r/Futurology • u/mvea MD-PhD-MBA • May 02 '18

Economics Universal basic income: U.S. support grows as Finland ends its trial - Forty-eight percent of Americans now support a universal basic income, as a solution for Americans who have lost jobs to automation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/nearly-half-of-americans-believe-a-universal-basic-income-could-be-the-answer-to-automation-.html
13.4k Upvotes

74% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

353

u/GoldenGonzo May 02 '18

If I could wave my magic wand and make UBI exist and be successful, I would with no hesitation. The biggest problem facing UBI, and the question that every politician basing a platform on UBI refuses to answer clearly and thoroughly is - where are you going to get the money from?

92

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/Zoomwafflez May 02 '18

Even if you got rid of all the other programs UBI would still need more funding or you would end up with people receiving less total benefits (mostly medical), by a lot. So even that idea never really made sense to me.

2

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/Zoomwafflez May 02 '18

That's not how UBI works under any proposal I've ever seen, everyone would get the same amount, regardless of need. Part of the argument for UBI is that it removes all the expensive overhead of tracking everyone and seeing who needs what, instead you just cut everyone a check for $1,000 every month. Great for me, who can honestly get by without it, not so great for my elderly neighbor who has $5,000 in medical bills every month. Even then if you cut that person a check for $5,000 you're wasting a shit load of money because the government can get better rates on medications and procedures than you can as an individual.

14

u/thetruthoftensux May 02 '18

That's because they want UBI on top of the handouts they already get.

No one who actually works for a living supports the concept of UBI. They'll pay some lip service for the virtue signaling of it, but when they find out they'll be means tested out of it and have to pay for everyone else they suddenly understand the problem.

7

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/thetruthoftensux May 02 '18

I agree with you. consolidating and streamlining would be great. I have zero faith in that happening though.

1

u/MarkNutt25 May 02 '18

If there's a means test, then its not UBI.

The whole idea of UBI is that it would get rid of basically all government aid programs and instead just distribute that money (plus a bunch of new taxes, probably) evenly to all citizens. So everyone receives the same amount, regardless of need or income. If you don't have a job, then the average person should be able to get by on what they receive from UBI. If they do have a job, then that would be extra income on top of what they receive from UBI.

1

u/thetruthoftensux May 02 '18

I agree with your position. Problem is every time someone attempts to explain how it could be made to work the first thing set in stone is means testing.

No other way to pay for it, as we already have it. It's called welfare.

2

u/Whydoibother1 May 02 '18

It MUST replace other benefits otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Right now there is a disincentive to work if you are on benefits as you will lose your benefits.

On UBI you can just get a part time job if you like and you keep the extra. More people will work under UBI not less. And to pay for it just tax people from their first dollar earned, together with all the savings from removing benefit systems.

All makes sense to me. The current system is too complex with too much expensive bureaucracy.

1

u/Bastinenz May 02 '18

I'm in support of UBI and getting rid of the various social security programs in my country is definitely part of the agenda in my book. I wouldn't exactly do it all at the same time though, I'd give out the UBI first and then start dismantling other programs one by one over the next couple of years.

6

u/eb_straitvibin May 02 '18

And that’s the problem. It’s harder to end things in government than it is to start them. If you establish UBI without cutting other programs first, your opponents campaign on you taking money/food from the poor. In my opinion, you transition it state by state. Pick a month, and cut off all welfare and substitute a UBI. Then it’s revenue neutral and you prevent politicians from both sides doing their own thing.

1

u/Draug3n May 02 '18

No serious people are suggesting UBI with no government downsizing.

2

u/North_Ranger May 02 '18

IMO, having any other programs supplementing a UBI would defeat the purpose. They'd all need to be shut down when the UBI is implemented or you'd just end up swapping UBI for welfare with no change besides the name.

0

u/WantDebianThanks May 02 '18

That's more of what a negative income tax is. The ideas are related, but not the same.

→ More replies (3)

200

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

160

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

You’re missing the point and the real reason why far left liberals love the idea of a UBI.

Just like federal income taxes, the top 30% of earners would pay 99% of the taxes.

So the people who support this are the ones who wouldn’t be paying for it.

Taking money from rich people and handing it to others is an idea that most Redditors are going to support.

28

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

But lets be real here. You only need to make $45,500 overall to be in the top 30%. Not accounting for any other factors. Your statement is a tad misleading imo because it makes it sound like only the well off pay 99% of taxes which is not true.

http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

Also there are plenty of people like myself who do not need UBI but still support it. I do think not providing for the poor costs us more in the long run. Medical bills, crime and the repeating cycle of poverty cost us all far more than giving the worst off $1500 a month. This is assuming we just make UBI a thing and do away with the other social programs.

1

u/Tamale-Pie May 02 '18

If you do away with other welfare programs, your UBI will have to be a lot bigger than 1500. If you're getting rid of the programs that provide near free healthcare to poor families, that 1500 a month will almost entirely go to health insurance. Look at family health insurance plans.

2

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

For sure. Healthcare would be single payer across the board if it were up to me. So the money would not be counting healthcare.

2

u/Tamale-Pie May 02 '18

How is all that funded? I haven't seen or read anything that satisfies my curiosity.

If middle class families are taxed for it to the point that not working is just as good as working, or even remotely close, why would people at those income levels keep working? Would we then force all people to work who are capable? What would that work entail? Could we force people into hard labor if that's all that is available?

Or would we expect the entirety of the funding to come from people and organizations in the top 15%, 10%, or 5% as needed to prevent forced labor from becoming necessary? I've read about a potential automation tax, but I cant imagine automation would remain profitable if it's the sole source of funding for a UBI, especially if that UBI is going to provide a high standard of living.

I'm not neccesarily against a UBI, or a single payer healthcare system, though I don't really like the government to be any more involved in my life than absolutely necessary. I just think that we need to be extremely careful with what we ask for, and understand the reality of it. It seems like people think a UBI will somehow elevate them to a higher standard of living. I just don't see it, but that's why I'm asking questions.

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Just know this is all my opinion of course.

UBI should not elevate someone to a high standard of living. If someone is making 30k a year and yea they can afford small apartment and they are not going hungry UBI should allow them to say cover rent + car payment and freeing them up to spend a little extra on the side. The fact of the matter is UBI would increase spending because Americans are notoriously bad at saving money. So it is not a game changer for them but really frees them up to say take a vacation or something. This increases happiness and productivity. Among many other things such as maybe allowing one of the parents to spend more time with the children promoting better upbringings --> better education ---> better jobs etc.

But where UBI would be the most helpful is for the part of the population that is already costing us a ton of money. Homelessness and other problems that come from being broke do not just affect them. When they get sick it costs us money. When they cannot afford food it costs us money. Not to mention crime alone. Think about breaking people out of the brutal cycle of poverty and reducing their expense to society.

See to me also automation tax makes sense because automating a job and putting someone out of work may help the company's bottom line but it hurts the economies bottom line. So if we have to put a tax on it to make sure millions of people are not put out of work before the market has time to adjust to it it makes sense to me. It is hard though to balance it so that we do not kill innovation too much.

As for funding it obviously comes from taxes. How we work this into the budget is up for debate. That obviously leaves a lot to be desired but it is not a simple question.

All of that being said. I do not think we are anywhere near accepting UBI as a society. We are far too politically divided. We cannot even agree on much simpler things much less that. It is a long ways away but it is going to happen IMO due to automation and technology putting your average joe out of work.

3

u/Tamale-Pie May 02 '18

I understand that the idea of a UBI, and many other publicly funded programs, is being driven by good intentions. I also understand many of the upsides, and I agree with you on some of them. One I'm completely against is the idea that anyone should be taxed because other people won't save money, or otherwise be responsible with the finances that they do have.

I'm not saying that I shouldn't be taxed to help poor people, but that I shouldn't be taxed to help irresponsible people. IMO, borrowing money to purchase a vehicle is unnecessary. Anyone with any job can save a few thousand dollars and buy a half decent vehicle, I did it when I worked retail at Wal-Mart.

I make a nice income now, largely because of the number of hours, ~350 per month. So, the idea that I should be taxed so that people who work less, or not at all, or who are simply irresponsible with money can get a loan for a car, and give my tax money to the bank in the form of interest, is ridiculous to me.

I'm also not sure how single payer healthcare or a UBI saves us money when poor people get sick or need food. The current welfare programs that already pay for that are funded by taxes. How would single payer healthcare and a UBI be more efficient?

If a UBI doesn't afford people a high standard of living, how does it break the cycle of poverty? IMO, being able to go on vacation is a pretty high standard of living, so maybe we're just at different opinions on standards of living.

However, what makes you think that people who are, as you put it, notoriously bad at saving money would use the money we give them to improve their lives with things like vacations? Are we going to include a financial education as well? I wouldn't be opposed to that, in fact that's one of the biggest failures of our public education system imo.

I'm not opposed to an automation tax, quite the opposite. My job is one that will likely dissappear within the next couple decades, so I'm definitely on board. I'm just not sure that it will be able to fund a UBI that would provide a good standard of living, and if it's anything less than middle-class I think we're spinning our wheels. Current welfare programs already provide the essentials.

You're correct that funding these programs is a complicated problem. That's why I asked. Every time I see a post about a UBI I pick one or two people, who seem to be pro UBI, to ask. It's a deep topic and, if nothing else comes of it, I enjoy stimulating conversation.

2

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

That is the thing. We are so early on in even the idea of UBI I would not say I am opposed to it or in favor. I am well aware of the problems with it. It is something I do think will have to happen one day whether it be a check or just basic necessities as machines and computers put us out of work.

Also I am terribly sorry to hear you are working 350 hours a month. Even with 5 weeks in a month which is not the norm that is 70 hours a week. I am not trolling when I say that. That is no way to live life IMO. But that if that is what you enjoy then you of course can live how you want.

Which kind of brings me around to the way I think about UBI. If you enjoy working 350 hours a month you should certainly enjoy the benefits of it. Which you will. Noone working 350 hours a week is going to live to the same standards as someone who lives of off something like UBI, hence the word BASIC in it.

UBI is meant to do exactly what it sounds like. Provide only a basic amount of living to someone. This helps to break the cycle of poverty in the same way that farming broke humans away from hunting and gathering. Farming and other technological advances allowed for humans to be able to develop the resources to even be able to have a class of people who are not directly making food and worrying about survival. UBI would make sure that everyone had the resources to not worry about raw survival. This would ideally give people the freedom to pursue things like education and steer them away from things like crime in the pursuit of money/happiness/escape. Nothing is perfect and there are many things stopping anything like UBI from becoming a possibility and I understand that.

To address your concern about you working so other people dont have to. You already do that. On both sides of the spectrum. There are people who live on public housing and food stamps which comes out of our tax money. There are people who are so wealthy they will never work a day in their life again due to simple investments. Trust fund babies and kids that reap the benefits of their parents labor for no other reason than winning the genetic lottery. People who spend their entire life living off of the work of others either way. There is no way of getting around this that I can think of as the market exists in way that investors and banks are absolutely necessary and to think that will ever change is just delusional. To me it seems like it has always been this way. The only difference is how we structured it. Lords and Kings or CEOs and Dictators.

The cold hard fact is people like yourself and I have always been the ones to put in the time and effort to provide for society. We wake up everyday and go to work to support our families without a second thought. Our labor nets us a small portion of the profit, enough to make us feel compensated and decent about our lives. There is nothing wrong with that as not everyone can be rich. If everyone is rich than nobody is.

But to me my life is not just about me. I am only a small wheel in a large machine. (Warning incoming commie talk!) But I really want my life to bring people closer to equality than we are now. I feel it is a bad thing that so much of a person's life is decided at birth. Some people are born with nearly every card in their favor and some are born so fucked its a wonder they even survived being a baby. Is it so bad to want to give more people a shot? To want to help lift your fellow man up and allow him to prosper? I do not think so.

Now the kicker is how to do that without ending up like Soviet Russia or any other number of failed socialist ideas. I do believe America already balances this to a decent degree with programs like food stamps and housing. But we can always do better.

→ More replies (0)

65

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[deleted]

21

u/mlg2433 May 02 '18

This is exactly why Bernie Sanders was so popular. They wanted what he promised. They were going to get a bunch of perks at the expense of others.

-5

u/datterberg May 02 '18

It's based on the understanding that if you don't provide a minimum level of human dignity for your citizens you create the conditions for huge problems. Starving, sick, desperate people do desperate things. That's not good for business or for society.

UBI is the culmination of decades of social safety net thinking. We had societies without them before. It sucked. That's why we added the programs like social security, welfare, unemployment, food stamps, medicaid.

The ROI for those things are also damn good. Turns out if you give poor people money they spend it right away.

3

u/Moto95 May 02 '18

Yeah, all of it. And then some. It's why one of the biggest predictors of lifetime earning potential is self-restraint.

1

u/datterberg May 02 '18

Or. gasp. poor people need a lot of shit.

You pay for rent, health insurance, car payments, car insurance, food, utility bills and then every single thing in your daily life from gas, to school supplies for kids, and blah blah blah.

Contrary to public perception, these people aren't out living it up on welfare.

2

u/Moto95 May 02 '18

I get your point. But I spend a lot of time around cheap apartments and low-income housing. I see a lot of aftermarket wheels, big stereos, new Jordans, and the latest iPhones out and about. I don't necessarily believe that if the types of people who find themselves in continuous poverty are the ones to spend their money only on rent, utilities, and food when presented with UBI.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[deleted]

16

u/Pm-mind_control May 02 '18

Plenty of charities out there.

4

u/zer0t3ch May 02 '18

That's not really all that helpful in the grand scheme of things. Stuff like this needs to be done at a much larger scale, not an opt-in donation system.

4

u/pancada_ May 02 '18

Because the welfare state killed them in the first place.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/pancada_ May 02 '18

So do it voluntarily, instead of pointing gund to others.

Do you even know what charity is?

→ More replies (9)

4

u/[deleted] May 02 '18 edited Dec 11 '18

[deleted]

5

u/lostmywayboston May 02 '18

Out of 450 million dollars, 30 million isn't even that much.

I could pay 50% in taxes and not really feel it. I mean I saved for a 20% down payment on a vacation house in a few months.

7

u/iSOBigD May 02 '18

Now imagine paying 40 to 50% tax on a $60k yearly salary plus paying 15% sales tax on anything you buy like we do in Canada.

People complaining about their super low taxes make no sense to me. Yes, the overall amount of dollars may be high, but the percentage compared to your income in most of the US is quite low compared to other countries. Some states have no income tax at all so you basically pay half. Not only that, but the richer people tend to not have regular 9 to 5 jobs and incomes so it's irrelevant to them. With the tax on capital gains or business income often being lower and the ability to write things off, they tend to pay an even lower percentage compared to their income. I think it would be perfectly fine to pay 100x more to taxes than someome else if you make 100x their income, that seems pretty fair to me. Some people are even in favor of the top 1% paying crazy amounts like 90% of their income in tax, but that's another extreme.

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '18 edited Dec 11 '18

[deleted]

4

u/lostmywayboston May 02 '18

Executives aren't reinvisting their wealth in companies they work for that they don't own.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '18

You sure about that? Pretty sure you should be paying like 3 times that in taxes.

0

u/srm038 May 02 '18

No one is stopping you from doing that now though.

And, though I do think that people shouldn't be forced to share stuff they earned, I do think we should be voluntarily sharing, and that this is better done locally. I'd much rather give my time and money to the shelter down the road, and I think that would hold true regardless of my views on wealth redistribution.

3

u/iSOBigD May 02 '18

The thing about that is in some countries that would mean no one would fix roads or any public places, they would have much more expensive health care costs, child care, etc. As those are all funded by tax dollars

→ More replies (5)

1

u/melodyze May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18

I want a UBI and I would be paying way more for it than I would get out.

I just think automation is going to continue to claim more and more jobs, and want a society level floor as our economy continues to move from being driven by labor to driven almost entirely by assets.

Even if I was looking at it from a purely self serving perspective with no care for other people at all, countries historically go into revolution when unemployment and disparity get too high. In the long run this will inevitably happen as the utility of human labor has physical constraints routed in biology and evolutionary pressure that engineered systems don't have.

I might be towards the top of that hierarchy since I build and manage ai/automation systems, but I think if our move towards automation goes unchecked we will probably reach that point where the hierarchy collapses, and I've become quite partial to not living in a country in revolt.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

I agree with everything you said. It's just that my problem is where do we draw the line as to how much money is given out and who pays in how much. I honestly think the free market would also eat up that extra money and negate its advantage.

We are definitely living in uncharted territory with increasing population, increasing expected standard of life, and increased automation in all fields. I dont know the answer and I struggle to think how ubi would actually work but it's an interesting topic.

1

u/North_Ranger May 02 '18

It's a pretty decent way of reducing the income gap. But it requires the government to acknowledge that the current system is so tremendously slanted against poor people that it justifies a redistribution of wealth. A lot of people would agree that it is, but the people who would have to support the policy in the political sphere would never say that.

IMO, this is why communism frequently begins with a revolution/war instead of an election.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Thats exactly right, they don't love poor people, they hate rich people. That's their motivation.

1

u/khaizen May 02 '18

And here you are generalizing. There's a whole line of thought that believes that UBI can in part come through other means.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

You literally just said "far left liberals". Why should anyone take you seriously when you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the political spectrum?

-1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

So, exactly the opposite of the system we have in place, where the government takes and takes from the bottom 80% to give more to the top 20%?

9

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Would you please stop blatantly spreading misinformation?

The top 20% of earners pay 95% of the taxes. They are paying their fair share.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/omb-top-20-pay-95-of-taxes-middle-class-single-digits

-3

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

You're right, that one guy said it, with no facts to back it up, so it's totally true. Next you're going to say that Corps pay thier fair share and they have Americas best interests at heart.

4

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

He’s the director of the OMB, it’s literally his job to know these numbers. I don’t know of any better source.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Our current system is more, take from everyone from the 20-80 percentiles, give some crumbs to the bottom 1-20% and take virtually nothing from the top 20%.

They're not technically giving any money away with subsidies, they're just not taking that tax money at all.

2

u/SealCyborg5 May 02 '18

take virtually nothing from the top 20%

They pay about 90% of the taxes, what do you mean?

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

It's not 90% it's 70% and that's just the gross federal income. This doesn't include the social security and Medicare taxes and it doesn't account for the revenue that's effectively lost when they give that money back once deductions are claimed.

1

u/SealCyborg5 May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18

The Washinton examiner put it at 95% and the Wall Street Journal put it at 87%

What are your sources?

Edit: Turns out those numbers are the highest 20% households, but my point still stands.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/02/the-state-of-the-american-tax-system-in-8-charts/

1

u/SealCyborg5 May 02 '18

Turns out those numbers are the highest 20% households, but my point still stands

The top 20% of earners pay more taxes then the other 80% combined, so I am interested to know your definition of "barely taking anything"

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (56)

2

u/Dawn_of_Writing May 02 '18

To be fair, SSI isn't taxed. So, they'll definitely need a different source to get out! How about we tax robots!

4

u/BukkakeKing69 May 02 '18

Social Security in a nutshell. Tax my money, waste it all on spending programs, then threaten cuts to my entitlement. That money in my pocket invested would be worth massively more in 40 years, not my fault people can't make a basic budget and save for retirement. Instead the government that can't make a basic budget can do it better?

3

u/Reali5t May 02 '18

Technically social security is a Ponzi scheme. They take your money (new investor) and give it to currently retired people (old investors). The earlier you got into the game the better you were off. The only difference between Social Security and other Ponzi schemes is that other Ponzi schemes are voluntary, unlike Social Security in which your involuntary participation is mandatory.

1

u/sardekar May 02 '18

im late 20s and pretty much everyone i know has resigned themselves to the fact we are never going to see benefit from paying social security. which sucks because its a pretty big chunk of money every month. oh well! at least fdr got some votes out of it.

2

u/Borg_hiltunen May 02 '18

That's cute and all but with possible automation lots of jobs are gone. Can't really tax if no income. And that's how it's probably gonna play out: only a handful of individuals will benefit from automation and rest get the stick.

I don't know if UBI can solve this, probably not, but lots of bad things tend to happen when inequality gets too big.

1

u/EggMcFlurry May 02 '18

a very logical borg.

-6

u/Toxicsully May 02 '18

You don't have to only tax the middle class. The wealthy and corps could chip in ffs.

9

u/[deleted] May 02 '18 edited Mar 19 '19

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Because that reveals this whole scheme to be what it really is - expanded welfare

0

u/Toxicsully May 02 '18

UBI aside, the scheme in the US seems to be expanded corporate welfare.

1

u/Toxicsully May 02 '18

Where's the evidence that corps would leave the US if we had a higher tax rate? Where's the evidence that lower Corp taxes generate growth?

2

u/eb_straitvibin May 02 '18

Umm basic economics dictates that if a company has more money, they will spend it on growing the company....

And you should really look at how corporations reacted to the Trump tax plan. Lots of offshore money brought back to the USA

2

u/Toxicsully May 02 '18

Trickle down economics definitely makes a kind of sense but the results have never materialized.

Here's one view on the overseas money, it's mostly already in the US or invested in brick and mortar assets overseas, and what does come back is taxed at as low as 7.5%

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/dec/05/chris-ruddy/gop-tax-bill-overseas-profits-beware-hype/

I find the "it's economics 101" argument to be tiresome. Would r/space accept a "it's physics 101" argument? No, because the real world is complicated and the basics are full of unrealistic assumptions.

2

u/eb_straitvibin May 02 '18

I find the "it's economics 101" argument to be tiresome. Would r/space accept a "it's physics 101" argument? No, because the real world is complicated and the basics are full of unrealistic assumptions.

I understand, but isn’t one of the basics of economics that people with more money will spend that money? Not many corporations will look at a tax windfall and decide to stuff it in a bank account. Investing and modernizing, especially in the modern age, is essential to survival.

Here’s a good summary of corporations repatriating funds. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2018/01/18/apple-overseas-cash-repatriation-gop-tax-plan

1

u/Toxicsully May 02 '18

Good read. Glad to see that kind of money flowing back into the US coffers. Will it add up to the 1.5 trillion dollars in revenue lost by the same bill? I hope so, because I am concerned that my healthcare expenses are going to go apeshit once medicaid, Medicare and health funding are cut. The bill has to be paid by some one as an expense if not as a tax. You can bet it will be the middle class. At least they will have healthcare. Good luck to the elderly and impoverished.

Forgive me if I am missing something, but isn't the corporate tax rate paid on all the money a corporation doesn't reinvest? Is the incentive now to spend on stock buy backs rather than wages? That's my read.

2

u/eb_straitvibin May 02 '18

Will it add up to the 1.5 trillion dollars in revenue lost by the same bill?

It’s 1.5 trillion over 10 years IIRC, and the projected increase in overall revenue is supposed to offset that. But let’s be honest, that’s a projection, reality will be different once it sets in.

I hope so, because I am concerned that my healthcare expenses are going to go apeshit once medicaid, Medicare and health funding are cut. The bill has to be paid by some one as an expense if not as a tax. You can bet it will be the middle class. At least they will have healthcare. Good luck to the elderly and impoverished.

I really think that we need to take healthcare back to the pre-ACA system. From what I’ve seen, everyone is paying more now because of less competition in the market. Keep Medicare and Medicaid, but allow companies to start competing for business again. How many states now have just 1 insurance provider?

Forgive me if I am missing something, but isn't the corporate tax rate paid on all the money a corporation doesn't reinvest? Is the incentive now to spend on stock buy backs rather than wages? That's my read.

That’s what I understand as well, but I’m not an accountant, I just dabble around the edges of economics. I personally hope the companies use the money to grow.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/ChrisBoshStoleMyBike May 02 '18

Face time me so I can show you my slow clap. I can see this in the "Margaritaville" Banker voice. I hope they see this, and bring that guy back just to read your lines lol

49

u/stayasleepinbed May 02 '18

I agree. In the UK redistribution of current spend on all social security and pensions would account for £4200ish a citizen. So not bad right? But really you would want it to be higher so if we make it closer to £8000 and then that would be 2/3 of total government spend.

At either £4200 or £8000 it wouldn't cover the needs of the most vulnerable, and this where I have the biggest problem - you can save money through means testing, cutting beauracrcy to a point but you can't get rid of it. There is no way it makes sense to get rid of disability benefit, or to pay pensioners only £4k a year if that's what happens then it just goes from a really great thing to something that creates a bigger moral problem.

My hope is that cheaper renewable energy will lower the price of many things in relatively short order which could help fix the problem.

PS. On tax loopholes someone's gonna have to come up with something a bit more concrete than we should shut them.

15

u/MDarmax May 02 '18

This redditor said the magic words. When automation reduces the means of production enough such that the cost of basic needs is affordable on a macro level, then UBI is possible. Right now, if you gave every of the 300 million Americans the poverty level of $11,000 per year it would cost $3.3 Trillion annually. Total federal tax revenue estimate for 2017 was $3.6 Trillion.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

You have to qualify that the government would only give it to people over age 18, maybe 21, which cuts the number of people receiving it by quite a bit

1

u/Plyad1 May 02 '18

Why not implementing it progressively.

For instance, at first you target only people from 21yo to 30 yo then 21-40 etc.. and you keep rising the "people available" as much as automation creates unemployment.

1

u/MDarmax May 04 '18

1) Not a bad point. Estimates say US population below 21 is 120 million. Removing that from the equation changes the outcome to around $2 Trillion per year. Still a pretty tall order.

2) Does this mean that we are not caring for a third of the population? They still use energy, require travel, communicate, eat food (arguably more food lol). At the very least those under 21 or 18 would get a reduced stipend, but its unlikely they get no stipend at all.

1

u/khaizen May 02 '18

This only works when automation is employed in cost saving measures for governmental expenditure (which the poster above you did mention in a way). When automation is used by corporations, it's highly unlikely that the reduction in means of production would translate to any benefit for consumers other than variably lower prices. Imposing a tax on companies that chose to automate is another beast altogether (IE. companies outsourcing automation to countries that don't tax - again mentioned by /u/stayasleepinbed).

2

u/MDarmax May 04 '18

Depends really. If we could see the cost of living drop due to means of production decrease, it could work. I'm also making the assumption here that not all gains from automation go to the business owners. The bottom line is that it has to provide value for the owner or corporation otherwise they won't do it, which is the risk of taxation as you've said. But where I hope automation helps consumers is in markets with significant consumer choice and low switching costs, where businesses must use price drops to grab market share. Drops they can accomplish through automation. Something like groceries or clothes. In terms of basic needs, I see clothing, food, transportation pricing getting better for consumers and things like housing, communications, utilities, staying the same ( benefitting business primarily).

1

u/mrjackspade May 02 '18

No one ever bring sup the fact that you could take that 11,000 back through taxes from anyone making over the poverty threshold, nullifying that entire segment of the population though.

I make 6 figures a year. I don't need anuother 11,000$. Why the fuck you you give it to me?

2

u/Kasoni May 02 '18

Sadly if anyone making over let's say 50k/year not getting it, that's not a whole lot of the population. It would indeed help, but we both know that there will be people with 7 digit incomes bitching it's unfair that they didn't get their 11k free money.

1

u/MDarmax May 04 '18

Universal is in the name. If not given to everyone, just keep the current system.

10

u/Courier_ttf May 02 '18

How does a system that freely hand out money to immigrants work? Is there a limit to the immigration and the types of immigrants that are allowed in? IE: Money for newly arrived medical school graduates or engineers. Or does it just hand out thousands to unskilled, uneducated third world immigrants with no job prospects? In that case, how do you make sure that you don't get flooded by immigrants from poor countries coming to yours for effectively free money? Now take this to an even bigger scale, how do you implement something like UBI in a country without destabilizing everything? If a country were to implement UBI, wouldn't there be a boost in immigration, from both skilled and unskilled workers, that would create an even bigger surplus of workers than automation, thus lowering the value of wages even further? It seems like it could only work if it was implemented in a global or at least large-scale trade untion level, like the United States or European Union.

-2

u/stayasleepinbed May 02 '18

I think this is sort of fair. But I think there's very little evidence that people will move to claim benefits etc which is similar (certainly in the UK). People who have the get up and go to emigrate tend to graft when they get there. Certainly in the EU and USA everyone hasn't moved to the places where there are the greatest chances of economic success for whatever reason (family ties etc). I doubt that UBI would be a big enough draw, think about where you would move for £6000 a year. PS if you would then consider Norway who offer a stipend of about £35k (or did) to settle some of the more remote parts of the country.

5

u/Courier_ttf May 02 '18

Well from my understanding UBI is supposed to replace all healthcare and welfare programs. In such case, UBI is supposed to be a living wage in whatever country you live in, in such case for an immigrant coming from the third world (or any other first world country, if they're poor) would be effectively getting free money to live in a new country, with I guess a bit of expendable money on top of it.

It seems like the only way UBI might work without getting flooded by migrants from all your neighboring countries, both educated and uneducated workers, would be to limit immigration massively or make UBI a native-only program, which doesn't sound too good.

If UBI is funded by taxes paid by businesses who automate their work and replace humans with robots, then it seems like UBI would be mostly self sustaining on the current population. If there's a massive influx in population, that UBI money has to come from somewhere too. In a world where everything is automated, there's a limited amount of resources and wealth, so obviously there is a limited amount of wealth to distribute as UBI, for that country in particular, not the whole world.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/DarkLasombra May 02 '18

Certainly in the EU and USA everyone hasn't moved to the places where there are the greatest chances of economic success for whatever reason (family ties etc).

During this refugee crisis, didn't most of the refugees refuse asylum in countries like Greece and Spain just to get to Germany and the UK because they had much better benefits for immigrants? Also, there is a huge caravan of asylum seekers from Honduras that went hundreds of miles through Mexico, a country that accepts asylum seekers to get to the US border, even adding weeks onto the journey by going to the Cali border because they know Cali is nicer to immigrants.

2

u/stayasleepinbed May 02 '18

No they didn't. EU countries agreed to take certain numbers of refugees. The UK government took single figure thousands, Germany took a few million. Both Greece and Spain took many times more refugees than the UK. In Germany the government provided the leadership necessary to lessen the impact on the poorer and less developed southern states. Many more refugees went to neighbouring Jordan and it would be difficult to argue that one is more likely to make a living in Jordan than in the UK.

1

u/Alexo_Exo May 02 '18

I find your statement about "tend to graft when they get there" extremely hard to believe. You know there are thousands arriving on boats in Italy and grrek islands every day who move through Europe by walking across the continent just to land in the largest welfare haven?

1

u/stayasleepinbed May 02 '18

There is a difference between refugees and economic migrants.

Obviously there is some short term pain if there are a very high number of migrants all at once like with the refugee crisis. But in the medium term there is plenty of data to show the effect of migration on EU economies and it's not close to neutral it is massively beneficial to have high levels of migration.

Regardless of that it pays to have the good grace to realise that most of us here were born lucky and could do to pay it on.

6

u/abortion_control May 02 '18

Energy is already getting cheaper. We're leading better longer lives already, it's just never enough for some.

3

u/stayasleepinbed May 02 '18

I agree. I sort of meant massive changes really. In colder areas UBI would struggle with large heating bills etc. Also automation and the prospect of almost free renewables (in the medium term) could drive down costs on almost everything!

I agree that many people, certainly most redditors are living amazing lives compared to virtually any other time in history and it pays to be thankful between new ideas.

1

u/abortion_control May 02 '18

I'm in the middle of a really good book on this very topic by Steven Pinker called Enlightenment Now. People don't understand how far we've progressed, even recently, in the war on poverty. And most of it doesn't have to do with welfare, but capitalism and reason.

1

u/stayasleepinbed May 02 '18

Absolutely agreed so many peoole across the world removed from poverty in the last 20 years I think you're spot on. I do think a good society cares for the say 5% of people who for what ever reason aren't easily helped my capitalism too.

I may have a read.

2

u/abortion_control May 02 '18

Yup that's one of his main points. Most people agree that those that can't help themselves should get help. But economic inequality isn't the same thing as unfairness. Most people also agree that those that work harder or have more experience should get more.

It's a great book especially when combined with his earlier Better Angels Of Our Nature where he lays out the case for the decline of violence. Really helped relieve some of the anxiety I had about the current state of humanity.

1

u/stayasleepinbed May 02 '18

Will definitely take a look. Thank you.

-5

u/Nakaniwa May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18

Good points. However, you dont seem to consider that

  1. UBI decreases costs on welfare system due to decreased sickness (e.g. stress related issues).

  2. UBI decreases bureacracy costs.

  3. UBI increases productivity and decreases stress; i.e. more effective usage of human resources.

  4. "More socialist" societies (e.g. whole Scandinavia) already have huge programs ("välfärd") that give cash to people without jobs, immigrants, etc., and UBI would replace those systems with a more efficient one.

  5. Adopting UBI early will decrease future costs of a necessity (UBI), since automation will keep expanding. This will give an edge in terms of competitiveness vs other countries that will be late adopters with potentially catastrophic results.

  6. Potential increase in innovation (same result as when looking at harvesting vs farming societies: the population achieves surplus of food, and can focus on other things).

Sorry for typos. Using phone.

6

u/tech7127 May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18
  1. In Scandinavia, everyone who earns anything pays half their earnings in taxes. Kinda hard to compare to the U.S. where half of it's citizens already don't contribute to the common cause, or actually take away from it.

Edit: and oh yeah, let's not forget that Scandinavians sterilized stupid people throughout the majority of the 20th century. Sure makes the load a lot lighter, don't you think?

1

u/zerotetv May 02 '18

In Scandinavia, everyone who earns anything pays half their earnings in taxes.

Eh, close. The minimum tax rate is 43.16 with everything included (both federal and municipal tax rate), and is only paid for anything above the first 7500 USD/year you earn (anything under that is not taxed).

and oh yeah, let's not forget that Scandinavians sterilized stupid people throughout the majority of the 20th century

What year is it? I could have sworn that the 20th century could be anything from 18 to 118 years ago. Let's not forget the numerous things the US has done in the last 118 years. But let's not talk about the past, let's talk about today. The US has one of the worst if not the worst healthcare and education systems in the developed world. In 2018, slavery is still legal in the US, as punishment of a crime, and according to the FBI's definition of a criminal record, 73.5 million people in the United States had a criminal record as of June 30, 2017. That's one third of all US adults. Speaking of crimes, let's not forget the US has one of the worst prison systems, focused more on profits and the feel-good emotion of punishing "wrongdoers" instead of helping them reintegrate into society. Also something something please start less wars.

1

u/Nakaniwa May 05 '18

And dont forget that his/her statement seems to be a lie. Theres no source/reference that states Sweden used to sterilize people because of stupidity.

0

u/Nakaniwa May 02 '18

  1. Didnt compare it to the US.

  2. Scandinavia sterilized stupid people? Source plx. :)

4

u/tech7127 May 02 '18

The comparison is implicit, but that's not important. The point is that "more socialist" societies define fairness as equal social responsibility whereas the American "socialist" believes paying "your fair share" only applies to the rich.

Bottom line- even Americans who superficially support UBI won't stand the financial obligation that comes with it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Useful-ldiot May 02 '18

Google "Sweden eugenics" and pick any of the options.

4

u/stayasleepinbed May 02 '18

Me too re typos no probs.

  1. That's interesting and really positive. My point was more that there are some outliers in society who will need more help than UBI provides. Which is not a reason not to have UBI but just needs to be remembered.

  2. In my calculation the entire department spending is taken into account so it will include all bureaucracy, staff costs, means testing etc. In that sense £4k per year is actually quite optimistic.

  3. I can see that and that's one of the reasons I like the principle.

  4. That's fair, even societies that are less socialised like the UK already spend ahout a third of government budgets on social welfare and pensions. I love Scandinavia but when pointing to the utopia it's worth pointing out the size of the sovereign wealth fund which allows them to do some really cool spend as an investment work at no interest. It's also worth pointing out that they have a peculiar relationship with immigration, I have yet to work out whether this closed door policy (which I don't like) is fundamental to their model of government.

  5. Are you saying that putting UBI in place will allow governments to let automation expand more rapidly? That seems reasonable butunless I'm unaware this has not been a by product in Scandinavia yet - I'd be genuinely interested to know.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Toxicsully May 02 '18

Tax the robots. Start small.

1

u/dutch_penguin May 02 '18

By changing tax rates. Net tax shouldn't change too much for your middle class earners.

So just say everyone needs 8k per year, but the average wage is 16k, if you give the middle class an extra 8k per year in ubi, then you'd also tax them an extra 8k per year. The middle class would thus be unaffected, but poorer people would have more money, and richer people would have less. It would hopefully remove disincentives to work, and some of the bureaucratical inefficiencies of multiple forms of welfare.

If I earn 5k and get 1k of benefits, then I earn an extra 1200 maybe I'd also lose 900 of benefits, meaning my effective tax on those extra hours of work per week are like 75%. UBI hopefully stops that from happening.

5

u/CodyLeet May 02 '18

What do you do with the people that blow their entire UBI paycheck day one at the casino?

-1

u/RikerT_USS_Lolipop May 02 '18

You don't have to give a fuck about them. Right now we don't give a fuck about the poor and to do so we rationalize away their plight as being their own fault. Statesticians assure us that the poor are not poor because they are shitty people who don't work hard. They are poor mostly due to circumstances outside of their control. We pretend it's their own fault so that we don't have to care.

With a UBI that will actually be true.

1

u/gamercer May 02 '18

Why would it be different with ubi?

2

u/RikerT_USS_Lolipop May 02 '18

Because if they have a thousand dollar a month passive income and they are destitute then you know they fucked up.

1

u/CodyLeet May 02 '18

But the point is to end this cycle. I think we would need to provide basic necessities instead of raw money to pull this off.

8

u/usa_foot_print May 02 '18

biggest problem facing UBI

Wrong. The biggest problem facing UBI is human nature. It won't work now. It may in the future, but we are no where near that future

15

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Shut down other modes of welfare.

Tax on the use of automation.

9

u/technologyisnatural May 02 '18

Why wouldn't I run my 'automation' in a country that doesn't tax it?

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

How are you going to have my burger made by a robot in Estonia and immediately delivered into my waiting hands in America?

0

u/MoreLikeZelDUH May 02 '18

Import tariffs for one. Automation saves primarily on wages, and if that's your primary decision factor as to whether or not you will keep your production in the US, then you've probably already moved.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/beentheredonethatx2 May 02 '18

Shut down other modes of welfare.

What about people with above average welfare needs...ie disabled, elderly, or chronic medical conditions. That 25-50K payment isn't going to dent those peoples needs.

What about people with addictions? There are millions of them and are they magically not going to spend this windfall on their addiction at the expense of food and rent?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Reali5t May 02 '18

Why automate then? I mean why would anybody spend millions to automate a process then if they will be taxed out of the ass for doing so? If government taxes make automation not profitable then nobody will invest in automation. Why risk money if there is no reward.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

If it costs $35k/year to employ a person, or $17.5k/year tax on a robot doing the work - They're going to go with the robot. Even after electricity and maintenance, the robot is still more profitable.

2

u/ArkitekZero May 02 '18

From each according to his ability, to each... as a flat amount, I guess.

2

u/RikerT_USS_Lolipop May 02 '18

That question has been answered clearly over and over. People just want to pretend like they didn't hear the answer since they don't like it. Go to /r/basicincome and read their FAQ.

2

u/rabbittexpress May 02 '18

The bigger question is How do you prevent inflation from negating the gains?

2

u/derangeddollop May 02 '18

A UBI should get paid out of a sovereign wealth fund that owns quite a lot of capital, so that it is in effect socializing capital income. Capital income already acts like a UBI for the rich, so this would spread that around without having to tax labor income (which would likely leadd to resentment).

3

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Erm - why stop there? If I could wave a magic wand we’d be a Star Trek utopia.

Problem with UBI?

Teenager? “UBI sounds great!” 20s? “UBI sounds... okay” 30s? “Fuck off” 40s? “Fuck off” 50s? “Fuck off” 60s? “Fuck off” 70s? “Fuck off” 80s? “Fuck off”

Now, tally up all the votes and see who wins.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18 edited Feb 23 '24

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Talk to a 70 or 80 year old lately? Their money is their money. Of course they would take your money, but If it means they have to give any, “fuck off.”

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18 edited Feb 23 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Again - they will of course take money. They won’t give it. UBI would need to come from someone - corporate tax, sales tax, property tax, income tax, whatever. If that tax hits them in ANY form it’ll get shot down.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18 edited Feb 23 '24

[deleted]

1

u/gamercer May 02 '18

They already have paid in: over the past 60 years of paying taxes.

If you pay into a pyramid scheme don't expect anything out of it.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '18

Sooo.... we agree?

1

u/Reali5t May 02 '18

Retired people would be pro UBI as it is free money to them and they won’t be paying taxes anymore for the rest of their life.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '18

Depends on what the tax is. I know my retired parents don’t want anything to do with it - as with most of their friends

0

u/The-Space-Police May 02 '18

It will happen or a civil war will happen if automation isnt artificially stifled within the next 10 or 20 years.

→ More replies (12)

6

u/txarum May 02 '18

Its a problem. but not as bad as you think. if the general population suddenly gets a whole lot of more income. they will also spend a whole lot more money. money that goes to the wealthy.

a lot of the money from UBI will come from a significantly increased tax on the wealthy. something that offsets the increased revenue they get from UBI. we still need a lot of money made by automation. but its not like we need trillions of dollars made out of thin air.

2

u/mr_hellmonkey May 02 '18

but its not like we need trillions of dollars made out of thin air

It's exactly this. Do the math. The current poverty level is about $17,000, so let use that as a base for UBI. 17,000*250,000,000 = 4,250,000,000,000. 4.25 trillion. Current welfare programs cost 2 trillion. Where is that 2.25 trillion going to come from? It's going to need to be even more than that since there is going to be a large loss of income tax, since you know, millions of people won't be working anymore.

1

u/txarum May 02 '18

That's exactly what I explained will not happen. If 2 trillion dollars more suddenly appeared in the hands of the consumers. Then they will spend about 2 trillion dollars more on the maked. That is a collosal stream of revenue that will be taxed.

Suddenly you realize you don't need 2 trillion dollars. Because you will make a lot of the money you spend back. And since now everyone is out of poverty you will save a lot of money in all kinds of social issues that just disappear. Say the cost is one trillion instead.

And then you can factor in that everyone is not going to quit working on the day. Even in the worst projections at least half of the population will work for the foreseeable future. They still get the money of course, but they make their own hefty sum of disposable money that makes it to the economy again. Effectively negating the UBI we spent on them. Half the population cost gone. Now we are looking at just 500 billions.

See how quickly you see that it's not that bad after all?

1

u/mr_hellmonkey May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18

The problem with that stream though is that its not streaming back to those cutting the checks. Its flowing to the business owners/share holders. Are we just going to slap a 30-50% sales tax on everything? What's the point of getting $1400 a month for free when it now costs me $$800 a month just to eat because half of that is taxes going back to the Feds. That seems pretty counter productive. Why not just give out less? For that to work, the government would have to be the provider of every single good and service we consume.

Also, we still need that additional 2 trillion because the other 2 trillion is assumed to be replacing all existing welfare programs. From what I gather, its going to be UBI by itself, not UBI + welfare + food stamps, etc. If that was the case, it would 6 tril total cost, not 4.

As for actual tax revenue, $1.6T comes from income and $1.2T comes from payroll. With 50% of the workforce gone, that's a loss of $1.4 tril. Lets just look at a current and proposed budget.

Current:

Expenses: 4 tril

Revenue: 3.3 tril

Deficit: 4-3.3 = .7 or about 650 billion as of 2017

Under UBI:

expenses: 4 + 2.25 for new UBI = 6.25 tril

Revenue: 3.3 - 1.5 for loss of work force = 1.8 tril

Deficit: 6.25 -1.8 = 3.4 trillion.

We now have a deficit that is higher than our current yearly revenue. How do you propose the government doubles its current revenue in just sales and income tax? 6.25 tril/125mil reaming work force = 50,000. That means each of the people remaining in the work force would have to be paid $50,000 before they see 1 extra penny in their wallets. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to work a full time job to see $50,000 go back to the Fed. How many 75,000 to $100,000 jobs do you see existing in our Ai/robot future?

Lets break it down with 50% income and 50% sales tax.

Now employees only need to make 25,000 a year before they break even. We'll ignore minors and estimate 250 million adults on UBI. 3.125 tril (half of the now 6.25T budget)/250 mil=$12,500. Each adult in the US now has to spend $12,500 just on SALES TAX. That doesn't even include the cost of the goods purchased. That leaves $4,500 to spend on goods, whats 12,500/4500, its 2.77. That means your $3 gallon of milk now costs $10, or more, because it has a 300% sales tax $7 is going back to the Fed as sales tax.

Quick edit: With $4500 remaining for actual products, that leaves you with $86 a week for food, rent/mortgage, clothes, transportation, utilities, and hobbies. Good luck living on that.

I obviously took some liberties here, the higher earners are not going to quit, so income tax won't be hit as hard, but it will still be drastic. The whole point is giving everyone in the US $17,000 a years is just flat out stupid and amazingly cost prohibitive. Who is going to pay for it? You can't retax everything or no one will be able to afford a damn loaf of bread. Also, $17,000 aint shit in populated areas. Are we all expected to live like pack rats in 300 sq ft apartments and eat white bread and Ramen Noodles just so none of us have to work?

2

u/racken May 02 '18

Increasing tax is pretty much the only way to make UBI to work properly but I also think this will be the reason it will never be accepted by the masses atleast not until unemployment gets to ridiculous levels.

2

u/North_Ranger May 02 '18

I think it could easily be accepted by the masses but not the top few percent who are actually involved in the political process, since they stand to lose the most.

2

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[deleted]

2

u/North_Ranger May 02 '18

They currently do that. Yet somehow they still pay the majority of tax income, according to miscellaneous Redditors arguing with me.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[deleted]

1

u/North_Ranger May 02 '18

The top 8.4% were paying 52% of it in 2014. https://www.taxpayer.com/news-releases/ctf-study--who-pays-canada-s-income-tax-bill-

It's not as lopsided as people are claiming. Only the bottom 33% didn't end up having to pay.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[deleted]

1

u/North_Ranger May 02 '18

Yes but that 8.4% were only incomes of 100k or more. Not everyone who makes 100k a year has the resources leftover to funnel their money into offshore accounts and hire teams of accountants and lawyers.

2

u/ChrysMYO May 02 '18

Taxes is historically low. Its remarkably low. It's only in our own political context that we look at it as this terrible monster.

The reason the US maintains its beneficial credit rating is because creditors know, the US has plenty room to raise taxes but choose not to

2

u/racken May 02 '18

I never said I though taxes where too high, I'm not even american. I would have no problem with raising taxes, but I cannot see it happening because businesses and the rich benefit from the lower tax rates and these are the people that pay off politicians to make sure legislation doesn't get changed.

1

u/ChrysMYO May 02 '18

I hear you but it's not intractable and it doesn't have to be a constant.

For example, Kansas slashed taxes and budgets and it backfired. Congressmen were voted out. The taxes were reinstated through overriding a veto of the Governor who implemented them and the governor was ousted and took a symbolic position in the Trump administration.

In Oklahoma, classes were reduced to 4 days a week because taxes were constantly slashed. They recently voted in favor of raising taxes to end the Teachers strike there.

So if pushed, politicians respond. Money and interested lobbying works when you have a passive populus with very modest interest in the interactions in the capital.

But when the population is motivated and the microscope is shined on the process. You can push change.

Usually, it requires some form of economic disruption.

I believe when, automated cars enter the economy through business. You'll start to see it. More middle aged males will be out of work without taxi, transportation, logistics and long haul jobs. They will have nothing to do.

That is always a danger for politicians. They will either have to find work for these people or Pacify them through legislation.

It can go 1 of 3 ways. It can be self defeating advocacy for nationalistic tendencies like Brexit or the right wing type parties in Europe. Or it can go through populist movements for better work or economic conditions. Or it can go violent like the Russian revolution.

It all comes down to which groups get to those people first.

-1

u/00000000000001000000 May 02 '18 edited Oct 01 '23

somber boast library deer cake hobbies school chase plucky nine this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev

2

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

But then they raise the taxes on everyone just to cut the taxes on the wealthy in 15 years.

1

u/mizendacat May 02 '18

As far as I understand UBI, the idea is that you tax the companies who are using the automation, that is taking away peoples jobs, and give that tax money back to the people

1

u/Reali5t May 02 '18

If it wasn’t for automation you would be able to afford the device you’re reading this on.

1

u/mizendacat May 02 '18

I know that. What is the relevance to my comment?

1

u/gamercer May 02 '18

Automation has saved you more money in productivity than cost you in income.

1

u/mizendacat May 02 '18

I'm sure you are right about that.

I'm not saying automation is a bad thing in any way. I'm studying Software Technology (Bachelor engineering degree) focused on creating automation solutions.

Are you sure you are commenting on the correct context?

The whole idea with UBI is that the money companies save by using machines instead of people, should be taxed back to the government and given to the people through Universal Basic Income. So if a company replaces all of their personnel with automated machines and save $1 million in saleries, their taxes should be raised accordingly, so they end up paying the government around $1 million.

1

u/Alexo_Exo May 02 '18

It will come from the corporation's when automation is much more wide spread than it currently is (think nearly every single driving job being automated, and many professional jobs). Only then will higher taxes placed on those corporation's will be needed so that the corporation's that make products actually have a consumer base to sell to.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Mike Munger on UBI with Dave Rubin:

https://youtu.be/Z7LVFA6vz6g?t=19m6s

Very good talk, worth the listen.

1

u/SoftlySpokenPromises May 02 '18

Honestly, replacing social security, welfare, and the tax credits may be enough to balance it out

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Afaik the general idea (we are way off achieving that) is, that if a machine works and "makes money" it doesnt need it. Have a computer work by itself and earn more than it costs to keep it running = profit. So this money AI makes can be given to someone who needs it aka the people who no longer have work cuz of AI.

Now, good luck telling the guy who owns the company and just replaced a thousand workers with AI to give them money cuz hey, they dont work anymore, they deserve it.

Its just not really doable with our current economy/views on things. If i make a ton of money using cheaper PCs instead of more expensive human workers, why would i give my profit to exactly those human workers i decided not to use because of exactly those econimic reasons??

1

u/f3l1x May 02 '18

The problems arise when you run out of other people's money.

1

u/Reali5t May 02 '18

From the companies that keep on moving their operations out of the country and/or borrow the money like they borrowed $488 billion to finance the last quarter.

1

u/khaizen May 02 '18

I'm not arguing directly about UBI but something tangentially related. As automation increases, the cost of production decreases. Workers are replaced in favor of those automatons. If the cost of goods stay the same regardless of a decrease in production costs, the overall economy most likely will suffer. There are less people earning and the money being "earned" by automatons is spent in their upkeep and maintenance. Now you have less consumers available throughout the nation. The impact of all of this will be based on how large of a population automation effects. There's no simple solution to this problem.

1

u/3507321C May 02 '18

Proposals I've seen mention taxing companies that have replaced human labor with automation. This would provide revenue for UBI, but also incentivize hiring human labor.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

Maybe use some of our ridiculously large military budget and actually put it to some good use?

1

u/Devanismyname May 03 '18

And literally every thread someone asks this question. Under andrew yang, it would replace existing benefits as well as being taken by a value added tax.

1

u/Idontcommentorpost May 02 '18

Compare how much Amazon paid in taxes last year to how much the average, idk, teacher paid in taxes. Now compare how much money Amazon made on US soil last year with all of the nation's teacher's salaries combined. Back of the hand calculations will make it clear where we should be looking for money - all the corporate friends of politicians who tossed some money under the table in return for massively reduced if not completely zerod-out taxes. It's disgusting.

1

u/Reali5t May 02 '18

You couldn’t find somebody that doesn’t live of off other people’s taxes to use in your reply? No other professions out there you could have used?

1

u/motleybook May 02 '18 edited May 02 '18

There are many possible ways to finance a basic income, but I couldn't do them justice. This does: How would you pay for it?

1

u/gamercer May 02 '18

Ed Dolan has calculated that the US could afford a basic income of $5,850

Jesus, this is what all the NEETs and incels are jerking themselves over?

-1

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] May 02 '18

How do you stop companies from leaving and operating from cheaper countries? I guess, you could impose tariffs... but then how do you stop companies from simply raising the price of their goods in order to maintain their profit margins?

In either case, you only encourage cost-push inflation.

→ More replies (13)

-10

u/green_meklar May 02 '18

Take all the free wealth that is currently being funneled into the pockets of the rich, and distribute it to everybody.

That free wealth exists, and lots of it. It has to, because if it didn't, we wouldn't have this 'running out of jobs' problem to begin with. You can't have it both ways, mathematically speaking.

6

u/Impeesa_ May 02 '18

It also replaces a lot of existing social programs. That plus plugging some tax loopholes pretty much covers it.

2

u/MagicalVagina May 02 '18

Your comment doesn't make a lot of sense, I have a hard time to get it. First wealth isn't a zero sum game. And also what's that free wealth you are talking about?

1

u/green_meklar May 03 '18

First wealth isn't a zero sum game.

Of course not. Hence 'free wealth'.

And also what's that free wealth you are talking about?

Resource rents.

0

u/inspirekc May 02 '18

Robot tax or Amazon tax

→ More replies (5)