Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by V

I'm really confused, but I think you and I have a different idea of what Universal means.

Even Universal Health Care has some conditions attached to it. It's universally available, but that doesn't mean people are forced to use it for everything if they can afford better options, nor does it cover most elective procedures.

[The Yen Man]

Sorry, but if given the choice to opt out of UBI, unless there is great incentive to, there's no way I'd do it out of the goodness of my heart. Some people might not "need" more money, but everyone can do with more. Especially if the program is funded by the fact that I'm being taxed more. And when that happens, I'm probably not donating anything to the less fortunate anymore, as UBI should be covering for it.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by blankall

UBI under our current system is just wealth redistribution. It's no different than expanding the current welfare system, which is already teeming with abuse.

In order for it to actually work, you need a system where labour is largely no longer required and the work is being done by government owned machines. In other words, at this point, it's science fiction. It's a good philosophical talking point, that can spur on conversation about inequality and ways to improve our current system. However, it's an ideal that would be a huge disaster if implemented.

Isn't the point of UBI, in part, to completely eliminate abuse of the system? If everybody is getting the same basic amount, how do you play that system when it's so simple? Removal of an ungainly and misused system that is currently in place would be part of the attraction.

I also don't quite understand the 'poor people are lazy, they just won't work' argument. If the UBI is a guaranteed amount, then working beyond that would simply augment the income of each person. With the movement away from full time to part time jobs, this would actually help to fill positions on the lower end of the spectrum.

Absolute destruction of the current system is a selling point.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I guess I don't see how UBI can work unless future work is heavily regulated by the government, and the government taxes corporations heavily and then re-distributes wealth to everyone. Half of future jobs would be from the government. Sounds suspiciously like communism, to be honest.

And the alternative seems dystopian. You only have to look at countries in the world right now that have high unemployment rates. Micro-economies form, people become more extreme and rely on nefarious organizations to look after them, and the black market takes over.

When automation takes over and the working class is erased, who will be able to buy the stuff being made? The middle class has been losing financial ground for decades and that isn't sustainable for capitalism.

What are some non-UBI ways of making sure the population can maintain a reasonable standard of living, or maybe even prosper? Population control is one alternative I suppose, but that never goes well.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Isn't the point of UBI, in part, to completely eliminate abuse of the system? If everybody is getting the same basic amount, how do you play that system when it's so simple? Removal of an ungainly and misused system that is currently in place would be part of the attraction.

I also don't quite understand the 'poor people are lazy, they just won't work' argument. If the UBI is a guaranteed amount, then working beyond that would simply augment the income of each person. With the movement away from full time to part time jobs, this would actually help to fill positions on the lower end of the spectrum.

Absolute destruction of the current system is a selling point.

Eliminate abuse? Not likely. Once again, people on the lower end will abuse the system by not working or reporting taxes. People on the upper end will abuse the system via tax avoidance. People horribly abuse our current system, both poor and rich alike, offering more social funding is likely to allow more opportunity for abuse, not less.

Also, no one ever said poor people are lazy. You're purposely distorting my argument in an attempt to provide yourself with moral high ground. Yes, I think it would be great if all Canadian citizens were guaranteed what they want. My concern is with the reality of creating such a system.

A lot of lower end jobs are soul crushing and not satisfying in any way and only provide enough income for people to sustain themselves. Many people also do under the table work, that they do not report.

If the choice is between cleaning toilets every day for minimum wage and staying at home and side-hustling for extras every now and again, it's not a choice at all. Certain jobs are so bad that the only motivation to perform them is survival.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by blankall

Eliminate abuse? Not likely. Once again, people on the lower end will abuse the system by not working or reporting taxes. People on the upper end will abuse the system via tax avoidance. People horribly abuse our current system, both poor and rich alike, offering more social funding is likely to allow more opportunity for abuse, not less.

Also, no one ever said poor people are lazy. You're purposely distorting my argument in an attempt to provide yourself with moral high ground. Yes, I think it would be great if all Canadian citizens were guaranteed what they want. My concern is with the reality of creating such a system.

A lot of lower end jobs are soul crushing and not satisfying in any way and only provide enough income for people to sustain themselves. Many people also do under the table work, that they do not report.

If the choice is between cleaning toilets every day for minimum wage and staying at home and side-hustling for extras every now and again, it's not a choice at all. Certain jobs are so bad that the only motivation to perform them is survival.

And you are ok with that?

It doesn't take much of a moral highground to get above - "people should be destitute so I can have someone clean my toilet for minimum wage."

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Certain jobs are so bad that the only motivation to perform them is survival.

Could this be considered a problem that we should be looking to solve, and that UBI could provide a solution for? If UBI makes the absolute worst, low paying jobs undesirable, then either innovation or a change in compensation would have to occur to ensure those jobs still get done. I don't see big innovations coming in the realm of toilet cleaning, but shouldn't compensation actually reflect the true value of the work and match the desirability of the position? Instead of continually allowing certain jobs to exist almost solely based on the fact that they take advantage of the basic need to survive, shouldn't we expect the compensation to match the job?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by belsarius

And you are ok with that?

It doesn't take much of a moral highground to get above - "people should be destitute so I can have someone clean my toilet for minimum wage."

What's the option here. Are you stating these jobs shouldn't exist? Office workers should clean their own toilets?

Once again, this is a distortion of an argument. Obviously, no one likes the idea of having to clean a toilet for low pay. This is the world of unskilled labour, however. These jobs need to be done, and although cleaning toilets was the example, there are many other examples.

You may just be arguing that people working these jobs deserve more pay. Once again, this is just classic wealth distribution. In which case, the there are much better options than UBI. For example, a government stipend to just pay people who are actually working more. At the end of the day, this runs into the same problems that all government funded economic programs do, inflation, tax avoidance, etc..

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Could this be considered a problem that we should be looking to solve, and that UBI could provide a solution for? If UBI makes the absolute worst, low paying jobs undesirable, then either innovation or a change in compensation would have to occur to ensure those jobs still get done. I don't see big innovations coming in the realm of toilet cleaning, but shouldn't compensation actually reflect the true value of the work and match the desirability of the position? Instead of continually allowing certain jobs to exist almost solely based on the fact that they take advantage of the basic need to survive, shouldn't we expect the compensation to match the job?

The problem is UBI could work, but it probably won't. At it's heart it's no different than socialism and income distribution, except with all the abuses of our capital system left unchecked. Your taxing the middle class to pay for the poor, slowly bringing everyone down to nothing. It's happened time and time again. Great philosophy. Horrible actual results.

Even within the social program options of providing higher wages to low income earnings, UBI is an awful choice. Why not just have the government pay people with undesirable jobs more? Or increase benefits for schooling towards skilled labour.

I also don't think you realize the realities of running a business. The UBI scheme increases the tax burden on the middle class and businesses. And then you expect them to be able to afford to pay lower end workers more on top of all that. The majority of small businesses fail as it is. Now your telling them to pay more taxes to fund a UBI and then pay basic labourers more money too.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

What's the option here. Are you stating these jobs shouldn't exist? Office workers should clean their own toilets?

Once again, this is a distortion of an argument. Obviously, no one likes the idea of having to clean a toilet for low pay. This is the world of unskilled labour, however. These jobs need to be done, and although cleaning toilets was the example, there are many other examples.

You may just be arguing that people working these jobs deserve more pay. Once again, this is just classic wealth distribution. In which case, the there are much better options than UBI. For example, a government stipend to just pay people who are actually working more. At the end of the day, this runs into the same problems that all government funded economic programs do, inflation, tax avoidance, etc..

I think you're missing the point here, which is that a new system is meant to change the way things and the current system, and that if some of the same problems that exist today (inflation, tax avoidance) will exist tomorrow, that's ok, because they are not the problems being addressed.

If jobs need to be done, they should be paid enough to be done. If UBI makes it so that they need to be paid more to be done, then they will be paid more to be done. And if UBI does that, it suggests they were not properly valued in the first place, and were instead just taking advantage of a broken system. You essentially require all jobs that exist solely on the back of taking advantage of the need to survive, and you force them to be paid closer to the value of the work. Is being a janitor any less important or valuable than being an accountant? And if so, does the discrepancy between pay accurately reflect the discrepancy between value? Maybe not. Just because a job does not require an education, does not mean it holds significantly less value than one that does (this goes back to the education argument earlier). It feels vaguely like the perception that white collar work is more important or valuable than blue collar work, which I don't think is valid.

And unless you can show with some degree of evidence that the increase in tax avoidance and inflation will outweigh the benefits of UBI, it's not a compelling argument. Just saying some problems that currently exist will also exist later, is not swaying anyone.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think you're missing the point here, which is that a new system is meant to change the way things and the current system, and that if some of the same problems that exist today (inflation, tax avoidance) will exist tomorrow, that's ok, because they are not the problems being addressed.

If jobs need to be done, they should be paid enough to be done. If UBI makes it so that they need to be paid more to be done, then they will be paid more to be done. And if UBI does that, it suggests they were not properly valued in the first place, and were instead just taking advantage of a broken system. You essentially require all jobs that exist solely on the back of taking advantage of the need to survive, and you force them to be paid closer to the value of the work. Is being a janitor any less important or valuable than being an accountant? And if so, does the discrepancy between pay accurately reflect the discrepancy between value? Maybe not. Just because a job does not require an education, does not mean it holds significantly less value than one that does (this goes back to the education argument earlier). It feels vaguely like the perception that white collar work is more important or valuable than blue collar work, which I don't think is valid.

And unless you can show with some degree of evidence that the increase in tax avoidance and inflation will outweigh the benefits of UBI, it's not a compelling argument. Just saying some problems that currently exist will also exist later, is not swaying anyone.

Lol. Why am I the one who has to show my argument won't work, when you're proposing a totally theoretical system that flies in the face of all easily observable economic trends? It's a basic principle of economics that when you increase taxes, people have less motivation to work. It's been shown time and time again. People are literally bringing home less pay from their added work.

You're proposing a system that provides more funds to people doing undesirable work. You're, however, dodging the issue of who provides those funds, which is middle class income earners - who are taxed more- and the businesses themselves - the majority of which are small privately held businesses that already have a low survival rate.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by blankall

You're proposing a system that provides more funds to people doing undesirable work. You're, however, dodging the issue of who provides those funds, which is middle class income earners - who are taxed more- and the businesses themselves - the majority of which are small privately held businesses that already have a low survival rate.

Why the middle class? Why not the wealthy and uber-wealthy? Or a scaled version of little bit from middle to much more from wealthy?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Why the middle class? Why not the wealthy and uber-wealthy? Or a scaled version of little bit from middle to much more from wealthy?

Because even if you are taking 90% of the uber wealthy's income, you still are not going to have a big enough tax base to cover the needed budget. Good luck getting the true 90% of their income anyway with all of the tax mitigation they have at their disposal.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Why the middle class? Why not the wealthy and uber-wealthy? Or a scaled version of little bit from middle to much more from wealthy?

Once again, to target the wealthy, you'd need an overhaul of the existing tax system first. Firstly, you have to eliminate all tax avoidance schemes. You'd also have to deal with the issues of inheritance, trusts, corporate tax breaks, off shore holdings, etc..

Once you do away with all of that and put in place some system with a very high marginal tax rate, what's the motivation for the working wealthy to continue working those extra hours? If I'm working 70 hours a week, am I going to work 75hours if 70% of that income is taxed?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Because even if you are taking 90% of the uber wealthy's income, you still are not going to have a big enough tax base to cover the needed budget. Good luck getting the true 90% of their income anyway with all of the tax mitigation they have at their disposal.

Sure, but I think it's been mentioned that UBI on it's own, without any other changes, wouldn't work. Implementing UBI would mean a fundamental change in how our socio-economics operate.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again, to target the wealthy, you'd need an overhaul of the existing tax system first. Firstly, you have to eliminate all tax avoidance schemes. You'd also have to deal with the issues of inheritance, trusts, corporate tax breaks, off shore holdings, etc..

Once you do away with all of that and put in place some system with a very high marginal tax rate, what's the motivation for the working wealthy to continue working those extra hours? If I'm working 70 hours a week, am I going to work 75hours if 70% of that income is taxed?

No, you're going to pull a Murray Edwards and GTFO here...

It's cute... all you guys thinking the way to solve all of the world's problems are to punitively tax the wealthy, like they'll just sit around and be OK with it. Sure worked well for France.

[Leondros]

I have an idea - let's just have everyone throw all of their assets back into a pool (land, cars, houses, vacation properties, stocks, bonds, businesses, jewelry, paintings, grandma's china set, etc.) and we can just split it all equally. Just a massive reset - every 15 or so years. We can have a lottery for all of the really nice properties, and have a non merit based system. Non-resident of Canada? No problem, as long as you make it here you can have a piece of a pie too.

Overly dramatic, I know, but its not too far from some of the slops you guys are talking from. I agree our system is broken, and some changes and tweaks need to be done, but some of the suggestions are just so obtuse and do not even contemplate the problems they will create down the road.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Sure, but I think it's been mentioned that UBI on it's own, without any other changes, wouldn't work. Implementing UBI would mean a fundamental change in how our socio-economics operate.

So....

Once we cure a lot of the major problems in our society, and find a way to get a fully functioning economic system in place where everyone pays taxes fairly, everyone works to the best of their ability, and everyone with an awful job gets lots of money, all drug addiction is cured, people stop gambling, people stop taking on debt they shouldn't, etc..then we can put in place UBI.

I guess it's hard to argue with that....now the only problem is how do we accomplish all of that.

[Harry Lime]

Leondros, did you not post yourself the chart showing that the negative taxation effects those making above 200K/year? That is not the uber-rich, but certainly not the middle class as blankall suggests.

At a certain point the scale of money that we are talking about in terms of personal income becomes a number that is not being returned to the local economy by the people that are earning it.

Also, I would venture that if people making over 200K/year are working 75 hours per week, then they need to restructure their own life/work ratio to enjoy their own pre-retirement years. If there is a lack of incentive for people to work excessively, that is probably a good thing for the people themselves.

Also, I'd like to apologize to blankall, I did not mean you personally were saying that poor people were lazy, but rather generally that many times in this thread it was insinuated that 20K/year would cause a general malaise, which is a statement with no basis in reality. I can't imagine someone refusing to work because they can afford Netflix for free.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Leondros, did you not post yourself the chart showing that the negative taxation effects those making above 200K/year? That is not the uber-rich, but certainly not the middle class as blankall suggests.

At a certain point the scale of money that we are talking about in terms of personal income becomes a number that is not being returned to the local economy by the people that are earning it.

Also, I would venture that if people making over 200K/year are working 75 hours per week, then they need to restructure their own life/work ratio to enjoy their own pre-retirement years. If there is a lack of incentive for people to work excessively, that is probably a good thing for the people themselves.

Also, I'd like to apologize to blankall, I did not mean you personally were saying that poor people were lazy, but rather generally that many times in this thread it was insinuated that 20K/year would cause a general malaise, which is a statement with no basis in reality. I can't imagine someone refusing to work because they can afford Netflix for free.

I was simply trying to provide some visual examples for people who were having trouble seeing how UBI would impact taxable income and how that would flow out.

A lot of assumptions were made that I don't necessarily believe in including that a 15% flat taxation rate gets us even close to be able to fulfill the UBI dream. I believe a GST tax, massive cuts, and shifts to social programs would all be needed and then some. Not to mention the taxes at a corporate level that will make business in Canada very unattractive leading to lower GDP and even less of a tax base.

While I believe UBI to be a nice idea, I put it up there with ideas like immortality and AI taking over the world - possible, but probably not in my life time. Blankall put it correctly, what we need is some semblance of wealth distribution while at the same time correcting a lot of social issues that are all interconnected. For this to be as successful as some have be postulating, a lot of prerequisites need to happen first while at the same time the implementation can't be "make the rich pay for it". History has proven that doesn't exactly work.