Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yes, very different. The free homes are a temporary stepping stone to self-sufficiency, not a permanent wage.

UBI will never work unless it is a stepping stone to self-sufficiency.

Homelessness is what should be addressed first, because I also think being homeless is a big reason someone can't get out of poverty. It is just impossible to get out of that hole.

The Medicine Hat program worked really well. I think a lot of people were surprised.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I'm not sure I understand how you came to this conclusion. Can you map it out?

He's being a bit dramatic with his language, but there's a solid point. Basically anyone with access to capital and a higher end salary is going to continue to accumulate wealth. You're going to end up with a huge swath of the population on a UBI, with little job prospects, and another smaller sector of society concentrating property and capital ownership.

You're basically setting up a socialist system that's corrupted by the ability of the ultra wealthy to own everything.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

UBI will never work unless it is a stepping stone to self-sufficiency.

What's the incentive if the income is guaranteed and endless?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Jesus N.E, you just woodshedded the poor lad.

Actually, Lanny is a good example of the reason why the US never gets any quality candidates.

He has become so deranged over his hatred for Donald Trump that he is willing to completely look the other way over the evils of the Democrats, because in some screwed up sense of reality, the Democrats are the savior to all the problems going on in the US, because all those problems have been solely created by Donald Trump, someone who hasn't even been in politics longer than a decade.

The derangement is real. And sad.

That is why when Andrew Yang or Bernie Sanders come along and say 'hey, what about this', they are instantly dismissed by everyone.

There is no discourse, no discussion, nothing. Just 'canceling' and them high-fiving each other (like you see in this thread), because 'man you told him how it is.'

It is pathetic.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blankall

What's the incentive if the income is guaranteed and endless?

It can't be endless.

I am honestly fundamentally opposed to UBI, but I think some local programs have shown that some version of it can help.

But definitely not if they are endless.

People need to be self sufficient otherwise the system will collapse.

We have enough evidence to show that if we give people a little help to get them on their feet, with a little time and effort they make the best of it. But we need more physiological research on how exactly that works.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

What's the incentive if the income is guaranteed and endless?

Well, if the proposed UBI doesn't even get you to the poverty line, and is literally just a supplement that will prevent you from starving to death, a better life is the incentive I guess.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, if the proposed UBI doesn't even get you to the poverty line, and is literally just a supplement that will prevent you from starving to death, a better life is the incentive I guess.

I’m sure this has been covered already but in this situation what’s to stop the “free market” from adjusting to the influx of money and costs increasing across the board?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I’m sure this has been covered already but in this situation what’s to stop the “free market” from adjusting to the influx of money and costs increasing across the board?

Nothing. That's called inflation and likely the biggest challenge faced by a theoretically implemented UBI.

Though, a poster earlier brought up the point of UBI being funded by perpetual QE, which is an interesting idea and one I'd never thought about...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I’m sure this has been covered already but in this situation what’s to stop the “free market” from adjusting to the influx of money and costs increasing across the board?

There's a whole bunch of articles about that, some of which have indeed been posted in this thread. You could easily find as many such articles as you like by googling "does UBI cause inflation". In short, that isn't actually what ends up happening where this is implemented. In a lot of cases, prices actually drop.

The main issue is cost of housing. I haven't heard a great explanation about what to do to deal with rent increases / real estate market changes in a UBI state. I suspect the answer would ultimately be, "lots of regulation".

[Stillman16]

No one is saying the UBI would be a be-all-end-all, it would likely require many tweaks along the way!

But (IMHO), so form of wealth re-distribution will be necessary, as the automation is quickly removing jobs from the market. Creative ways to tax the rich will be needed, since they always find ways to avoid them!

If you don't see this, you are lucky (so far) in your career, and/or are benefiting from the plight of many of the out-of-work people.

I urge you to watch the links, and read the document on Andrew Yang's page, it is eye opening, and has answered many of the questions/critics I too had over this.

I've seen the automation, and wondered what would happen when the jobs disappeared...

The answers are in the video's and on Andrew Yang's page, but since you don't seem to want to read/watch them...

1. Yes, the VAT would be passed on to the consumer, but only to the point the market can bare.

2. The UBI WOULD replace some of the social programs (welfare, food stamps, disability) since, to be effective, it would be at or above the current rate those programs offer, and it would be no-strings attached, so the recipients could earn on top of it; current programs make a disincentive to earning, since it usually claws back the benefit. This means, many of the recipients of the other social programs would be able to better their situation.

3. When people don't have to worry about basic needs, they are less stressed, they less inclined to resort to crime, they take better care of themselves and their children. This compounds over generations as well. (so less health care and incarceration costs)

4. Money in the hands of low income people goes into the economy at a greater rate than money in the hands of the wealthy-that's just exactly what we have now-rich hoard their money...

5. No one in power may WANT to institute any taxes to fund a UBI, but fact is, they will likely be forced to in order to keep the economy a float. Sadly, the people in power are usually propped up by the wealthy, and they like politicians, rarely look (or care) into the future. As long as they get theirs, they are happy to mortgage the future.

I think some of the wealthy are starting to realize the situation is getting dire, which is why some are advocating for the increase in taxes for the rich. If no one has money to spend, they won't get theirs for the products and services they are providing...and the poorer the masses get, the more likely they will revolt!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

... Except that almost none of that applies to Canada.

We already have a Federal VAT, and a provincial one in most provinces. Based on my admittedly quick math, even if Alberta were to implement one at 15% and redistributed 100% of the proceeds to Albertans over 18, and even if spending on VAT eligibile goods mirrored GST (i.e. if Alberta got 3 times its annual GST revenue and just divided it up among all adults) you'd end up with about 35 bucks per person.

Paying for this, in Canada, is the biggest issue. It's the biggest issue in the USA too, but at least there a new federal VAT gets you part of the way.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Except that almost none of that applies to Canada.

We already have a Federal VAT, and a provincial one in most provinces. Based on my admittedly quick math, even if Alberta were to implement one at 15% and redistributed 100% of the proceeds to Albertans over 18, and even if spending on VAT eligibile goods mirrored GST (i.e. if Alberta got 3 times its annual GST revenue and just divided it up among all adults) you'd end up with about 35 bucks per person.

Paying for this, in Canada, is the biggest issue. It's the biggest issue in the USA too, but at least there a new federal VAT gets you part of the way.

How do you thank a post more than once?

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Except that almost none of that applies to Canada.

We already have a Federal VAT, and a provincial one in most provinces. Based on my admittedly quick math, even if Alberta were to implement one at 15% and redistributed 100% of the proceeds to Albertans over 18, and even if spending on VAT eligibile goods mirrored GST (i.e. if Alberta got 3 times its annual GST revenue and just divided it up among all adults) you'd end up with about 35 bucks per person.

Paying for this, in Canada, is the biggest issue. It's the biggest issue in the USA too, but at least there a new federal VAT gets you part of the way.

Yes, the VAT wouldn't be the only way, I'm sure a creative way could be thought up, that targeted those that can afford it more. Wealth tax, Luxury vehicle tax (or maybe just new vehicle tax, while not collecting on older vehicles), Inheritance taxes (over a certain threshold), the Carbon tax is a form of wealth redistribution as well, since lower income people get more back than spent.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, if the proposed UBI doesn't even get you to the poverty line, and is literally just a supplement that will prevent you from starving to death, a better life is the incentive I guess.

This is 2 separate concepts to me.

Some people are referring to a larger safety net to allow motivated people to get back onto their feet. Others are talking about an endless basic income. The former I see no issue with. The later is just disguised wealth redistribution, but redistributed without any controls. That's bound to fail.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

Yes, the VAT wouldn't be the only way, I'm sure a creative way could be thought up, that targeted those that can afford it more. Wealth tax, Luxury vehicle tax (or maybe just new vehicle tax, while not collecting on older vehicles), Inheritance taxes (over a certain threshold), the Carbon tax is a form of wealth redistribution as well, since lower income people get more back than spent.

I think the point is, in order to afford a UBI, we'd need taxes on EVERYTHING - higher rates on the taxes we already have, taxes on things that are currently exempt and all sorts of new types of taxes, i.e. wealth, inheritance, etc.

I haven't fully bought into the idea of UBI, but I do think that if we're going to implementing a simplified form of government assistance, it would be a wasted opportunity not to simplify the tax code at the same time... Eliminate a bunch of exemptions, raise consumption taxes across the board, etc.

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is 2 separate concepts to me.

Some people are referring to a larger safety net to allow motivated people to get back onto their feet. Others are talking about an endless basic income. The former I see no issue with. The later is just disguised wealth redistribution, but redistributed without any controls. That's bound to fail.

What controls are you looking for?

UBI would be an amount that allowed the average person to survive, but not a lot more, basically the same amount minimum wage might offer.

If a person wanted to partake in any luxuries, they'd likely have to supplement their income in some way.

UBI would allow them to be a bit more picky, and possibly choose something they were interested in, maybe usher at the Dome for example (without UBI, no way you could just be an usher), or maybe start their own business, or go to school, be a dance teacher, coach a sports team. Things maybe you couldn't find time for, or paid too little due to too few hours, but if it was supplementing your income.

Alternatively, maybe you stay in your current line of work, but work less hours, cause you don't need the full 40-80 hours, and you use the extra time to look after a family member or volunteer.

Jobs are disappearing due to automation, we need some strategy to cope. This is one suggestion, what are your suggestions? Or do you think the situation isn't so dire, and no intervention is required?

You guys seem quick to poke holes in the statements, but it doesn't look like you've read or watched the links provided.

I see this as a critical problem that we will face sooner than later, I am genuinely interested in your solutions as well. I too had the same questions posed by you, but, with an open mind, I read the links, watched the videos, and they make sense to me. I'll read your solutions with the same open mind. What we have is doomed to fail (IMHO).

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

Yes, the VAT wouldn't be the only way, I'm sure a creative way could be thought up, that targeted those that can afford it more. Wealth tax, Luxury vehicle tax (or maybe just new vehicle tax, while not collecting on older vehicles), Inheritance taxes (over a certain threshold), the Carbon tax is a form of wealth redistribution as well, since lower income people get more back than spent.

Yeah, none of those would get you any reasonable distance toward this goal. You're short by the whole revenue of the federal government. Little targeted things don't get you close.

As an example: total vehicle sales have been 2 MM units plus or minus less than 5% the last three years.

See: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=2010000201

A 10k tax per new vehicle raises $20 B per year assuming nobody chooses not to buy a new car as a result of that, which is pretty unlikely. You got less than 5% of the $500+ billion required, and nerfed a huge amount of auto industry jobs at the same time.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

What controls are you looking for?

UBI would be an amount that allowed the average person to survive, but not a lot more, basically the same amount minimum wage might offer.

If a person wanted to partake in any luxuries, they'd likely have to supplement their income in some way.

UBI would allow them to be a bit more picky, and possibly choose something they were interested in, maybe usher at the Dome for example (without UBI, no way you could just be an usher), or maybe start their own business, or go to school, be a dance teacher, coach a sports team. Things maybe you couldn't find time for, or paid too little due to too few hours, but if it was supplementing your income.

Alternatively, maybe you stay in your current line of work, but work less hours, cause you don't need the full 40-80 hours, and you use the extra time to look after a family member or volunteer.

Jobs are disappearing due to automation, we need some strategy to cope. This is one suggestion, what are your suggestions? Or do you think the situation isn't so dire, and no intervention is required?

You guys seem quick to poke holes in the statements, but it doesn't look like you've read or watched the links provided.

I see this as a critical problem that we will face sooner than later, I am genuinely interested in your solutions as well. I too had the same questions posed by you, but, with an open mind, I read the links, watched the videos, and they make sense to me. I'll read your solutions with the same open mind. What we have is doomed to fail (IMHO).

I don't think this is true. Automation is increasing output, and increased output equals more jobs. There is just a shift in what kinds of jobs are available, but the work is still there.

Right now there is a massive skilled trades shortage. Why? Because we're not lining up our schooling with the jobs that are available on the other side. And then we turn around and say 'jobs are disappearing.' Strange.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think this is true. Automation is increasing output, and increased output equals more jobs. There is just a shift in what kinds of jobs are available, but the work is still there.

Right now there is a massive skilled trades shortage. Why? Because we're not lining up our schooling with the jobs that are available on the other side. And then we turn around and say 'jobs are disappearing.' Strange.

It's not that we're not lining up our schooling but it's the demand for 'higher education'. You can teach trades in public schools until you're blue in the face, private schools will just open up and take everyone away. Even in the current state, private schools are making a killing.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's not that we're not lining up our schooling but it's the demand for 'higher education'. You can teach trades in public schools until you're blue in the face, private schools will just open up and take everyone away. Even in the current state, private schools are making a killing.

I disagree with this.

The major problem in North America is lack of centralized control over the education system. The idea that we the government funding higher education (they pay something like 90% of actual tuition costs) and most programs have near unlimited amounts of spots is absurd.

If you actually look at the education systems of places like Germany and Scandinavian countries, where post-secondary education is totally free, they also strictly control how many students are allowed to enroll in each program. And no, you cannot circumvent this by going private, as the government also controls what universities get accredited as universities.

Germany and Scandinavia also divert children who are not performing well into trades programs during high school. Canada is starting to do this, and it makes sense. Instead of demoralizing a child by forcing them to repeat remedial math multiple times, why not give them actual skills.

Canada, overall, also needs an attitude shift. We need to stop telling kids that university is a part of your growth as a person. This is just marketing. Post-secondary education, of any kind, needs to be viewed as training for a job.