strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Not all people know what is best for them. At least things like medicare and food handouts ensure the poor get what is good for them, instead of smartphones, drugs etc.
[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
- Status
Not all people know what is best for them. At least things like medicare and food handouts ensure the poor get what is good for them, instead of smartphones, drugs etc.
Sure they don't. As a whole. But most people do. Any form of assistance in the form of cash tends to have better outcomes as a whole for the recipients than any other form of aid.
It can be argued that a smartphone is actually necessary in today's job market. But I understand Strijder's point.
I'd still like to see the richest of the rich having to put more skin in the game than the scheme in Cutlass' pic.
I'd still like to see the richest of the rich having to put more skin in the game than the scheme in Cutlass' pic.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
People are much more likely to spend their money wisely if we treat them like we expect them to be responsible for themselves. They might be a lot of irresponsible spending when a Universal Basic Income is first implemented, but eventually I think it would teach them to budget better.
Charities and mutual aid societies are much more effective at addressing short term catastrophic needs than providing the income that the poor need on a regular basis. They would likely become much more effective if a Universal Basic Income were in place. Since the poor are already the most charitable demographic relative their income, I expect that a lot of UBI funds would end up going to mutual aid societies which would help them get what they really need.
I would certainly support UBI funded by a flat income taxes over the current system, but it is not ideal. The funding mechanism still has some distortionary effects discouraging work and investment, and is still vulnerable to all sorts of fraud. The free money would likely lead to inflation in the basic costs of living, in particular in the goods with the least elastic supply. Land rents in particular (and thus housing and business costs that depend on them) would likely skyrocket.
I much prefer a Citizens' Dividend, a form of Universal Basic Income that is funded by taxes on unimproved land values (which could also be expanded to include mineral extraction royalties, EM spectrum licensing fees, and Pigouvian pollution taxes) rather than any taxes on productive activities. That form of taxation even by itself would tend to stimulate more efficient and sustainable economic growth rather than slowing the economy and wasting resources through deadweight losses. Land Value Taxes also tend to be extremely progressive, as most of the valuable land is controlled by the very rich. LVTs drive rents down relative to wages, and makes it easier to become a home or business owner without going into debt. Also, since it is much harder to hide land than income, the administrative costs of collecting the tax are much lower.
Charities and mutual aid societies are much more effective at addressing short term catastrophic needs than providing the income that the poor need on a regular basis. They would likely become much more effective if a Universal Basic Income were in place. Since the poor are already the most charitable demographic relative their income, I expect that a lot of UBI funds would end up going to mutual aid societies which would help them get what they really need.
I would certainly support UBI funded by a flat income taxes over the current system, but it is not ideal. The funding mechanism still has some distortionary effects discouraging work and investment, and is still vulnerable to all sorts of fraud. The free money would likely lead to inflation in the basic costs of living, in particular in the goods with the least elastic supply. Land rents in particular (and thus housing and business costs that depend on them) would likely skyrocket.
I much prefer a Citizens' Dividend, a form of Universal Basic Income that is funded by taxes on unimproved land values (which could also be expanded to include mineral extraction royalties, EM spectrum licensing fees, and Pigouvian pollution taxes) rather than any taxes on productive activities. That form of taxation even by itself would tend to stimulate more efficient and sustainable economic growth rather than slowing the economy and wasting resources through deadweight losses. Land Value Taxes also tend to be extremely progressive, as most of the valuable land is controlled by the very rich. LVTs drive rents down relative to wages, and makes it easier to become a home or business owner without going into debt. Also, since it is much harder to hide land than income, the administrative costs of collecting the tax are much lower.
Mise
isle of lucy
I just can't see how the numbers in that table add up. "Everybody wins"? Really? What about families? Old people? And what about everything else the government funds? Is that accounted for too, or is the 40% tax purely for the $15k basic income? Getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid are pretty big, expensive, and incredibly useful programmes to get rid of. If a right winger was proposing this, surely Cutlass would be up in arms? I mean, if a right winger proposed this, then the thing would be criticised as social engineering, the gambit being that stupid poor people would piss their money away on booze and drugs instead of buying health insurance, meaning they'd die off faster. No assistance to children = gambit to make poor people stop breeding for welfare cheques. This whole thing looks like a trojan horse to me.
The numbers in the table don't sound plausible, and ending the infographic with "everybody wins" and a picture of a pile of cash only feeds my skepticism...
EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I'm largely in favour of cash-based payments to replace voucher-based things like food stamps. I also broadly support the Conservative government's aim of replacing most forms of welfare with a single cash payment. However, that proposal is not a one-size-fits-all payment of a flat $15k for everone; it's still means tested and needs tested. It also does NOT depend on scrapping the NHS, or indeed any other benefit. It's simply rolled into one payment, making it simpler for people to apply for, cheaper for the government to administer, and easier to ensure that there are no "perverse incentives" such as >100% effective marginal tax rates. So no, I don't think this deceptively attractive UBI is any good. The way the Tories are trying to do it over here is much better.
The numbers in the table don't sound plausible, and ending the infographic with "everybody wins" and a picture of a pile of cash only feeds my skepticism...
EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I'm largely in favour of cash-based payments to replace voucher-based things like food stamps. I also broadly support the Conservative government's aim of replacing most forms of welfare with a single cash payment. However, that proposal is not a one-size-fits-all payment of a flat $15k for everone; it's still means tested and needs tested. It also does NOT depend on scrapping the NHS, or indeed any other benefit. It's simply rolled into one payment, making it simpler for people to apply for, cheaper for the government to administer, and easier to ensure that there are no "perverse incentives" such as >100% effective marginal tax rates. So no, I don't think this deceptively attractive UBI is any good. The way the Tories are trying to do it over here is much better.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
It still works out better for almost everyone.
The page it came from, what I saw of it anyways, didn't have an analysis of the numbers. I just posted it here because it was interesting. Not because I was certain that the number of it would necessarily work out exactly as the creator thought they would. The Medicare-Medicaid provisions are certainly something of a gray area. As is the failure to mention Social Security. So while I think it's interesting, I don't think it is sufficiently complete to accept at face value.
I'm just leaning towards thinking a UBI is reasonable. It's the only solution I've been able to think of for automation-induced unemployment.
"Automation induced unemployment" has been going strong for 250+ years now. For that, in particular, we don't need new remedies. We need to revive the old remedies that worked.
It's the new political dominance of finance capitalism that is the cause of the current problems, and that a UBI might be a partial remedy of.
It's the new political dominance of finance capitalism that is the cause of the current problems, and that a UBI might be a partial remedy of.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
A big part of the problem is a growing proportion of income being eaten up by rents. The growth of the financial industry is to a large degree driven by the need to go into debt to purchase real estate and thus enjoy the implicit rents of one's own property rather than playing a landlord. (Monopoly rents from government granted copyrights and patents are also a problem, as are rules requiring the holders of derivatives to be paid first in bankruptcy proceedings.)
An LVT-funded Citizens' Dividend would be much more effective at addressing this than would an Income Tax-funded Universal Basic Income.
An LVT-funded Citizens' Dividend would be much more effective at addressing this than would an Income Tax-funded Universal Basic Income.
Maybe this should move to a "utopian taxation scheme" thread? It's interesting and certainly there's room for more depth.
Speaking purely as a poster, not a mod
EDIT: JUNIOR mod
Speaking purely as a poster, not a mod
EDIT: JUNIOR mod
Ok, i did the regression for this, which yielded f(x) = 0.57359 + 0.02165x without DC or f(x) = 0.66329 + 0.01077x with DC for whole number rounded percentages of African-American populations as x.
So... technically, well, yes.
But it's a bit underwhelming don't you think?
Totally on a whim i did the same for electoral votes:
f(x) = 0.4763 + 0.0292x
Which makes no sense strategy wise.
But i suppose it makes sense in that the people (and even more so the legislators) of bigger states are quite full of it when it comes to appraciating the authoritah! of their derpy state.
f(x) = 0.4763 + 0.0292x
Which makes no sense strategy wise.
But i suppose it makes sense in that the people (and even more so the legislators) of bigger states are quite full of it when it comes to appraciating the authoritah! of their derpy state.
Mise
isle of lucy
That seems pretty strong to me 
Take the DC state one, as the worst case for Masada's hypothesis. A state with no black people has 0.66 restrictive legislative changes to voting laws. Now, each additional 1% black population increases this number by 0.01, or 1.5%. So in the absolute worst case, a 1% increase in black population increases the number of restrictive legislative changes by 1.5%. A state with a black population of 33% would have 50% more restrictive legislative changes than a state that was purely white. That's a pretty big difference!
Using the "electoral vote" figures as the best case for the hypothesis, a state with a 33% black population would have 3 times as many restrictive legislative changes to voting laws than a purely white state. Again, that's a massive difference, especially when you would expect there to be no effect whatsoever.
EDIT: I don't know what your R^2 is or whether the effect is significant, whether it's so close to zero that it might as well be zero, etc, but it seems like you're drawing a conclusion from the magnitude of the coefficient itself, so my objection is on that basis alone.
Take the DC state one, as the worst case for Masada's hypothesis. A state with no black people has 0.66 restrictive legislative changes to voting laws. Now, each additional 1% black population increases this number by 0.01, or 1.5%. So in the absolute worst case, a 1% increase in black population increases the number of restrictive legislative changes by 1.5%. A state with a black population of 33% would have 50% more restrictive legislative changes than a state that was purely white. That's a pretty big difference!Using the "electoral vote" figures as the best case for the hypothesis, a state with a 33% black population would have 3 times as many restrictive legislative changes to voting laws than a purely white state. Again, that's a massive difference, especially when you would expect there to be no effect whatsoever.
EDIT: I don't know what your R^2 is or whether the effect is significant, whether it's so close to zero that it might as well be zero, etc, but it seems like you're drawing a conclusion from the magnitude of the coefficient itself, so my objection is on that basis alone.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
I think the Tió de Nadal is pretty exclusively a Catalan thing, but I wouldn't know how well known is the tradition in Valencia and Mallorca.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
