrow. 3) whats the exit plan. Its not as if these blue collar and some white collar jobs are gonna come back and its not as if all these people are gonna be ready, willing or able to obtain STEM degrees. 4) none of these key points are being talked about in articles like the one in the OP. Are we doing this so accountants can paint and lawyers learn musical instruments or are we doing it because a vast amount of people wont be able to afford basic necessities? Its misleading.

Sinking trillions annually into reactive programs with no exit plan and doing nothing to address the root of the problem, namely the fact that american workers are becoming obsolete doesn't really seem like the answer to me. Seems like more of the rich get richer, poor get poorer, irreversibly.
Click to expand...

some people might decide that their basic income is enough that the opt out of work entirely, who knows? part of the rationale is that the increased efficiency will decrease costs and some people will be finding other ways of creating value because they won't have to be vexed about covering their basic needs, not sure there needs to be an 'exit plan' or what that means really, but i wouldn't imagine that it would just be perfect out the gate and as for taxation nullifying or reducing the benefit, that already happens now, no?

...as it is the rich/poor are already getting richer/poorer, so this concept is one part of how people are thinking about how to better help more people be able to transition easier to opportunities in whatever the 'new economy' becomes by simplifying these social programs, i would hope that UBI isn't seen as the be all, things like better/more equitable educational system, universal healthcare, and maybe some smart incentive based things to encourage positive investments/outcomes...

TeamJordan79 said:
Welfare rebranded as UBI
Click to expand...

i mean that is what it is, but people get so heated about welfare, even when it would benefit them, it has to be rebranded
 
I used to be open to the idea...and still am on an experimental, local level, but....

imagine how stupid a segment of the population is. Next, realize that a larger segment is even stupider than that. So this is basically subsidizing mediocrity and incentivizing people to breed (since more family members = more UBI). The ways in which such a scheme could be gamed is terrifying actually. :nerd:
 
It would be nice to give everyone 24k a year, but what are the actual numbers behind this?

How much would it cost? Which welfare programs are we cutting out and how much will that offset the cost? How much more will we get taxed to cover it?
 
DipsetGeneral said:
Co-signing the bolded. It's just like welfare. People took advantage of it and didn't use it to get on their feet. People use welfare and aim to receive it as if it were a lifelong goal.
Click to expand...


Mark Antony said:
This taken advantage is a stupid argument. If implemented, It's free money, given to you as a right. How do you take advantage? It may seem like people come at your neck but you gotta pause and think before you speak.
Click to expand...

I do think before i type and also i just said why people take advantage of welfare. It was in the post you quoted. Many people NOT ALL, use Welfare as "free money". That's not what welfare is for, now is it? Welfare is used as assistance to help low income families with financial help UNTIL they can find a better paying job or a consistent source of decent income. MANY people use it just as "free money" and dont better themselves, at all. That is taking advantage of the system. That's just my opinion, my dude.

How do you feel about Welfare?
 
I already posted my thoughts on that. But the few that take advantage have exactly what to do with you?
 
Basic programming needs to be tought at a younger age more than ever
 
DipsetGeneral said:
Co-signing the bolded. It's just like welfare. People took advantage of it and didn't use it to get on their feet. People use welfare and aim to receive it as if it were a lifelong goal.
Click to expand...


Mark Antony said:
This taken advantage is a stupid argument. If implemented, It's free money, given to you as a right. How do you take advantage? It may seem like people come at your neck but you gotta pause and think before you speak.
Click to expand...

I do think before i type and also i just said why people take advantage of welfare. It was in the post you quoted. Many people NOT ALL, use Welfare as "free money". That's not what welfare is for, now is it? Welfare is used as assistance to help low income families with financial help UNTIL they can find a better paying job or a consistent source of decent income. MANY people use it just as "free money" and dont better themselves, at all. That is taking advantage of the system. That's just my opinion, my dude.

How do you feel about Welfare?[/quote]


Mark Antony said:
I already posted my thoughts on that. But the few that take advantage have exactly what to do with you?
Click to expand...

Welfare personally, has nothing to do with me. I dont think my parents have ever been on welfare.
 
The universal basic income  —  a cash payment made to every individual in the country  —  has been critiqued recently by some commentators. Among other things, these writers dislike the fact that a UBI would deliver individuals income in a way that is divorced from working. Such an income arrangement would, it is argued, lead to meaninglessness, social dysfunction, and resentment.

One obvious problem with this analysis is that passive income  —  income divorced from work  —  already exists. It is called capital income. It flows out to various individuals in society in the form of interest, rents, and dividends. According to Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (PSZ), around 30 percent of all the income produced in the nation is paid out as capital income.


If passive income is so destructive, then you would think that centuries of dedicating one-third of national income to it would have burned society to the ground by now.

Tithing to the 1 Percent

In 2015, according to PSZ, the richest 1 percent of people in America received 20.2 percent of all the income in the nation. Ten points of that 20.2 percent came from equity income, net interest, housing rents, and the capital component of mixed income. Which is to say, 10 percent of all national income is paid out to the 1 percent as capital income. Let me reiterate: one in ten dollars of income produced in this country is paid out to the richest 1 percent without them having to work for it.

Even if you exclude the capital component of mixed income (since it is connected to work even if the income is not from labor) and housing rents (since these are imputed to homeowners rather than paid to them as cash), that still means that, from equity income and interest alone, the top 1 percent receives 7.5 percent of the national income without having to work for it. Put another way: the average person in the top 1 percent receives a UBI equal to 7.5 times the average income in the country.

If passive income is so destructive, then the income situation of the 1 percent surely is a national emergency! Where does the 1 percent get its meaning with all of that free cash flowing in?

Capital Income for All

The fact is that capitalist societies already dedicate a large portion of their economic outputs to paying out money to people who have not worked for it. The UBI does not invent passive income. It merely doles it out evenly to everyone in society, rather than in very concentrated amounts to the richest people in society.

The idea of capturing the 30 percent of national income that flows passively to capital every year and handing it out to everyone in society in equal chunks has been around since at least Oskar Lange wrote about it in the early parts of the last century. This is, to me, the best way to do a UBI, both practically and ideologically. Don’t tax labor to give money out to UBI “loafers.” Instead, snag society’s capital income, which is already paid out to people without regard to whether they work, and pay it out to everyone.

This might seem like a fantastical idea to some, but this is exactly how the Alaska Permanent Fund and the Permanent Fund Dividend works. Through the Permanent Fund, the state of Alaska owns a lot of capital assets. Those assets deliver annual capital income flows to the state, which are then parceled out in equal amounts to the citizens of Alaska through the Permanent Fund Dividend.

A national UBI would work very similarly. The US federal government would employ various strategies (mandatory share issuances, wealth taxes, counter-cyclical asset purchases, etc.) to build up a big wealth fund that owns capital assets. Those capital assets would deliver returns. And then the returns would be parceled out as a social dividend.

If you have a problem with this, but not the current arrangement where capital income is paid out in huge sums to small fractions of our society, then your issue is not really with passive income. It can’t be.
Click to expand...

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/...income-piketty-passive-income-capital-income/
 
This would do a good job of weeding out people who are rotting at jobs aka selling their souls just to get earn a livable wage, even lousy doctors and such. Automation would also alleviate the situation by getting rid of jobs no one wants to do in the first place. I know personally I would explore careers I'm actually passionate about as opposed to doing something for fast money to pay off college debt and save up for a home in order to be financially stable. The quality of life factor is underrated in my opinion.

Financial stress, low quality of life, etc = huge contributors to substance abuse, violence, mental health.
 

On Monday, Musk doubled down on his initial support for the concept.

"I think we'll end up doing universal basic income," Musk told the crowd  at the World Government Summit in Dubai, according to Fast Company. "It's going to be necessary."

The economic forecasts for the next several decades don't bode well for the American worker. In March, President Barack Obama warned Congress  about the looming threat of job loss, based on several reports  that found that as much as 50% of jobs  could be replaced by robots by 2030.

The downside of that projection is that millions of people would wind up out of a job — a possibility Musk discussed at the summit.

"There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better," he said. "I want to be clear. These are not things I wish will happen; these are things I think probably will happen."

Executives who have endorsed UBI — a group that includes  Y Combinator President Sam Altman and Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes — also say automation would dramatically increase a society's wealth.

"With automation, there will come abundance," Musk said. "Almost everything will get very cheap."

That money theoretically could be redistributed to give people financial security even if they didn't work. UBI advocates often point to reduced costs as a reason the system could be cheaper to implement than most might assume.

"Because a very small amount of people have an almost unimaginable amount of money at the very top, a basic income could actually decrease almost everyone else's income tax burdens except for theirs," Scott Santens, a UBI advocate, wrote for The Huffington Post.

Musk retains some skepticism about the effects of UBI. He has voiced concerns about what would happen to people's sense of purpose if they had less of a need — or no need — to work.

"If there's no need for your labor, what's your meaning?" Musk said. "Do you feel useless? That's a much harder problem to deal with."

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom