Universal Basic Income Study Findings Released

In reply to llysgennad :

Ok, then explain your point here:

The US population is 337 million today, so that would be $337 Billion dollars. Federal spending on welfare (including medicare) last year was $1.1 Trillion, or 3 times as much. (Fraud within the federal welfare system was estimated at $279B in 2021). State welfare varies wildly, but every state spends more than $1k per recipient.

It looks like you are saying UBI would be easy to pay for because it is only 1/3 of federal spending on welfare (including Medicare).  So, it would save money if we eliminated those welfare expenditures and adopted UBI. 
 

Did I misinterpret?  Gosh I hope so. Please help me understand what you intended.

You berkeleying tax people at a rate that is appropriate.  I dont wanna keep beating a dead horse, but you keep dragging it in here.

Billionaires should pay a higher tax rate than teachers. 

In reply to SV reX :

It's a simple math problem. My current monthly taxes + $2000= my future monthly taxes. The answer to this simple math question is not a nebulous "I'm sure we can eliminate enough inefficiencies SOMEWHERE to pay for it!".  That's a load of baloney.

Come on guys!  Some of you are really smart!  
 

My current rate of taxation is about $2000 a month, and it REALLY pisses me off.  It's way too much. This would literally DOUBLE my taxation. And the game plan is to do this for 100% of the working population so a few people can be non-productive?  It's a recipe for disaster. Pitchforks and torches in the streets. 
 

Can anybody offer a simple math answer to a simple math question?  Or is the best answer that we'll accomplish this with rainbows and unicorn farts?

How would it be possible to pay for this?

Oh no, we won't tax regular people, just the "The Rich" you see. Who are "The Rich?" Nevermind that detail, as far as you are concerned, it's whoever makes more than you, silly taxpayer! And business! We'll tax all of the greedy businesses! As we all know, almost all taxes are paid by the greedy corporations, and the higher we tax them, the more there is for us! Because they won't just pass those taxes on to consumers as higher prices- that would be like a tax on you!  Don't go complicating things with facts and figures. We told you that we wouldn't raise YOUR taxes, trust us. 

In reply to Mr_Asa :

You berkeleying tax people at a rate that is appropriate.  I dont wanna keep beating a dead horse, but you keep dragging it in here.

Billionaires should pay a higher tax rate than teachers. 
 

Show me tax code where you pay less as you earn more. This is a fantasy that is often repeated but has never been backed up. It's lazy and misleading. If I made a billion dollars this year, I'd pay more in taxes than whole schools full of teachers would pay in their lifetimes. If I retired next year and earned $0, I would not pay income taxes, since I don't have an income.  I'd still be a billionaire, but I wouldn't pay taxes on my billion- because I already paid the taxes when I made it! Income, be it someone who earns a billion a year or a teacher, is taxed at income tax rates. Investments, whether from a billionaire or a teacher, get taxed as capital gains, when they are sold. An investment is not income until it's sold. There are no special rules that apply to some and not to others.

Mr_Asa said:

You berkeleying tax people at a rate that is appropriate.  I dont wanna keep beating a dead horse, but you keep dragging it in here.

Billionaires should pay a higher tax rate than teachers. 

No, they should pay the same rate.  If you earn $50k, I earn $500k and we both pay x%, that's fair. Making me pay a higher % is not. 

So this is being clearly drawn on partisan lines.  

It was a good few pages while it lasted.  But we can't change for fear of screwing it up, apparently.

Steve_Jones said:

Mr_Asa said:

You berkeleying tax people at a rate that is appropriate.  I dont wanna keep beating a dead horse, but you keep dragging it in here.

Billionaires should pay a higher tax rate than teachers. 

No, they should pay the same rate.  If you earn $50k, I earn $500k and we both pay x%, that's fair. Making me pay a higher % is not. 

This would only be the case if food and other things were based on a percentage of income.   Which is why the tax structure is supposed to be tiered in the first place.

Back on topic, I think the subject is both worthy of consideration and overblown. Worthy of consideration because at some point our society may reach a point where there just isn't a need for labor. Overblown because I don't think we are anywhere near that point now or in the foreseeable future. I see a large transition coming, where many current jobs won't exist. But I expect new ones to take their place, much like after the Industrial Revolution. We didn't just say, "shows over folks, no need for all you workers anymore. No jobs for you." Moving people out of the fields and factories opened up other opportunities. AI and automation will replace some jobs, but not all jobs. If you are in a field where your job is to enter or crunch data or look things up, which can be a good white collar job- yes, your career path may be altered significantly. But what we call AI today isn't really AI, which is a long way off. It's more of a tool. It will cut out some middle men, and fewer will be able to do the job of many. We don't have rooms of secretaries anymore typing and filing, technology has reduced the need for so many hands to do the work. The AI we have for the foreseeable future is more like an evolution of that concept than a revolution. 
 

Automation will replace a lot of service jobs, but I can see some coming back. It's not all that it's cracked up to be in some sectors, and I can foresee some savvy businesses going back to human interaction as a customer service strategy. Heck, California almost came full circle already. High wages led to faster automation adoption, less employment. Higher theft offset much of the savings, partly influenced by less employment. Some stores are removing automation, and the CA legislature is talking about laws restricting automation, after their wage laws hastened it's implementation! I think the tipping point would be self driving. A large number of workers are in the transportation sector, and replacing them would be difficult to come back from. But self driving seems to have hit a barrier, no pun intended. Of course, there is also the likelihood that the nation's largest employer- the government- will just grow to take on many of the transitioning workforce. I'm not a fan of that solution, but it's been implemented quietly for many decades now. 

It'll be a long time before a robot can drive to my house and repair my A/C, plumbing, etc. instead of paying someone not to work, why not send them to trade school instead?

Steve_Jones said:

Mr_Asa said:

You berkeleying tax people at a rate that is appropriate.  I dont wanna keep beating a dead horse, but you keep dragging it in here.

Billionaires should pay a higher tax rate than teachers. 

No, they should pay the same rate.  If you earn $50k, I earn $500k and we both pay x%, that's fair. Making me pay a higher % is not. 

Luke 12:48

Steve_Jones said:

It'll be a long time before a robot can drive to my house and repair my A/C, plumbing, etc. instead of paying someone not to work, why not send them to trade school instead?

And not make them dependent on the government? Blasphemy!

Mr_Asa said:

Steve_Jones said:

Mr_Asa said:

You berkeleying tax people at a rate that is appropriate.  I dont wanna keep beating a dead horse, but you keep dragging it in here.

Billionaires should pay a higher tax rate than teachers. 

No, they should pay the same rate.  If you earn $50k, I earn $500k and we both pay x%, that's fair. Making me pay a higher % is not. 

Luke 12:48

That verse is about what someone is given, I was not given anything, I earned it. I expect others to earn theirs. 
 

Proverbs 14:23-33

Those who work hard make a profit, but those who only talk will be poor.

In reply to Steve_Jones :

First half says given.  Second half says to whom much was entrusted much more will be asked.

Edit: also, that line says nothing about what a man owes his fellows.  Just says who will be rich and who will be poor.

Sooooo....

Mr_Asa said:

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Edit: also, that line says nothing about what a man owes his fellows.  Just says who will be rich and who will be poor.

Sooooo....

If someone is not willing to work to better themselves, that's on them, not me. I owe them nothing. 

Mr_Asa said:

Edit: also, that line says nothing about what a man owes his fellows.  Just says who will be rich and who will be poor.

And there it is.

What does a man owe his fellows?

Nothing, except to not interfere with their lives.  Nor is he owed anything different by his fellows.

Duke said:

Mr_Asa said:

Edit: also, that line says nothing about what a man owes his fellows.  Just says who will be rich and who will be poor.

And there it is.

What does a man owe his fellows?

Nothing, except to not interfere with their lives.  Nor is he owed anything different by his fellows.

 

Honestly, that feels like a pretty damned bleak outlook on life

How about this (rather than discuss religious texts):

Funding UBI, in this current situation would not only be very difficult, but based on the the clearly less than conclusive positive results for the cost, not realistic.

The real question I would think is how would the funding (flow of money) work in a potential (inevitable?) heavily work restricted future.  As noted, the transition will certainly be a somewhat long process (even if not in the US, in the world certainly).  Also as noted, the effect will not be even, some profession (e.g. VO artists are already close to being unnecessary) will be far more rapid than others (e.g. plumbers), which creates issues also.

Mr_Asa said:

Duke said:

Mr_Asa said:

Edit: also, that line says nothing about what a man owes his fellows.  Just says who will be rich and who will be poor.

And there it is.

What does a man owe his fellows?

Nothing, except to not interfere with their lives.  Nor is he owed anything different by his fellows.

 

Honestly, that feels like a pretty damned bleak outlook on life

Not as bleak as expecting others to provide for me when I'm not willing to provide for myself. 

Mr_Asa 

Honestly, that feels like a pretty damned bleak outlook on life

That's the thing. LIFE IS that bleak! What we do to overcome that makes the difference!

A "economic" discussion of communism, socialism, or the new phrase democratic socialism, or UBI, they all depend on the premise that EVERYONE is honest, nice, and will do the "right thing".
Nice on paper.

But my life has shown me that there ARE a lot of good people. As well as a lot that are not. 

Note: communism (as an "economic discussion," of course) on paper is beautiful. Communism in practice is a whole 'Nother ball of wax (see previous comment about human nature)

Mr_Asa 

Honestly, that feels like a pretty damned bleak outlook on life

That's the thing. LIFE IS that bleak! What we do to overcome that makes the difference!

A "economic" discussion of communism, socialism, or the new phrase democratic socialism, or UBI, they all depend on the premise that EVERYONE is honest, nice, and will do the "right thing".
Nice on paper.

But my life has shown me that there ARE a lot of good people. As well as a lot that are not. 

Note: communism (as an "economic discussion," of course) on paper is beautiful. Communism in practice is a whole 'Nother ball of wax (see previous comment about human nature)

It looks like we're debating solutions without first gaining alignment on objectives...in my experience, that movie never ends well.

From my prospective, we want to maximize productivity gains while avoiding a bourgeoisie.

Implicit in this goal statement is the acknowledgment that people are inherently selfish...that's what makes progress dangerous, that's what places constraints on an otherwise wide open throttle run for productivity gains.

I'd appreciate other thoughts on what we're truly trying to accomplish and avoid.

OK, here is a take on it.

Let's just say in a transitional future a worker can produce $100,000 worth of work (i.e. what the are paid).   With increased efficiencies (obviously this will be very different depending on the field) they can now do that $100,000 worth of work in half the time.  That of course could result in that person producing $200,000 (relative of course) worth of work, which we might call the greedy (selfish monetary wise) model, or result in the person working half the time, which we might call the lazy model (selfish leisure / lifestyle wise).  There of course will be some jobs the will quickly almost disappear (e.g. the voice actor noted above).

Obviously with the lazy model, that could create the opportunity for twice the number of people doing the "job" while simultaneously doubling productivity (economic boost).  I can see both ways... but never underestimate lazy....

A huge caveat here of course is the insurance issue.  That of course would need to change (allow people to be insured, in whatever way, while working part-time).  Of note is that AI and automation is likely to have some very large effects on the medical industry, especially in the higher paid areas (e.g. diagnosis), which might help reduce the huge cost issues.

Giving this a little more thought, what I believe we're fundamentally trying to accomplish is an environment that's optimal for lazy and selfish participants.

Edit...

Amazing!!!

I wrote this post before reading Aircooled's post...we both got to the lazy & selfish elements of human nature as being what are effectively design considerations independently.

In reply to RX Reven' :

Lazy and selfish, to a point, are survival techniques ingrained on our DNA. Humans, like all other animals, have always strived to acquire everything they need for survival with minimal energy output. Long ago we learned that we could more with less energy if we worked together. This eventually lead to specialization of tasks, and monetary systems to balance the values of those different specializations, much like we have now. As we became more productive, we acquired more with less energy (time,) and we could use that spare time to develop even more specialized skill that freed up even more time. There has always been a push and pull between acquiring more and using less energy. It will be interesting to see how AI and automation affect that balance. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Nicely said.

So, what is the balance between how we collectively measure wealth in absolute and relative terms?

A world with less scarcity will improve our absolute wealth but the extent to which we measure wealth in relative terms will determine how much effort we direct towards accumulating non tangible resources.

Thought experiment...

Why would a GRM member care about their ranking on the Leader board or the number of likes one of their posts gets?

To what extent Is it because they believe other GRM members will come to their assistance if they have material needs (absolute) and to what extent does notoriety and approval (relative) have its own value?