Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I suspect the only way UBI could ever work would be to combine it with a huge overhaul of the entire system of government. You would need to cut whole departments and have huge layoffs to get savings like that, and each of those programs would have people who benefit from it outraged. Plus, given the cost would exceed total Federal spending, you'd need to make deep cuts PLUS significantly raise taxes. Maybe the GST could go to 20%? You would certainly need to massively increase income taxes as well.

I think this is a good point that is being missed or glossed over too often in this conversation.

UBI is a measured response to the current and likely future state of western society. The catalyst that many UBI proponents point to is large scale automation of jobs and the resulting mass unemployment. Even more capital will likely move into the hands of even fewer people, primarily those that own large capital to begin with. So, in this scenario you have a few people with A LOT of money and a lot of people with no employment and a market that has little to no demand for employment.

The most common reaction to this is more aggressive progressive taxation. But that aggressive taxation only addresses the uber-wealthy and misses (or treats as an afterthought) how that capital gets to the masses of under and unemployed (in this scenario). Ultimately, UBI seems like a more efficient welfare system and social security net.

However, if the scenario of the future of automation and work is being overblown than this is a moot point and we can likely just use a slightly more aggressive progressive tax to deal with the current state of income inequality.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Agree completely. I meant the comment that the rich will pay theirs back in tax only as a reason not to means test it, not that it could conceivably be paid for by only the rich. For UBI everyone needs to pay, and pay a lot.

With progressive taxation there will be a breakeven somewhere, and everyone above that income level will be worse off with UBI. How high that level is depends on what type of taxes are used to fund it, but it won't be a 6 figure number or anywhere near that likely.

I misread that. Rereading your post it is clear that you weren’t just saying the rich would pay.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I think this is a good point that is being missed or glossed over too often in this conversation.

UBI is a measured response to the current and likely future state of western society. The catalyst that many UBI proponents point to is large scale automation of jobs and the resulting mass unemployment. Even more capital will likely move into the hands of even fewer people, primarily those that own large capital to begin with. So, in this scenario you have a few people with A LOT of money and a lot of people with no employment and a market that has little to no demand for employment.

The most common reaction to this is more aggressive progressive taxation. But that aggressive taxation only addresses the uber-wealthy and misses (or treats as an afterthought) how that capital gets to the masses of under and unemployed (in this scenario). Ultimately, UBI seems like a more efficient welfare system and social security net.

However, if the scenario of the future of automation and work is being overblown than this is a moot point and we can likely just use a slightly more aggressive progressive tax to deal with the current state of income inequality.

I think its likely that UBI will accelerate automation and reduce labor force participation, especially at the low end. It also seems likely to cement existing large businesses and capital holders, in the same way that onerous regulation does.

Example: McDonalds came out with self ordering kiosks at almost exactly the same time the minimum wage went to $15 here. I think that is likely a coincidence, but the cause is part of a larger trend. I can imagine someone in suburban Chicago having a conversation about $15 minimum wage in places like Seattle, and someone telling him, "even the Texas of Canada where they produce oil, where cowboy hats and voted the same right wing party for 40 years now has a $15 minimum wage government." Once that trend became obvious, increased spending on automation made sense to save labor.

UBI almost certainly increases demand for fast food, and decreases the supply of labour for fast food restaurants. Some of the extra income will get spent on burgers, and some people will decide to not work fast food if they don't need to. So with higher demand and lower supply the price of fast food labour goes up. That improves the returns from investing in automation, and maybe Wendys adds kiosks as well.

But somewhere like Boogies burgers and other local type places probably can't afford the investment. Big chains can amortize the upfront costs over tens of thousands of restaurants, while the local places can't. If automation becomes necessary to compete, you will give large established businesses a bigger advantage than they already have.

[GirlySports]

GGG: I'm not sure that less labor meets societal needs. We're in a lockdown. Once people are moving around more, not working from home, traveling, that labor requirement will be back, for example, transit running at normal intervals.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

He didn't woodshed a goddamn thing. He just has a dogmatic attachment to conventional thinking. His head is still in 1980 or 1990, and he doesn't realize that it's 2020 now, and a lot has changed.

And when you say conventional thinking you mean understanding the political system, policy and policy formation, cultural norms, and voter behaviors? Dude, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

All of his "arguments" could have been used to justify the continuation of slavery 300 years ago. "Oh, what's that? You want slavery to be abolished? Awww, that's cute... but sorry, it's not a policy position, my local community college said so."

Great issue to pick as an example. Slavery. Let's talk about it and what it took for the end of slavery to get from the "idea" stage, to a policy stage, then to implementation.

"Some" of the founding fathers believed in the idea of giving their slaves their freedom, and had the free will to do just that, but never followed through on that. They had the "idea" but never acted upon it themselves. Why is that? Cultural norms, societal expectations, and laws made the idea impractical, so it remained nothing more than an idea, one the founding fathers spoke about quietly and privately. When the constitution was finally ratified it included clauses in the document (the 3/5ths clause, the fugitive slave clause, and the electoral college) which were entrenched in policy to maintain slavery and the power of the pro-slavery southern colonies.

So fast forward 60 years, to 1854, and a lawyer named Abraham Lincoln began talking about ending slavery and granting all people their freedom and access to the same liberty that white men shared. Lincoln spoke to not only the injustice, and the moral failings of slavery, but also to the economic and legal reasons to ending slavery. This was the first moment when someone really started the shift from the idea phase to the analysis phase, where the political machinations could be brought together to understand the larger issue. This was an evolution in Lincoln's thinking as only two years earlier he had presented the stillborn idea of colonization to solve the slavery problem - sending freed slaves to Liberia where they could start a new life as freed men (the irony). This was an important moment because someone in a position of political power (Lincoln had won a seat in the Illinois General Assembly in 1836 and maintained that seat until 1842) was showing support for the idea. The abolitionists, those who were in support of the idea ending slavery, but had no policy or political influence, were quick to join the conversation and make this a more broad issue, shifting this to the beginning of the consultation phase of the policy cycle. Lincoln was able to articulate the position clearly and begin to find loose support for the abolition of slavery.

The next critical step for the anti-slavery movement was to gain broad political support for the cause. Lincoln ran for Senate in Illinois and had a number of famous debates with Stephen Douglas to socialize the many concepts in the developing policy, many of which Lincoln had to soften or give completely on to garner public support. In doing so he openly admitted that blacks should not have the right to vote, right to hold office, or right to have relations with white people. Douglas had legal and political support behind his side of the debate including the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which would actually result in the birth of the Republican Party), which made his case much easier to make.

Lincoln would go on to organize a coalition (the Kansas-Nebraska coalition) of anti-slave support in the new territories and then organize the Republican Party itself in 1856, moving on to the coaltion building and coordination aspects of the policy cycle. The legal landscape was still clearly stacking up against the anti-slavery and abolitionist movements as the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision declared slaves could not be citizens, even by birthright. Lincoln would have popular public support for his positions but lose the Senate election to Douglas.

The loss of the Senate seat was not a step backward as the exposure from the Lincoln-Douglas debates elevated Lincoln and the issue to prominence in some circles. Lincoln had put together the appropriate support and political mechanisms where he could then move to the program design aspects of the policy cycle. Lincoln would earn the nomination and gain the party support for to establish the policy of anti-slavery as a platform plank.

Lincoln would go on to win the 1860 Presidential election on November 6th and give him opportunity to implement policy. On December 20th, South Carolina would secede from the union putting the country on the fast track to civil war. Before Lincoln was inaugurated in March of 1861, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas would follow South Carolina's lead and further divide the nation. Virgina, North Carolina, and Arkansas would later join the Confederacy shortly after hostilities were initiated. So began the bloodiest and most deadly time in American history, all because of the development of a policy.

Lincoln would move forward with the implementation phase of the anti-slavery policy, first abolishing slavery in Washington DC (the dry run) then beginning the full throated implementation with the introduction of the Emancipation Proclamation to congress for their approval. On January 1st, 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation was delivered, providing the first legal support to the policy. On February 1st, Lincoln would sign and deliver the 13th Amendment, but it would not be ratified and adopted for another two years. That would require the end of the civil war, the surrender of the confederacy at the Appomottax Court house on April 9th, 1865, and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln at the Ford Theatre five days later. The 13th Amendment, the final execution of the anti-slavery policy, was ratified on December 6th, 1865. We are still in the evaluation phase of the policy cycle.

That is how policy works. That is how hard and brutal policy development can be. This was obviously a very extreme example of the policy cycle, but a great opportunity to see how policy development happens, from idea through to implementation, and all the machinations required to achieve a political outcome.

I just hope he understands the irony of talking about the evilness of Trump, then turning around and scoffing at UBI. Maybe he thinks the US was some kind of paradise prior to Trump's election?

I don't even know what this means. Is this an attempt to build a strawman? Is this an attempt to deflect from your ignorance? What does this even mean? Like your ideas on policy and UBI, it is clearly not well constructed and has no clear meaning.

I get that you are enthralled with the idea of UBI, and think it should be something that becomes policy. But the reality is that there is little support at this time, even in the midst of a pandemic where people are struggling financially, to make UBI even a discussion point. In all the discussions and deal making to keep people whole has UBI been discussed or presented by anyone in congress? Nope. Why? Because there is no support for it. It is not a policy, it is not even in the infancy of being a policy. No one is going to make this an issue and try to throw their weight behind it because it will get crushed at the ballot box and any politician who suggests such nonsense.

Could it one day become a serious policy? Sure. Anything can. But there is a very long road ahead to have this idea gain the appropriate fiscal, political, and legal support for it to become a policy position for any political party.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

The most common reaction to this is more aggressive progressive taxation. But that aggressive taxation only addresses the uber-wealthy and misses (or treats as an afterthought) how that capital gets to the masses of under and unemployed (in this scenario).

The other issue is that if you're uber wealthy, you may not be earning a whole lot of regular income (it's not like you're getting a paycheck), and to the extent you are, you're funneling it through tax havens. So the traditional income tax model isn't a great way to deal with the 21st century drivers of income inequality.

Wealth taxes and capital taxes were one attempted solution, but they simply don't work in practice, which is why they've been repealed in most places they've been tried.

[AltaGuy]

I think it would be exceptionally difficult to provide a UBI without massive buy-in from large corporations/employers.

A major impetus for UBI is the simple fact that Western economies are the world's consumers. Lower labour force participation means low consumption, which craters demand for the many goods that corporations need to sell to keep the economy afloat.

But progressive taxation on individuals will never get there. It has to be done through taxing corporations (who need the consumers). And to do that, you'll have to punish corporations by withholding access to your consumer market should they not fairly accept the taxation or try to move jurisdictions.

Basically, I don't see how UBI works without buy-in from large corporations, but I also don't see how it is realistically possible to make them pay for it. So, I doubt it happens unless we have to because the world economy is cratering without a healthy consumer base.

[JohnnyB]

If not for the issue of flight to other currencies, UBI funded through continuous QE would be an interesting idea to see play out. It would essentially be a tax on all cash in order to provide UBI. It would create a strong incentive against holding cash and might increase M2. Massive overseas cash reserves wouldn't need to be brought back on shore as they would essentially be taxed through QE and inflation, so holders of large reserves would need to start moving cash into other investments.

Imagining a bubble with a single global currency and UBI funded through permanent QE makes for a kind of interesting thought experiment.

[Stillman16]

I'm not sure how many of you watched the videos in the original post, but they do a good job (imho) explaining the need and function of the UBI.

Innovation has led to automation, and automation is being driven by capitalism (make more money with less labor), and is hitting a critical point. Automation has lead to stagnant job creation numbers, while population continues to grow. This is compounding the wage gap, and leading to many societal problems.

The UBI could provide the necessary safety net to keep the capitalist system from full on collapse. Without it, there simply won't be anyone to consume, if no one is working.

With a UBI, there would still be consumers, and as the videos stated, most people don't just want to sit around and do nothing, and would pursue areas of interest, while providing much more productivity. Some may even do the same jobs they loathed, but be working for themselves, or at least by choice, not need.

Sure, people would avoid the less desirable jobs, but that would drive up the wage for them, or provide a job for the new immigrant or teenager, that wouldn't qualify for UBI (yet)-arguably the ones that should fill these positions. Also, if so inclined, a UBI recipient could supplement their income in these positions as well.

As for "dirty" jobs, like cleaning bathrooms or porta-potties, either the same people will fill them, or people will create their own businesses to do these jobs, while working for themselves!

The UBI would allow people to explore opportunities they couldn't, while working to survive. And the same stuff will get done, if no one will do it, likely a robot will be programmed to do it! If there is a niche that is open, someone will try to fill it-that is capitalism.

As for how to pay for it, that will take creativity. Andrew Yang's plan had a good start to work from, that would likely translate fairly well to Canada too:

"How would we pay for the Freedom Dividend?
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.
The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:

1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.
Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.

4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program."

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

[puckedoff]

UBI would usher in the end times. I think you would end up with the ultra rich, and then everyone else living in serfdom / reserve type conditions. Not saying capitalism won't send us there anyways, but UBI would definitely accelerate it.

A system like that would lead to the ultra rich looking at the rest of the non-working population as leeches, and you would see supervillians rise up which attempt to sterilize or otherwise dispose of the population.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

UBI would usher in the end times. I think you would end up with the ultra rich, and then everyone else living in serfdom / reserve type conditions. Not saying capitalism won't send us there anyways, but UBI would definitely accelerate it.

A system like that would lead to the ultra rich looking at the rest of the non-working population as leeches, and you would see supervillians rise up which attempt to sterilize or otherwise dispose of the population.

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

[Harry Lime]

Really want to see that mapped out. And made into a movie starring Nic Cage.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

UBI would usher in the end times. I think you would end up with the ultra rich, and then everyone else living in serfdom / reserve type conditions. Not saying capitalism won't send us there anyways, but UBI would definitely accelerate it.

A system like that would lead to the ultra rich looking at the rest of the non-working population as leeches, and you would see supervillians rise up which attempt to sterilize or otherwise dispose of the population.

The ultra-rich would have to subsidize it. There is going to come a time that some degree of wealth re-distribution becomes necessary.

They need those "leeches" to afford the crap and product replacement cycle that keeps them in power. If the middle class continues to lose financial ground, it won't be able to be the cog that the machine depends on.

[GirlySports]

Does losing jobs to automation create automation-centric jobs? Due to automation, the quality of our work has increased, the quality of the intellect involved in our work has increased. I'd get into data and statistics today if I were 15.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I think this is a good point that is being missed or glossed over too often in this conversation.

UBI is a measured response to the current and likely future state of western society. The catalyst that many UBI proponents point to is large scale automation of jobs and the resulting mass unemployment. Even more capital will likely move into the hands of even fewer people, primarily those that own large capital to begin with. So, in this scenario you have a few people with A LOT of money and a lot of people with no employment and a market that has little to no demand for employment.

The most common reaction to this is more aggressive progressive taxation. But that aggressive taxation only addresses the uber-wealthy and misses (or treats as an afterthought) how that capital gets to the masses of under and unemployed (in this scenario). Ultimately, UBI seems like a more efficient welfare system and social security net.

However, if the scenario of the future of automation and work is being overblown than this is a moot point and we can likely just use a slightly more aggressive progressive tax to deal with the current state of income inequality.

Originally Posted by Stillman16

I'm not sure how many of you watched the videos in the original post, but they do a good job (imho) explaining the need and function of the UBI.

Innovation has led to automation, and automation is being driven by capitalism (make more money with less labor), and is hitting a critical point. Automation has lead to stagnant job creation numbers, while population continues to grow. This is compounding the wage gap, and leading to many societal problems.

The UBI could provide the necessary safety net to keep the capitalist system from full on collapse. Without it, there simply won't be anyone to consume, if no one is working.

With a UBI, there would still be consumers, and as the videos stated, most people don't just want to sit around and do nothing, and would pursue areas of interest, while providing much more productivity. Some may even do the same jobs they loathed, but be working for themselves, or at least by choice, not need.

Sure, people would avoid the less desirable jobs, but that would drive up the wage for them, or provide a job for the new immigrant or teenager, that wouldn't qualify for UBI (yet)-arguably the ones that should fill these positions. Also, if so inclined, a UBI recipient could supplement their income in these positions as well.

As for "dirty" jobs, like cleaning bathrooms or porta-potties, either the same people will fill them, or people will create their own businesses to do these jobs, while working for themselves!

The UBI would allow people to explore opportunities they couldn't, while working to survive. And the same stuff will get done, if no one will do it, likely a robot will be programmed to do it! If there is a niche that is open, someone will try to fill it-that is capitalism.

As for how to pay for it, that will take creativity. Andrew Yang's plan had a good start to work from, that would likely translate fairly well to Canada too:

"How would we pay for the Freedom Dividend?
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.
The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:

1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.
Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.

4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program."

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

I added up the proceeds of cutting existing social programs, a new 10% GST (VAT), and removed the cap on ei taxes above. That is essentially items 1, 2 and 4 on that list. Plus a big income tax hike. Using actual numbers from last years federal budget.

It was still short by approximately the current amount of total Canadian federal spending. I agree there would probably be growth in some areas, but assuming growth doubles government revenue and that will pay for it seems pretty Pollyanna to me.

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I added up the proceeds of cutting existing social programs, a new 10% GST (VAT), and removed the cap on ei taxes above. That is essentially items 1, 2 and 4 on that list. Plus a big income tax hike. Using actual numbers from last years federal budget.

It was still short by approximately the current amount of total Canadian federal spending. I agree there would probably be growth in some areas, but assuming growth doubles government revenue and that will pay for it seems pretty Pollyanna to me.

The VAT isn't GST, it's on the goods BEFORE consumption, so the producer pays it!

"A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent."

"The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:

1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.

Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.

4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program."


All from that link previously

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

The VAT isn't GST, it's on the goods BEFORE consumption, so the producer pays it!

"A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent."

"The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:

1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.

Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.

4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program."


All from that link previously

GST is a VAT. They work the exact same way...

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Leondros

GST is a VAT. They work the exact same way...

+1

Shockingly, VATs are collected on the Value Added to each stage of the product cycle, with every step paying a net VAT on the incremental value added. The final link in the chain (i.e. consumer) pays the full amount, as there is no further value added.

It's almost like it was appropriately named...

[Yoho]

They cant find enough school bus drivers right now to take kids to school no one wants to work for the wage with other alternatives out there.
Does programs like CERB or UBI help that?

I'm all for helping out for individuals in the short term, no interest in this long term poggie.

"Need a penny take a penny, need two pennies get a job."

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

The VAT isn't GST, it's on the goods BEFORE consumption, so the producer pays it!

Which means it now becomes a cost of doing business and is built into the cost of the product or service to the consumer. Just like Mexico was going to pay for the wall, the cost gets passed along to the consumers.

"The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:

Here's where the math really gets dumb.

1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.

UBI does not replace any of these services, so they exist regardless of a universal basic income. UBI does not eliminate the need for welfare, food stamps, or especially disability. Those people are already trying to live on means well below the poverty line. UBI does not even approach that level or address the actual level of a living wage. You cannot count on this as a revenue stream as the funds from a UBI do not meet the needs of those who use these services. The need for these services will still remain. You're just moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

This is so much stupid in one point. How does UBI change health outcomes? How would it help an individual or family deal with the costs of health insurance? How is it going to prevent trips to the emergency room? How would it help with incarcerations? How would it limit homelessness? This is suggesting that throwing money at a problem makes the root causes go away. News flash: It doesn't.

2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

This didn't make sense the first time around and it makes even less sense the second time around. You were suggesting earlier that we'll just start using more robots to do jobs people don't want, but are suggesting we can't collect takes from robots or software. So where does the money come from all these jobs that are lost to robots that will be doing everything?

3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.

I don't get this one either. Giving people money is no guarantee the economy is going to grow or people are going to spend it in ways to grow the economy. We've been giving the rich all the money in the world through tax breaks and tax cuts under the belief that the money would funnel into the economy and things would be better for everyone. Instead that money ended up in the banks or in the markets and were used to generate more wealth for the already rich. You give money to the poor and they will spend it on things they need, like necessities such as rent and food. What we do know is that prices are going to rise because that VAT is getting passed along to the consumer.

UBI is likely to cause inflation in a big way. Cost of goods and services is going to rise significantly as the VAT is built into the cost of everything. But hey, no worries, you have an extra $1,000 a month, amiright? So what if EVERYTHING goes up by 10%, you're covered up to $1K for that inflation.

4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program."

Math doesn't work. Social security cap removal only helps social security (a good thing). The other taxes are the very same ones that have been killed off by the Trump admin. You honestly think that anyone is going to re-institute them for a "freedom dividend?" Come on. You have to acknowledge how the system works and who it favors.