Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GGG

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5606188

There are negative consequences with enabling users to purchase narcotics.

More overdoses doesn't necessarily mean more users.

For example, it was recently reported in Ontario that because of travel restrictions, cocaine smuggling is down, therefore the product that does make it in, gets cut over and over again, increasing the chances that impurities and other drugs get mixed with it.

In the case of opiates, the same supply issues exist. It's making some addicts go dry for longer than they normally would, which can make them over estimate their tolerance the next time they score. Most people that OD do it after not using for a while because of this.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Key idea from video: that the concept that "lazy people" need to be coerced into subservience, is entirely hypocritical.

The status quo is a failure. UBI won't be.

What society actually needs is very different from what you think it needs.

Everybody needs to be coerced into subservience, I effing love what I do for a living and am grateful every day of my life that I was blessed with a vocation that is varied and important, valuable and valued by the world, both morally and financially and I would still give it up and sit on my arse eating bon bons if I had enough money

There is no such thing as a job anyone wants to do if they dont have to, we'd all stay home and jack off if we could. I'm fine with UBI when we get to the point when there is nothing left to do but until then we will have to force people into work with the threat of destitution

[indes]

Anecdotally, when CERB came out my restaurant was able to retain 3/13 employees.

We had to hire all new staff (only immigrants applied for the jobs) and couldn't even get the old staff to cover the odd shifts. It was absolutely mind blowing the way they turned on the very idea of working.

The servers make good tips at my restaurant, especially for Castlegar (15-20$/hr) and we still couldn't get them to come in!

The new employees are way better than the previous ones which is a huge bonus but after my experience there is no way I could support a UBI.



I also wanted to touch on the 'give the young a people a say' comment.

The irony is that the 'old people who wrecked the world' were the young people and it's a constant cycle. Sure you want the young in charge while you're part of the young. That tune will change when you get older and look down on the young as you look down on the old now. People saying they need to take power from others to propagate positive change are still just people who want to take power.

[indes]

Originally Posted by GGG

It is entirely possible that the level of UBI required to provide a basic standard of living is above the level require to disincentivize the level of work provided by society.

That is entirely predicated on human behaviour.

This. The problem with a 'basic standard of living' is that people will have no problem living slightly below it.

People get enough to rent their own place?
Get a roommate, you just gave yourself 400$/month in spending cash.
Need to be able to have a car?
Bicycle, Uber from groceries, another 400$/month in spending cash for yourself
Enough money for a well balanced diet?
Ditch the balanced and eat rice and protein shakes, share a Netflix account, share cars, work for tips, do odd jobs.

If a UBI is created I have no doubt we would see a generation of people who's lives revolve around playing the system.

Of course no one can predict the future, but I think a UBI gets us closer to dystopia than utopia over a few generations.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by indes

This. The problem with a 'basic standard of living' is that people will have no problem living slightly below it.

People get enough to rent their own place?
Get a roommate, you just gave yourself 400$/month in spending cash.
Need to be able to have a car?
Bicycle, Uber from groceries, another 400$/month in spending cash for yourself
Enough money for a well balanced diet?
Ditch the balanced and eat rice and protein shakes, share a Netflix account, share cars, work for tips, do odd jobs.

If a UBI is created I have no doubt we would see a generation of people who's lives revolve around playing the system.

Of course no one can predict the future, but I think a UBI gets us closer to dystopia than utopia over a few generations.

Thats why a UBI that requires you to not work is a bad idea. If everyone gets it no matter what there isn't a problem with disincentives.

[indes]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Thats why a UBI that requires you to not work is a bad idea. If everyone gets it no matter what there isn't a problem with disincentives.

You're going to have to elaborate on that for me. How would everyone getting stop people from doing what I posted above?

The only way would be if everything inflated to levels where the UBI would just be swallowed up into all our other expenses (extremely likely) in which case there is no reason to have a UBI at all.

[81MC]

I’ve had the debate with my buddy over that. How much *more* money would you need to get out of bed, get ready for the day, pack a lunch, spend an hour on the bus, spend a day at work away from your partner/kids/pets whatever vs. doing whatever the hell you want.

How much of ones income is required purely to continue making said income? Daycare, vehicle, gas, parking, coffee, lunch, clothes, tools and equipment. I’ll take less to not have to deal with any of that ####.

[FlamesAddiction]

Ironically, I think one day it will be older people that want/need UBI more than younger people.

For most of human civilization, it was the older members of the community that would teach skills and trades to the younger generation. It was the natural order of things that older people had more earning potential due to their life experience and being the keepers of knowledge.

But in post-industrial era, it is looking more and more like technological advances quickly nullify experience and technical knowledge in many fields. Not only is re-education expensive, the human brain doesn't learn as efficiently as a young one. We are going to see a world one day where the workforce 20-40 years old have the highest earning potential while older people get pushed out of work due to things they know becoming obsolete.

We are already seeing it, but it seems like the timeline for technological advances is becoming more condensed. There is a huge shift coming, I am sure of it.

[Weitz]

How much does the cost of goods and services increase if a UBI is implemented and now everyone knows there are more people with a base amount of money?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by indes

You're going to have to elaborate on that for me. How would everyone getting stop people from doing what I posted above?

The only way would be if everything inflated to levels where the UBI would just be swallowed up into all our other expenses (extremely likely) in which case there is no reason to have a UBI at all.

The problem with having it means tested is that the incentives are bad.

Take someone who is getting a $2k/month UBI. If you reduce the UBI by 50% for a dollar of earned income (like the PBO analyzed at the request of a senator) then you have the following situation.

If we assume someone chooses to work to earn extra money over and above their UBI they pay the following:

UBI clawback: 50%
Current Federal Income Tax: 15%
Current Alberta Income Tax: 10%
CPP: 5.25%
EI: 1.58%

So before any new taxes are implemented to pay for UBI (which would absolutely be necessary) with the clawback someone getting their first job faces a marginal tax rate of 82%. At minimum wage of $15, that means that persons effective take home pay is $2.72 per hour. How many people do you think will get out of bed for $2.72 per hour? And it's probably less as taxes would have to go up.

If everyone gets the UBI no matter what the UBI is more expensive, but the marginal tax rate on someone's income is still pretty low, so that person has a much stronger incentive to still work and earn extra money.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Weitz

How much does the cost of goods and services increase if a UBI is implemented and now everyone knows there are more people with a base amount of money?

I don't think there would be that much true inflation, but there would definitely be price changes at least in the short term. You redistribute tons of money from the middle class and wealthy to lower income people, which is the effect of UBI + taxes to pay for it. So there will be more demand for goods at the bottom of the pyramid and less at the top.

In housing, I would expect apartment rents to rise as people who couldn't previously afford to do so move out of their parents basement/ditch their roommates. But move-up houses probably suffer, as it will take the middle class longer to save for a move-up house due to higher taxes. That would be an initial shock, but rents would adjust once new construction catches up. There is already apartment rental housing being built in Calgary, and if rents went up there would be lots more construction, which would help push rents back down over time.

There would probably be some inflation, as lower income people are a lot more likely to spend money than wealthier people. Wealthier people save more money, because spending more at that level gives you less of a lifestyle upgrade. (Also, people who save are more likely to end up wealthy)

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Weitz

How much does the cost of goods and services increase if a UBI is implemented and now everyone knows there are more people with a base amount of money?

It isn't taken into account in the "model," if there is such a thing. Market forces are not taken into consideration because the market is going to play nicely and not take advantage of this known variable. The idealism behind UBI is strong, in a Yoda sort of way.

[Fuzz]

I haven't really thought this through, but what if UBI was funded through companies payroll? So if you make $20/hour, the company pays the government $15/hour, and the employee $5 per hour. Then the government distributes that $15/hour to everyone? Numbers entirely made up, but you get the gist?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Weitz

How much does the cost of goods and services increase if a UBI is implemented and now everyone knows there are more people with a base amount of money?

In that case, everyone should do the right thing and the next time they are offered a raise at work, turn it down. We can't have all that extra income causing inflation.

If you are redistributing wealth from the very top where it is hoarded, you create more demand at the bottom.

Honestly, I don't know what UBI will actually look like and it will probably be trial and error with different countries applying it differently, but I do think it is coming one day. Not soon though, but I am talking like in 50+ years depending on how technology advances.

Another way to tackle it might be to make it law that companies which make a profit have to have a certain number of "employees" or benefactors from the lower classes. They could make it so a receiver would still have to prove their worth, like by doing good work in the community, getting educated, taking drug tests, etc...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I haven't really thought this through, but what if UBI was funded through companies payroll? So if you make $20/hour, the company pays the government $15/hour, and the employee $5 per hour. Then the government distributes that $15/hour to everyone? Numbers entirely made up, but you get the gist?

I think there would be some kind of system where companies that use common resources, need to pay the common people for it. For example, the water and air belongs to everyone, so if you are being allowed to pollute it to make a fortune, you should be paying everyone for that privilege.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The problem with having it means tested is that the incentives are bad.

Take someone who is getting a $2k/month UBI. If you reduce the UBI by 50% for a dollar of earned income (like the PBO analyzed at the request of a senator) then you have the following situation.

If we assume someone chooses to work to earn extra money over and above their UBI they pay the following:

UBI clawback: 50%
Current Federal Income Tax: 15%
Current Alberta Income Tax: 10%
CPP: 5.25%
EI: 1.58%

So before any new taxes are implemented to pay for UBI (which would absolutely be necessary) with the clawback someone getting their first job faces a marginal tax rate of 82%. At minimum wage of $15, that means that persons effective take home pay is $2.72 per hour. How many people do you think will get out of bed for $2.72 per hour? And it's probably less as taxes would have to go up.

If everyone gets the UBI no matter what the UBI is more expensive, but the marginal tax rate on someone's income is still pretty low, so that person has a much stronger incentive to still work and earn extra money.

GGG did the math on this and showed what likely changes to the tax system would look like to support this idea. Not only would UBI require a major tax increase, it would require elimination of many social programs everyone gets to take advantage of. How comfortable are people going to be about losing their social security?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by indes

You're going to have to elaborate on that for me. How would everyone getting stop people from doing what I posted above?

The only way would be if everything inflated to levels where the UBI would just be swallowed up into all our other expenses (extremely likely) in which case there is no reason to have a UBI at all.

The argument is, in an idealistic world, a normal human being still wants to be a productive member of society. So their incentive to work is the fact that they want to work. If everyone gets the same UBI payment regardless if they make $10 or a million dollars, then the theory is most people would still choose to work.

The pessimist in me isn't as optimistic of human nature. I think once UBI is introduced (after the automation apocalypse), you'll see a bigger portion of society just sit at home and do nothing. I honestly feel like UBI will actually increase drug and alcohol abuse as bored people at home just start abusing substances. You'll also get more paranoid people falling for conspiracy theories and negatively impact mental health as they just sit at home going on social media all day.

Hopefully, by then the machines take over, we're just used for batteries, and I can live blissfully in the matrix.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

The argument is, in an idealistic world, a normal human being still wants to be a productive member of society. So their incentive to work is the fact that they want to work. If everyone gets the same UBI payment regardless if they make $10 or a million dollars, then the theory is most people would still choose to work.

The pessimist in me isn't as optimistic of human nature. I think once UBI is introduced (after the automation apocalypse), you'll see a bigger portion of society just sit at home and do nothing. I honestly feel like UBI will actually increase drug and alcohol abuse as bored people at home just start abusing substances. You'll also get more paranoid people falling for conspiracy theories and negatively impact mental health as they just sit at home going on social media all day.

Hopefully, by then the machines take over, we're just used for batteries, and I can live blissfully in the matrix.

UBI also relies on the population spending their UBI on the needs of basic living, as opposed to just blowing it on cars, toys, entertainment, drugs, etc...What proportion of the population would use the extra income to leverage themselves into a car loan they can't sustain? That happens to a significant proportion of the population now. The idea that with basic income everyone would suddenly become financially responsible and choose to work, even thought they do not necessarily have to, is idealistic at best.

Are we going to then limit what people can spend money on? Give landlords and other debtors the rights to garnish UBI cheques for unpaid debts?

[CliffFletcher]

We don’t have to speculate about what people in communities with high rates of unemployment would do with their time. We can just look at the examples we already have.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

UBI also relies on the population spending their UBI on the needs of basic living, as opposed to just blowing it on cars, toys, entertainment, drugs, etc...What proportion of the population would use the extra income to leverage themselves into a car loan they can't sustain? That happens to a significant proportion of the population now. The idea that with basic income everyone would suddenly become financially responsible and choose to work, even thought they do not necessarily have to, is idealistic at best.

Are we going to then limit what people can spend money on? Give landlords and other debtors the rights to garnish UBI cheques for unpaid debts?

Someone accepting UBI shouldn’t be offered credit. Easy credit is a big part of the reason upward class mobility is so difficult, even if it gives the opposite facade.