Time to shake things up: Universal Basic Income?

[LittleWolfie]

Money is a promise on the future production of others.

If you give everyone free "money", without changing the quantity / quality of goods being produced, the value of the money collapses.

Credit cards do precisely that, so there is your answer to making UBI work.

 

[LittleWolfie]

Which is exactly what AGI is aiming to do (and making serious progress, btw)



It's not a matter 'if' it's a matter of 'when.'

A truly general AI will understand the concepts of a salary and unionising to obtain it. After all a human can and a general AI can do anything a human can....

Would be hilarious if it demands 80% of the company that turns it on. Got a problem with that Mr CEO? Fine you do the work yourself then,or maybe hire some cheap humans.

 

[Justice Beaver]

Depends on how you fund a UBI.

I don't want a VAT making everything 5-10% more expensive. Andrew Yang's proposals are very foolish in this regard.

I want a Land Value Tax instead, since it has zero or close to zero DWL and will discourage land for being used purely for speculative purposes. LVT is also progressive so it should garner the support of more left-wing people, whereas a VAT is regressive.

As for the housing issue, this has nothing to do with UBI. The reason housing is so expensive is that NIMBYs have refused to allow for medium/high density zoning for people who desperately need it. It's a zombie/3rd rail of American politics that simply refuses to die.

Some cities have been pretty generous in terms of building new housing (Tampa, Houston, Phoenix, etc.) but most have not.

I prefer a market-oriented solution to helping the poor TBH.

Yang's VAT would not be regressive because it would only be imposed on luxury goods rather than basic consumer staples, such as I'm guessing most food. What would be considered "luxury"? That's to be determined and obviously we would need clarification on that. But assuming that idea is properly set up, then there's overwhelming evidence that it would significantly help the bottom 94% of Americans, and would only become regressive once you start spending over $10k per month. Not to mention, you're receiving a net benefit in the end anyway because you're receiving $1k a month, because that money is being recirculated back to you, as it's recycling through the economy. So no, I wouldn't exactly say his proposal is "foolish". You just have to focus on the fact that you'd be receiving a net benefit after even a 10% VAT. Also don't forget that this is probably the best current system available as far as closing loopholes and finally making it possible that big tech companies finally start paying their fair share of taxes, just like the rest of us.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[LittleWolfie]

Yang's VAT would not be regressive because it would only be imposed on luxury goods rather than basic consumer staples, such as I'm guessing most food. What would be considered "luxury"? That's to be determined and obviously we would need clarification on that. But assuming that idea is properly set up, then there's overwhelming evidence that it would significantly help the bottom 94% of Americans, and would only become regressive once you start spending over $10k per month. Not to mention, you're receiving a net benefit in the end anyway because you're receiving $1k a month, because that money is being recirculated back to you, as it's recycling through the economy.

Caviar seems like a luxury unlike bread although it might be simpler just to exempt food.

Anyone who has a problem,with it should object to the tax free allowance as well,sice without that everyone would have a lower tax rate and the tax free allowance overwhelmingly beneifts the poorest taxpayer at the expense of the wealthiest.

So are you going to send the government extra taxes equal to your tax free allowance?

 

[StrikingViper69]

Credit cards do precisely that, so there is your answer to making UBI work.

Please can you explain this? I don't understand what you mean

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[LittleWolfie]

Please can you explain this? I don't understand what you mean

Summary

It is a loan from the goverment to the people to stimulate productivity and prevent a recession which is paid back in taxes instead of a loan from the goverment to the corporations with the largest lobbying contingent which is paid back in the form of taxes on the people. VC funding is probably a more accurate metaphor than credit cards.

Rest

Sure credit cards are a from of debt,(often with 0% interest for a period of time) the mint never prints the extra notes, the bank lends out more than is depoisted.

Some of this money goes to consumers as credit cards,as well as buying consumer products ,this can be used to increase productivy (you buy SaaS on your credit card that automates a task for you,now you have 4 hours that you can use to sell more product or you buy a training course so you can be more productive and get that promotion and pay rise.

The money from the extra productivity then pays off the credit card,which leads to people with more consumer spending.

Note fastlaners benefit way more than the masses,because they have even more customers. See how the finland study was enough for someone to go into business(literally all she needed was money,as soon as she had that 2 year income she set up) now multiply those results across the population.

Massive consumer demand and springing up of b2c(a lot will die) more customers for b2b2c and so on.

Meanwhile since wages have to rise (you have to pay them enough to avoid going and setting up their own company instead) consumers have nore money and are more likely to spend it.

Some of these new companies will end up making billions and thus filling the goverment tax cofferes.

Norway (which has a net negative debt their assets are greater than their liabilty) essentially runs this way albeit hamstrung by membership of the common market.

They borrow money to insulste against short term swings,invest some in their soverign wealth fund,and distrubute the rest usally to new companies.

The succesfull ones return enough to have paid for the UBI.

Of course this still has the expansionst goverment problem however that is true of the current system.

 

[Kevin88660]

How can I say that? My best friend from high school is dying. She made herself sick to get on a disability income every month so she wouldn't have to go to work. Her hoax has become her worst nightmare. And that's the personal part of what I know.

Serious?

 

[ChrisV]

Interesting thougths, I agree in part, I also believe that lost people wouldnlike to seek more, but there would be many that settle with that. I have seen it, I live in a country where there is no UBI but there is universal healtycare and many subsidies, it is possible to live from government support and indeed many people do.

It's hard to make any hypothetical claims about what happens until we study it, even if we can see a phenomena with our own eyes. There are a lot of good reasons why we don't just research things based off intuition or anecdotal observations.

Finland did relatively large a study on this, which i cited above, and while it didn't increase the chance of someone getting job (unfortunately) it also didn't decrease it. Which is a fascinating finding and I'm not sure why the press ignored it. I mean it still has to be replicated, but what that implies is that the notion that people will just sit back and collect benefits with a UBI seems to be incorrect... at least in comparison to what they do with other welfare options.

Another thing to take into consideration is that populations that are on welfare are often the populations that are involved in various crimes.

This paper tests the hypothesis that the timing of welfare payments affects criminal activity. Analysis of daily reported incidents of major crimes in twelve U.S. cities reveals an increase in crime over the course of monthly welfare payment cycles. This increase reflects an increase in crimes that are likely to have a direct financial motivation like burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and robbery, as opposed to other kinds of crime like arson, assault, homicide, and rape. Temporal patterns in crime are observed in jurisdictions in which disbursements are focused at the beginning of monthly welfare payment cycles and not in jurisdictions in which disbursements are relatively more staggered.

In short, as peoples welfare benefits run out, theft-related violent crime goes up. Taking away people's welfare may just result in you getting mugged, rather than them finding a job.

 

[Guest6814]

Huge fan of Milton Friedman. Reading Free to Choose as a teenager spawned a lifelong interest. That said, not sure I have the enthusiasm for this idea anymore.

The basic libertarian belief about UBI is that as long as people can vote, they will vote for the government to give them money, so why not replace all existing welfare/social programs with a universal distribution? This would at least get rid of the overhead, market distortion, and downright theft that occurs by recipients and vendors alike in those programs. Biggest benefit is that people wouldn't actually stand to make themselves worse off by getting a job, as is the case with many current programs.

One big problem. If everyone gets a universal basic income, by being universal it effectively becomes the new "0". Politicians still have to have a platform to run on, and giving people free stuff is the low hanging fruit of campaign promises. I think we'd get it, and in 20 years we'd have the UBI with all the old programs just rebuilt like Frankenstein on top of it. All guessing on my part. As for how governments intend to handle the massive amounts of negative human energy that will come from unemployment and aimlessness. No idea on earth what they should do. My guess is what they will do is Socialism + Pharmacology.

So, the governments will continue to do what they do today. In California, for example, we have socialism in the form of high property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc., and plenty of welfare to go around. Pharmacology is here, too: marijuana is now legal.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[LittleWolfie]

Also, some jobs require human sensitivities. It’s doubtful that people will want their psychologists or social workers to be machines.

Yes and see woebot.io people are prepared to give more information to the machine than the human,as they trust it only wants to help them and will avoid spreading info.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[srodrigo]

I'm against to both UBI and no taxes at all.

Against UBI: because in many countries people would just do nothing but being in the bar or on the beach. And loosing your job is not a reason to get UBI. Evolve or get extincted. "I'm 40+, I can't learn to do X (which actually means "I'm too lazy to put my neurons and butt to work")" - Ok, then starve to death.

Against no taxes at all: because spending a few hundred grand on treating your cancer, if you are unlucky enough to get one, means your bankruptcy and your family's. The are some basic and very expensive things that need to be guaranteed, specially for people who are unable to work (I mean people who are genuinely impeded, not people who cry at the doctor's and then go play paddle).

 

[Justice Beaver]

I'm against to both UBI and no taxes at all.

Against UBI: because in many countries people would just do nothing but being in the bar or on the beach. And loosing your job is not a reason to get UBI. Evolve or get extincted. "I'm 40+, I can't learn to do X (which actually means "I'm too lazy to put my neurons and butt to work")" - Ok, then starve to death.

Against no taxes at all: because spending a few hundred grand on treating your cancer, if you are unlucky enough to get one, means your bankruptcy and your family's. The are some basic and very expensive things that need to be guaranteed, specially for people who are unable to work (I mean people who are genuinely impeded, not people who cry at the doctor's and then go play paddle).

Not sure what country you live in, but a $1k per month UBI in the US wouldn't be nearly enough to live comfortably without a job or some other income. That's still well below the poverty line meaning everyone would still feel incentivized to work. So idk if I'd consider that a legitimate argument, but to each their own I guess.

 

[LittleWolfie]

. The are some basic and very expensive things that need to be guaranteed, specially for people who are unable to work (I mean people who are genuinely impeded, not people who cry at the doctor's and then go play paddle).

The issue is; how do you reach the genuinely impeded and how do you tell?

Often people who are in need are ashamed to ask for help,and the lazy people are happy to lie (and better persuaders) than those in need.

Is it better to concentrate on preventing the lazy people at the expense of those in need or better to make sure everyone in need gets the help at the risk of giving help to lazy people who don't need it?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[StrikingViper69]

Against no taxes at all: because spending a few hundred grand on treating your cancer, if you are unlucky enough to get one, means your bankruptcy and your family's. The are some basic and very expensive things that need to be guaranteed, specially for people who are unable to work (I mean people who are genuinely impeded, not people who cry at the doctor's and then go play paddle).

Why must some basics be guaranteed?

If one person has a tragic misfortune in life, I can empathise with that, but why must I be held responsible for it?

I'm not against helping people, but I am against being forced to help people.

 

[srodrigo]

Not sure what country you live in, but a $1k per month UBI in the US wouldn't be nearly enough to live comfortably without a job or some other income. That's still well below the poverty line meaning everyone would still feel incentivized to work. So idk if I'd consider that a legitimate argument, but to each their own I guess.

I'm European, we have a different view about this topic, and I understand why some people would disagree with me. Anyway, as I said I'm not in favour of UBI at all. Just don't let people die because they can't pay for cancer treatment, or they can't move from a bed.

The issue is; how do you reach the genuinely impeded and how do you tell?

Often people who are in need are ashamed to ask for help,and the lazy people are happy to lie (and better persuaders) than those in need.

Is it better to concentrate on preventing the lazy people at the expense of those in need or better to make sure everyone in need gets the help at the risk of giving help to lazy people who don't need it?

Indeed, there will always be people who lie to get benefits, and that's a problem. But given enough strictness, I want to think that they'll be a minority and most people would genuinely need the help the get.

It's similar to death sentence or being imprisoned for life. There's a minority of innocents who don't deserve the mistakes that happen, but usually the ones condemned are guilty. Should we remove death sentence or life imprisonment?

Why must some basics be guaranteed?

If one person has a tragic misfortune in life, I can empathise with that, but why must I be held responsible for it?

I'm not against helping people, but I am against being forced to help people.

I want to think that we are evolved animals and can help people who *really* need it, as a society. Obviously, not some Joe who prefers to watch TV and drink beer while getting benefits, rather than work on getting new skills to become employable again.

 

[srodrigo]

People can, and do, help each other.

But, if one person doesn't want to help another, for whatever reason, why do you advocate forcing them to do so?

We are forced to so many things that helping others is the least of the problems. I don't know in the US, but in at least a few European countries, not helping people (e.g. when there's an accident and you walk away) could get you in front of a judge. So I'm still unsure why other ways of helping some people look so bad (money, I guess).

I'm against most types of benefits, as it makes people lazy, but I think a minimum of health coverage is needed. You can do your best to live healthy, but you can still get a death sentence at the doctor's, and some treatments/operations are extremely expensive. I personally don't understand what's the problem with covering that, given we spend taxes in a lot of things, including the ones who decide what is taxed and where the money goes (nice irony). Some taxes are going to be there, I prefer them to go to saving lives than other things.

Apart from money, we are forced to many other things. Because, as a society, we have to be forced to follow rules (anarchy doesn't work). Helping others (either via taxes or law) looks like one of the least annoying ones to me. Example: I was forced to print, fill and scan some paperwork. I had to buy a scanner/printer for that (there will be more occasions). 40 quid gone (apart from another gadget filling up space) on something that could have been done by plain email text. I'd rather had spent that money on taxes if that went into the public health system to save the life of someone who can't spend a few hundred grand on treating a bad disease.

 

[Devampre]

I see UBI as a good thing as long as we can have programs in place that also help support people's environments and assist them with finding meaning/purpose and a path in life.

 

[Guyfieri5]

Personally I don't see any reason we need UBI right now (or ever). While I agree automation will change our economy drastically, we're decades away from things like self-driving trucks. While large tech companies have invested billions in infrastructure (these trucks will need their own lanes outfitted with sensors and such spanning the nation), it will take decades to build it. The phase-out wont be sudden either. Companies face a lot of risk employing new self-driving technology, especially when their entire distribution chain will rely on it. The technology will roll out slowly over the span of decades giving employees affected time to relocate, retire, etc. Also keep in mind that the technology will be expensive to use too. Smaller companies may not have the capital to use self-driving trucks right away and will still employ drivers.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[1step]

You can do your best to live healthy, but you can still get a death sentence at the doctor's, and some treatments/operations are extremely expensive. I personally don't understand what's the problem with covering that,

Are you ok also paying for all the health problems from people who smoke 3 packs a day? Or eat terrible diets?

I personally think the less government the better they are only good at messing things up

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kevin88660]

I really like Andrew Yang too. Andrew Yang's stance on UBI is that the $1000 to each person is less expensive than how much it costs to lock people up and deal with additions and other aspect of poverty. People who think he's just giving away free money, he's not.

Yang wants to use ubi to replace other welfare. While ubi is going to cost a lot for sure there is going to be a lot less waste elsewhere not just in term of spending but also bureaucrats who monitor the clauses and the strings attached.

Universal health insurance is going to lower the total health care cost also.

UBI is really a “chips on the tables capitalism”. Okay now you don't start with nothing. So no more complaints and no more welfare and no more redistribution. Let us run free market competition now. At least thats the undertone of his vision, in theory. I like the theory of it.

When it comes to execution I have more concerns. I think 1k a month is too much as a pilot test. We really should start with 500. I dont think VAT is going to cover this fiscal hole as Yang confidently think so. The easy money and high valuation in wall street gave silicon valley new business models he ability to thrive in the market longer than it should. Amazon made most money from cloud services. There is still uncertainty about the long term profitability of ecommerce transaction without investor burning their cash. VAT might just kill the business.

 

[Kevin88660]

Are you ok also paying for all the health problems from people who smoke 3 packs a day? Or eat terrible diets?

I personally think the less government the better they are only good at messing things up

I am in the insurance business. The consensus is that a basic universal coverage for medical insurance is by and large still very economic choice for public health for following reasons.

-The government health ministry has a solid bargaining power for cheaper medical service and medical drug providers

-Eliminates information asymmetry and adverse selection. A lot of the cost on underwriting could be eliminated which could be better spend on coverage. This cannot happen unless everyone is forced to be enrolled in a program.

- The redistribution effect (from healthy to unhealthy people) is very small as the basic coverage still involve a substantial copayment, almost 50 percent of a 10k bill. Even the most healthy person stands to benefit due to economics of scale (previous two points).

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kevin88660]

So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..

I actually like Yang. If you actually watch his Rogan interview he's really pro-entrepreneurship. Hands down the most pro-entrepreneur candidate in the lineup. He's a successful serial entrepreneur himself. Bernie is just a rich-people-hater.

Andrew Yang (born January 13, 1975) is an American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, entrepreneur, lawyer, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Venture for America (VFA), a nonprofit that focuses on creating jobs in struggling American cities. Yang worked in various startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive from 2000 to 2009. After he founded VFA in 2011, the Obama administration selected him in 2012 as a "Champion of Change" and in 2015 as a "Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship". Yang is the author of the 2014 book Smart People Should Build Things and the 2018 book The War on Normal People.​

​

Anyway, not to get political... but I think Yang and Sanders are totally different candidates. Yang is rabidly pro-entrepreneurship.

Bernie Sanders is going back in history. He wanted federal guaranteed jobs. Repeating the mistake of soviets economy.

 

[Kevin88660]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant from a purely moral, not legal, perspective:

Why should one person be forced to help another?

"We are already forced to do stuff anyway", which is what I think your argument boils down to, doesn't seem like a convincing argument to me.

For me, this argument has two parts:
1. If your moral code involves forcing people to do something they don't want to do, that code of morality needs reconsidering. "I'm going to beat people into being better human beings" is the mantra of every champagne socialist and dictator through history. I've found that most people who think this way have some sort of hatred for their species.

2. How much of your life can be mortgaged to another mans needs? In your above example, if another man needs a heart operation to save his life, how much of your life should he be allowed to impact? Can he sell your house to cover it? After all, he needs a heart more than you need a house...
What about your childrens food? Surely they can skip a few meals so that he can have a new heart... ?

Bad things happen... that are not necessarily anyones fault. But that is a fact of reality... and 'bad luck' is not an open check to pillage the lives of others.

---

Having said that, I think most people would voluntarily help people out if they can. But again, it should be their choice... not yours.

Well in abstract moral terms its a philosophical debate...strict individualism vs you own your success to a part of your environment...

I will argue from the pure practical point of it. No political system can sustain if the mass majority are unhappy with the status quo. It is better for those who have to make concession than to have a revolt.

 

[LittleWolfie]

Let us run free market competition now. At least thats the undertone of his vision, in theory. I like the theory of it.

That would require 100% Inheritance tax + UBI in place of all other taxes and beenfits. Want to go to Haravd? Fine,earn the half a million or so on your own first.

That way everyone starts on an even footing and anything else is less than truly free.

 

[Kevin88660]

That would require 100% Inheritance tax + UBI in place of all other taxes and beenfits. Want to go to Haravd? Fine,earn the half a million or so on your own first.

That way everyone starts on an even footing and anything else is less than truly free.

UBI is to get rid of desperation. If you are too worried about next meal thats not a good ground to start your development/personal ambition.

Harvard I believe has more than enough endowment to give any American citizen to study there without worrying about tuition bill if they can make it on the grades.

The idea of social safety net is about the world “safety” itself, preventing someone falling too far behind with no chip on the table. To play poker game in the casino you need to start with one thousand bucks. Dun start with nothing. It is not to “equalise” opportunity or inheritance. Just because someone else starts the game with a million dollar doesn't make you “not free”.

 

[Tourmaline]

Why isn't being worried about your next meal a good ground to work on your development? To me it gives a great reason to focus on development!

UBI requires a change in thinking. If people don't see the value in contributing much if at all, in doing more than consuming for good feelings, then UBI will simply enable that more. Which I find is the commonplace thinking. If it were not, MJ's books would have been unnecessary, and the Script would have been fine to follow.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kevin88660]

Why isn't being worried about your next meal a good ground to work on your development? To me it gives a great reason to focus on development!

UBI requires a change in thinking. If people don't see the value in contributing much if at all, in doing more than consuming for good feelings, then UBI will simply enable that more. Which I find is the commonplace thinking. If it were not, MJ's books would have been unnecessary, and the Script would have been fine to follow.

Very simply example. A UBI will encourage many business people to quit their jobs first and start on their hustle right away instead of trying to juggle both.

It cuts short the development process.

 

[Tourmaline]

Oh UBI is going to give people $100k a year? So they can maintain their lifestyle without having to rely on their business?

 

[LittleWolfie]

Harvard I believe has more than enough endowment to give any American citizen to study there without worrying about tuition bill if they can make it on the grades.

Which is in itself a distortion of the free market,because they are limiting it to only US citizens. Surley a free market should object to immigration barriers? If the guy from New Delhi is better able to serve the market than the guy from New Jersey,let him.

the idea of social safety net is about the world “safety” itself, preventing someone falling too far behind with no chip on the table.

Yes,UBI acts as a saftey net,it's far from making it a free market for all,now I'm fine with that but call it what it is.

To play poker game in the casino you need to start with one thousand bucks. Dun start with nothing. It is not to “equalise” opportunity or inheritance.

Sure that's enough for everyone to join in a rigged game(the house always wins in the long run, and the more you can lose the more risks you can take)

[/QUOTE]
just because someone else starts the game with a million dollar doesn't make you “not free”.
[/QUOTE]

Yes and I'm saying it makes the game not a "free market".

You know what is a perfect demonstration of free market theory (and was designed as such?) Monopoly.

Every player is given an equal amount of money at the start,now imagine you give out say 25% of each player's parents income and see how the game changes.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

You know what is a perfect demonstration of free market theory (and was designed as such?) Monopoly.

They were trying to make a political statement with the game, but drawing parallels to real life is somewhat ridiculous. Monopoly is completely random, with a throw of the dice. Real life isn't so random. There are exact principals to follow to make money.