How it’s supposed to be kept a livable wage from that kind of proposed UBI without working salary when UBI+Minimum wage would result in the most common income, making automatically just UBI way below the minimum for a decent living in that society?
How does a more convoluted way of giving money solves any of the issues that arises from just giving money until a threshold?
Why it makes any sense to make it like that anyway?
I call an UBI the law that ensures that there is an Universal Basic Income. So if we set out universal basic income in 500€, no person in this country will have less than 500€ a month, simple as that.
And anyway that has severe issues. So I really think that we should be “giving jobs”, by reducing working hours of everyone, instead of money.
If a benefit is only intended for select people, there is a cost associated with administration and enforcement. That cost can be quite significant, but more importantly, opens it up to questions of who deserves it, and how much, thereby negating its universality. If rich people aren’t eligible, who gets to decide where to draw the line between who is rich and who is not?
To a rich person, UBI amounts to rounding error, they literally won’t notice the difference between getting it vs not. The idea is they’ll be paying way more in taxes than they get from UBI.
UBI is superior to something like a guaranteed minimum income. With a GMI, you make up to the GMI amount whether you work or not - so what is the incentive to work? You end up no better off than if you don’t. This is a big problem with any state benefits, though usually it’s worse, like with welfare, you tend to lose benefits once you reach some threshold, so working too much or too hard leaves you worse off than before.
With UBI, it’s a gradual trade- you can work not at all, and the state hands you let’s say 40k per year. You get bored, or maybe you just want more/nicer stuff, so you take a part time job and work 20 hours a week - you still get 40k per year UBI, but you also earn 20k per year, of which 10k goes to taxes- so your take home is 50k, your cost to the state is reduced to 30k. As you work more hours and/or acquire more skills, your pay (from your job) eventually reaches 80k per year - at which point 40k goes to taxes, so now you’re at break even as far as UBI goes, your take-home is 80k. You’re still a net drain on society, (because of course the government does things besides pay UBI) but not as much. As you earn more, you pay more into UBI than you get out of it- but your take-home still rises, so people who want to pursue wealth as an end can still keep some of it.
Of course the numbers are pulled out of my ass, I’m not even attempting to come up with a working plan, just getting the gist across. I’ll let people smarter than me hammer out the details.
Yeah, you got the point right. “Monotonicity” is important. That means, if somebody puts in more effort, they should get out more of it.
x-axis is how much you earn from jobs, y-axis is how much you take home in-total.
The only thing that remains to be determined is the parameters of that curve (offset + slope). A steeper slope would mean people are more motivated to go to work, but also less tax income for the state.
I would propose a slope of 1/2 and an offset that is big enough to be able to live on it, but i believe this is something the people will have to determine through voting.
Administration and enforcement are WAY higher when giving something to 100 million people than when giving it to 1 million.
At least where I live calculating someone’s income is trivial. Government have that data.
With GMI 1 million people would need to say to the government that they want the money in a particular bank account, and the government would need to deal with ensure that petitions are legit. With UBI that work gets multiplied by a hundred or more. Suddenly the government has to control that the money is going to the proper bank accounts. And has to deal with WAY more fringe cases (recently deceased, minors, double identities, etc). There’s no case for UBI being easier to manage.
As for the rest the problem is the same between UBI and GMI if you think it through. UBI would need an humongous budget. Where that money will come from? Two options, printed or taxes.
Printed is out of the question, hyper-inflation would be for the history books. Taxes would mean that most people end up loosing as much as they are gaining. And at the end you end with the same dilemma people who after taxes get the money and people who not. Just that it gets decided by tax brackets.
And the fundamental issue is the same. Giving that the basic income is actually what’s needed for a living… That would be pretty similar to the most common income for a job. As that’s how economy work. Money is just an exchange for people’s work. So the most common salary is more likely to be very similar to the amount of work needed for sustaining a population divided between the working population. I don’t see it working on the proposed way, of UBI being a livable wage and the minimum salary being able to add another livable wage on top of that. I don’t see how that would even be possible. Most likely on that scenario UBI+minimum wage ends up becoming what’s needed to actually live good. And UBI alone becomes unlivable, making people who depended on that poor again.
Not that GMI solves many issues. Just simpler to get a pretty similar outcome.
Still I think both are bad approaches. Because they make it possible to some people to live without working(people that can work), out of others work. That will always make frictions.
My approach would be just for the government to give jobs instead of money, guarantee jobs with livable income. Or if not all that much work is required for society, then lowering the working hours from 40 to less until all working population could share the load. I don’t buy a society where some people work and others don’t (that’s why I don’t like capitalism). I prefer societies where everyone who can work do actually work until society needs are filled.
We already have social security numbers, and the IRS…
make it possible to some people to live without working
It’s already like that, there are people who only go to work because they have to, and while there do as little as they can get away with. UBI would end the pretense, get them out of the way.
You are describing GMI and not UBI. Not sure what its confusing about universal
A lot is confusing.
What issue does it solve to give Elon Musk $500?
How it’s supposed to be kept a livable wage from that kind of proposed UBI without working salary when UBI+Minimum wage would result in the most common income, making automatically just UBI way below the minimum for a decent living in that society?
How does a more convoluted way of giving money solves any of the issues that arises from just giving money until a threshold?
Why it makes any sense to make it like that anyway?
I call an UBI the law that ensures that there is an Universal Basic Income. So if we set out universal basic income in 500€, no person in this country will have less than 500€ a month, simple as that.
And anyway that has severe issues. So I really think that we should be “giving jobs”, by reducing working hours of everyone, instead of money.
If a benefit is only intended for select people, there is a cost associated with administration and enforcement. That cost can be quite significant, but more importantly, opens it up to questions of who deserves it, and how much, thereby negating its universality. If rich people aren’t eligible, who gets to decide where to draw the line between who is rich and who is not?
To a rich person, UBI amounts to rounding error, they literally won’t notice the difference between getting it vs not. The idea is they’ll be paying way more in taxes than they get from UBI.
UBI is superior to something like a guaranteed minimum income. With a GMI, you make up to the GMI amount whether you work or not - so what is the incentive to work? You end up no better off than if you don’t. This is a big problem with any state benefits, though usually it’s worse, like with welfare, you tend to lose benefits once you reach some threshold, so working too much or too hard leaves you worse off than before.
With UBI, it’s a gradual trade- you can work not at all, and the state hands you let’s say 40k per year. You get bored, or maybe you just want more/nicer stuff, so you take a part time job and work 20 hours a week - you still get 40k per year UBI, but you also earn 20k per year, of which 10k goes to taxes- so your take home is 50k, your cost to the state is reduced to 30k. As you work more hours and/or acquire more skills, your pay (from your job) eventually reaches 80k per year - at which point 40k goes to taxes, so now you’re at break even as far as UBI goes, your take-home is 80k. You’re still a net drain on society, (because of course the government does things besides pay UBI) but not as much. As you earn more, you pay more into UBI than you get out of it- but your take-home still rises, so people who want to pursue wealth as an end can still keep some of it.
Of course the numbers are pulled out of my ass, I’m not even attempting to come up with a working plan, just getting the gist across. I’ll let people smarter than me hammer out the details.
Yeah, you got the point right. “Monotonicity” is important. That means, if somebody puts in more effort, they should get out more of it.
x-axis is how much you earn from jobs, y-axis is how much you take home in-total.
The only thing that remains to be determined is the parameters of that curve (offset + slope). A steeper slope would mean people are more motivated to go to work, but also less tax income for the state.
I would propose a slope of 1/2 and an offset that is big enough to be able to live on it, but i believe this is something the people will have to determine through voting.
Administration and enforcement are WAY higher when giving something to 100 million people than when giving it to 1 million.
At least where I live calculating someone’s income is trivial. Government have that data. With GMI 1 million people would need to say to the government that they want the money in a particular bank account, and the government would need to deal with ensure that petitions are legit. With UBI that work gets multiplied by a hundred or more. Suddenly the government has to control that the money is going to the proper bank accounts. And has to deal with WAY more fringe cases (recently deceased, minors, double identities, etc). There’s no case for UBI being easier to manage.
As for the rest the problem is the same between UBI and GMI if you think it through. UBI would need an humongous budget. Where that money will come from? Two options, printed or taxes.
Printed is out of the question, hyper-inflation would be for the history books. Taxes would mean that most people end up loosing as much as they are gaining. And at the end you end with the same dilemma people who after taxes get the money and people who not. Just that it gets decided by tax brackets.
And the fundamental issue is the same. Giving that the basic income is actually what’s needed for a living… That would be pretty similar to the most common income for a job. As that’s how economy work. Money is just an exchange for people’s work. So the most common salary is more likely to be very similar to the amount of work needed for sustaining a population divided between the working population. I don’t see it working on the proposed way, of UBI being a livable wage and the minimum salary being able to add another livable wage on top of that. I don’t see how that would even be possible. Most likely on that scenario UBI+minimum wage ends up becoming what’s needed to actually live good. And UBI alone becomes unlivable, making people who depended on that poor again.
Not that GMI solves many issues. Just simpler to get a pretty similar outcome.
Still I think both are bad approaches. Because they make it possible to some people to live without working(people that can work), out of others work. That will always make frictions.
My approach would be just for the government to give jobs instead of money, guarantee jobs with livable income. Or if not all that much work is required for society, then lowering the working hours from 40 to less until all working population could share the load. I don’t buy a society where some people work and others don’t (that’s why I don’t like capitalism). I prefer societies where everyone who can work do actually work until society needs are filled.
We already have social security numbers, and the IRS…
It’s already like that, there are people who only go to work because they have to, and while there do as little as they can get away with. UBI would end the pretense, get them out of the way.
You can call it UBI but that’s not what anyone else means by UBI, so you’re just confusing the debate by calling it that.