Have we discussed Yang's UBI?

[Dekker]

Search shows the topic has come up in different threads but I couldn't seem to find an in-depth discussion on it.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

What is everyone's thoughts on this? At a glance I think the taxes would need to be higher, but we spend a lot of money on ridiculous things anyway there's more sources to acquire it from, like defense spending. It satisfies Capitalism by allowing it and not having the state seize the means of production like the commies want, but in theory it should allow the most poor to eck out a better semblance of a living. Win win no? No win? Do we stigmatize giving money to people while fully ignore the free money we allow big corporations to keep racking in, and still give them more free money ON TOP of that?

 

[Zardnaar]

It would drive up inflation and I think it's our in the sky for the most part. Probably unaffordable as well.

One advantage is though electorally everyone gets something which is a flaw of tax cuts and increased social spending in the bottom 10-20%.

I don't see him winning anyway elections often come down to who can bribe the middle class the best.

 

[innonimatu]

Awful idea. What the "commies" want is the profits of labout to be distributed to those who labour, not to idle rent-receivers through the privilege of ownership.

Taxing and redistributing some of the profits does not end that immoral and unjust privilege that rent receivers (the owners of the means of production) have of receiving income just because one has inherited or bought a stake of ownership in an economic enterprise where that ones does not labour.

Also, "commies" believe that labour is a basic human necessity, something that helps give purpose to life and (crucially!) social power to people. Surely it will be best if people are capable of finding the best jobs for their skills, but pushing them into idle unemployment is not a "commie" goal. Throwing people into unemployment, actively encouraging them to live out from some kind of state-distributed dole, inevitably places them into a role of dependence. Soon enough they lose social and political power, become an underclass regarded as useless and that "UBI" will be cut.

So I thing that any kind of UBI will be something commies oppose. The end goal co communism was from the start that redistribution should be "from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs". Meaning that people in need can and should be supported by those more able. That cannot be done by distributing a lump sup to every person. Needs are different.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the vast majority of people would be in favor if they understood. Every once in awhile, the nature of money shifts. Sometimes because the economy has gone bonkers. Sometimes it causes the bonkers. And sometimes to prevent it.

It's mainly a different way of preventing wealth migration upwards, though it's easy to mismanage. But also possible to not.

If you have a functioning society, owned by the citizens, a freedom dividend is certainly a viable reward. Plus, we need to be discussing Automation Induced Unemployment

 

[Dekker]

Awful idea. What the "commies" want is the profits of labout to be distributed to those who labour, not to idle rent-receivers through the privilege of ownership.

Taxing and redistributing some of the profits does not end that immoral and unjust privilege that rent receivers (the owners of the means of production) have of receiving income just because one has inherited or bought a stake of ownership in an economic enterprise where that ones does not labour.

Also, "commies" believe that labour is a basic human necessity, something that helps give purpose to life and (crucially!) social power to people. Surely it will be best if people are capable of finding the best jobs for their skills, but pushing them into idle unemployment is not a "commie" goal. Throwing people into unemployment, actively encouraging them to live out from some kind of state-distributed dole, inevitably places them into a role of dependence. Soon enough they lose social and political power, become an underclass regarded as useless and that "UBI" will be cut.

So I thing that any kind of UBI will be something commies oppose. The end goal co communism was from the start that redistribution should be "from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs". Meaning that people in need can and should be supported by those more able. That cannot be done by distributing a lump sup to every person. Needs are different.

12k a year is not enough to cause idle unemployment of the masses. The already idle and unemployed/mentally challenged would sure likely remain that way but at least may afford a better standard of living.

Labor in itself is not a basic necessity, purpose is. Again 1k a month won't replace labour, most people would still need to in order to live their preferred standard of life, and capitalism would continue to make us desire upward mobility and material possessions, but even for the few who scrap by on the 1k, they would likely pursue their own preferred purpose, star trek and all. Would it be profitable? Likely not, but the commies shouldnt be about profit.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think the vast majority of people would be in favor if they understood.

I...guess you stay out of comments sections, then?

I think Canada might be ready for a UBI with a bit more pushing. I'm not sure if the U.S. will be for a while.

 

[Dekker]

I...guess you stay out of comments sections, then?

I think Canada might be ready for a UBI with a bit more pushing. I'm not sure if the U.S. will be for a while.

Key word likely being understood

 

[Lexicus]

There is (imo) good analysis out of the Levy Institute demonstrating that a UBI will not result in any gains in living standards because it will be inflated away by price increases. I can find some of that tomorrow and post it here. A federal job guarantee is a much superior policy that provides people with disposable income and has a built-in price anchor.

I also frankly don't trust Yang's UBI concept, I am pretty sure he comes out of the Silicon Valley milieu that wants to use UBI as an excuse to take an ax to other social programs. Whatever the inflationary effect of a UBI that can't be allowed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Other thing is that not everyone needs the ubi, it's similar to our pension.

Idk how welfare 100% works in America but a ubi might be better than what they have now.

More interested in a war on poverty myself with a focus on housing as people are getting priced out. That could also include an overhaul of tax.

 

[Commodore]

12k a month is not enough to cause idle unemployment of the masses

It would for me. Twelve grand a month is way more than I need to live so I would definitely kiss my job goodbye.

PS: I am aware that 12k was a typo.

 

[emzie]

I...guess you stay out of comments sections, then?

I think Canada might be ready for a UBI with a bit more pushing. I'm not sure if the U.S. will be for a while.

We already have UBI for minors and seniors and it's more than halved the poverty rate for both groups.

 

[Zardnaar]

We already have UBI for minors and seniors and it's more than halved the poverty rate for both groups.

Governments can afford targeted assistance.

How much is the cost of Yangs idea?

 

[Dekker]

What would focusing on housing look like? More govt regulations to keep foreign buyers out sure would help but those without jobs and the homeless would still be out of luck.

As for jobs guarantee, I guess the question is can we really guarantee a job for everyone? We can't force the private sector to hire people so then that would mean putting people in menial govt jobs and again in 50 years with more automation, will there even be enough jobs to make?

If we did not tie the income to a govt provided job they could either focus on bettering themselves so they good a better job than what the govt would have provided, or skate by on the 1k likely building some kind of community with others of their ilk rather than just being forced into menial work.

For those who are against the rest of us paying for those skaters, we already pay into welfare, emergency room care, and all the other costs created by the current situation. Govt provided job guarantee would seem too controling over that segment of society that relied on it no?

I look forward to seeing the opposing arguments and research thanks Lex. Yang did say that certain benefits would be kept, so people who are getting more from others could choose to that instead of taking his dividend.

I believe it was costed out to pretty much 3 trillion annually.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

We already have UBI for minors and seniors and it's more than halved the poverty rate for both groups.

But if it's targeted towards two groups, is it really universal basic income?

 

[emzie]

Governments can afford targeted assistance.

How much is the cost of Yangs idea?

That's a really complicated calculation. The outlays are hundreds of billions a month, but it's not as if that money vanishes. That money also allows people to spend more time doing unpaid volunteer labour. When I see economists like Miltom Friedman having endorsed the idea, I have to take notice.

In my opinion UBI is a way to save the core of capitalism. Without it, or some other structural change I haven't heard of yet, the system is unsustainable.

I'm not sure if that's truly an argument in favour of UBI, since it mostly maintains a status quo that I'm not a fan of.

But if it's targeted towards two groups, is it really universal basic income?

You're right, it's not universal. But as a demonstration, those programs along with welfare and disability add a lot of weight (imo) to the practicality of UBI. We almost have it now, it's just means tested. Like, for instance, I'm on disability and it's set a floor for how poor I can be. I work what I can, i don't have a glamorous life, but it's at least dignified.

 

[Zardnaar]

What would focusing on housing look like? More govt regulations to keep foreign buyers out sure would help but those without jobs and the homeless would still be out of luck.

As for jobs guarantee, I guess the question is can we really guarantee a job for everyone? We can't force the private sector to hire people so then that would mean putting people in menial govt jobs and again in 50 years with more automation, will there even be enough jobs to make?

If we did not tie the income to a govt provided job they could either focus on bettering themselves so they good a better job than what the govt would have provided, or skate by on the 1k likely building some kind of community with others of their ilk rather than just being forced into menial work.

For those who are against the rest of us paying for those skaters, we already pay into welfare, emergency room care, and all the other costs created by the current situation. Govt provided job guarantee would seem too controling over that segment of society that relied on it no?

I look forward to seeing the opposing arguments and research thanks Lex. Yang did say that certain benefits would be kept, so people who are getting more from others could choose to that instead of taking his dividend.

I believe it was costed out to pretty much 3 trillion annually.

Three trillions pie in the sky stuff. It's almost 4 times what they spend on the military.

My housing idea would be taxes up and diverting resources to some sort of national build program.

Something like Finland did in the 60s or NZ in the 30's whatever. Immigration reform would also be part of that.

Overhauling property speculation and who can buy it would be another area.

 

[emzie]

A bit of an aside, but Wang is the only candidate I've donated to in the primary. I neither want nor expect him to win, but having UBI being debated is worth that 20 bucks I spent.

 

[Zardnaar]

A bit of an aside, but Wang is the only candidate I've donated to in the primary. I neither want nor expect him to win, but having UBI being debated is worth that 20 bucks I spent.

You're putting your money where your mouth is that's worthy of respect. I like Yang as well but at that price tag that's rebuild the economy from the ground up.

When candidates are promising trillions it's probably unaffordable IMHO.

US spends about 700+ billion on the military per annum even if you disbanded it (not gonna happen) that still leaves a massive shortfall.

It's promising sunshine and moon beams IMHO.

 

[Tee Kay]

I shilled... I mean, discussed UBI elsewhere and someone went at me for supporting something that would cut disability welfare spending so I did some quick maths for Australia's case

Assigning every one of 25 million Australians $12,000 AUD a year no strings attached comes to $300 billion AUD, or about 15% of GDP. Now, I'm guessing in the actual implementation we wouldn't be giving the full UBI to toddlers and so on, but let's go with this maximally expensive scenario.

Total disability welfare payments including carer payments comes to $55 billion (sauce) In other words, even abolishing all disability welfare payments will cover less than a fifth of the cost of UBI.

Welfare minus disability comes to about $140 billion, of which $40 billion is child care and aged care which we will not touch. Most of the $100 billion remaining is the Age Pension, the cost of which we can halve with UBI and pensioners will still end up with more money. So let's say, in total, we can save $50 billion from the welfare budget by implementing UBI.

So we need to raise $250 billion or 12.5% of GDP. Our current tax to GDP ratio according to OECD is 27.8%. Increasing taxes enough to pay for UBI puts us in the dystopian territory of... Austria. Six OECD countries have a higher tax rate.

So basically, there are kinks to work out but it's totally doable without gutting disability payments or aged care and without pushing tax-to-GDP ratio to roving-Bolsheviks-seizing-all-private-property territory.

In any case, people miss that, at least in countries like Australia, we already have a kind of basic income in the form of unemployment benefits and the like. It's not universal and it's not enough to live on and we force people to jump through hoops to receive but we pay it out nonetheless. What changes with UBI is the income is universal and guaranteed. The recipients get a level of financial stability, and it helps the landlords too, because they don't have to think about not offering this unemployed person a rental because their Centrelink could be cut off. Rent won't rise dramatically because the $1000 won't have the same relative value to everyone. And if rent does rise a little bit, that still beats the current situation of millions of people already in precarious financial situations.

What proponents need to be more honest about is the cost, there's no denying the tax increases that will have to pay for it, but at least it's money that people can see goes straight back into the economy - if not directly into their pockets, then in their friends', or their customers'.

 

[Zardnaar]

I shilled... I mean, discussed UBI elsewhere and someone went at me for supporting something that would cut disability welfare spending so I did some quick maths for Australia's case

Assigning every one of 25 million Australians $12,000 AUD a year no strings attached comes to $300 billion AUD, or about 15% of GDP. Now, I'm guessing in the actual implementation we wouldn't be giving the full UBI to toddlers and so on, but let's go with this maximally expensive scenario.

Total disability welfare payments including carer payments comes to $55 billion (sauce) In other words, even abolishing all disability welfare payments will cover less than a fifth of the cost of UBI.

Welfare minus disability comes to about $140 billion, of which $40 billion is child care and aged care which we will not touch. Most of the $100 billion remaining is the Age Pension, the cost of which we can halve with UBI and pensioners will still end up with more money. So let's say, in total, we can save $50 billion from the welfare budget by implementing UBI.

So we need to raise $250 billion or 12.5% of GDP. Our current tax to GDP ratio according to OECD is 27.8%. Increasing taxes enough to pay for UBI puts us in the dystopian territory of... Austria. Six OECD countries have a higher tax rate.

So basically, there are kinks to work out but it's totally doable without gutting disability payments or aged care and without pushing tax-to-GDP ratio to roving-Bolsheviks-seizing-all-private-property territory.

In any case, people miss that, at least in countries like Australia, we already have a kind of basic income in the form of unemployment benefits and the like. It's not universal and it's not enough to live on and we force people to jump through hoops to receive but we pay it out nonetheless. What changes with UBI is the income is universal and guaranteed. The recipients get a level of financial stability, and it helps the landlords too, because they don't have to think about not offering this unemployed person a rental because their Centrelink could be cut off. Rent won't rise dramatically because the $1000 won't have the same relative value to everyone. And if rent does rise a little bit, that still beats the current situation of millions of people already in precarious financial situations.

What proponents need to be more honest about is the cost, there's no denying the tax increases that will have to pay for it, but at least it's money that people can see goes straight back into the economy - if not directly into their pockets, then in their friends', or their customers'.

Australias one if the richest countries in the world.

UBI at Yangs rate is roughly what we pay our pensioners.

Personally I would be willing to crank taxes up to 50% but I would wait and see how much it brought in before promising to spend it on a ubi.

I would be more inclined to help out the bottom 30% or make things like school very cheap with free meals for poor students.

Problem with that idea is expecting the middle class to pay high taxes where they get nothing in return. No incentive for them to vote for you.

Hence why they use targeted help instead. We have working for families here were you get money for having kids regardless of how much you earn. It helps out everyone with kids but that money has been eaten up with increases in rent and house prices.