Opinion of Universal Basic Income
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:21:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Opinion of Universal Basic Income
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Freedom Policy
 
#2
Horrible Policy
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 99

Author Topic: Opinion of Universal Basic Income  (Read 16820 times)
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,099
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: April 03, 2017, 01:44:48 PM »

I prefer graduated negative income tax.
I as well.

Here's a simple, somewhat flawed calculator for an NIT: https://dqydj.com/scripts/fullhtml/base_2015_negativeincometax.html
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: April 14, 2017, 04:43:34 AM »

I am opposed to this idea. I think this idea should be debate rationally when robots & automation takes away most of the jobs with huge unemployment impossible to rectify, where UBI is necessary to even sustain society & law n order or to curtail huge poverty. We are yet to see how automation plays out, maybe it will create more tech jobs than anticipated similar to when Computers & other tech inventions came.

If that point every comes, we probably to have seriously debate UBI, not now with unemployment less than 5%. The target here is to increase participation in the labor market & ofcourse to raise wages for the bottom half of the population which is struggling in a system where the gains go to the top few. The situation to discuss or implement UBI is not now !
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,651
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: April 16, 2017, 08:30:30 AM »

The one issue is the word Universal.

Each state would apply there own levels, if any.

The USA is state based, so getting a social security system up and running with the word "Universal" is a real challenge.

My two cents is to make the system self-motivating.

Someone dod mention a Brazilian example that encouraged business development.
Logged
SoLongAtlas
VirginiaModerate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,219
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: April 18, 2017, 08:35:33 AM »

Ok with it, esp when automation puts scores out of work straining unemployment, but would favor UBI taking the place of unemployment and mandatory retraining/school/proof of applications after a period of time. UBI should not be a blank check for every citizen but a sort of unemployment-plus program.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: April 21, 2017, 10:49:46 AM »

Something proposed by Yanis Varoufakis is the idea of a "Universal Basic Dividend"; whereby, when companies publically list themselves, a portion of the share capital would be transferred into public ownership, and the dividends used to pay a universal income to everybody.

The theory is that, wealth is created collectively (and often directly through state subsidies, innovations and the like), and therefore a portion of the economy should be owned collectively and the resulting wealth divided between everyone.

It would also bridge the gap between automation and every body losing their jobs. People who currently stand to lose from automation would suddenly have something to gain from it, as higher corporate profits would be directly linked to the universal dividend.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me, although I await for someone to tell me why I'm an idiot and I don't understand.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: April 21, 2017, 12:30:27 PM »

necessary in any way at some point.
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: April 22, 2017, 12:45:57 PM »
« Edited: April 22, 2017, 12:47:51 PM by ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) »

FP but only at $500-2000 a month.

Anything more is excessive and thats considering so many basic income supporters want $5000 which is way too much.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: April 22, 2017, 05:42:18 PM »

FP but only at $500-2000 a month.

Anything more is excessive and thats considering so many basic income supporters want $5000 which is way too much.

Are there serious supporters that want individual basic income at $5K/mo? The average individual income in the US in 2015 was about $3700/mo so that means if all income were redistributed equally it would be $1300/mo short - ie there isn't enough income to reach that goal even in the most extreme scenario.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,576
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: April 23, 2017, 04:05:16 AM »

I'm against it.

(Without having read to entire discussion):
There is just no incentive to learn a good job and work. Our system depends on people to work, study and archive larger goals. Work should be rewarded. Let alone that a basic income is very expensive. You could argue that all other transfer services could/would be ended with a basic income, but what's it worth then? Transfer services should only be paid to those who are really needy and on a temporary basis (except retirees or someone who can't work for health reasons).
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: April 23, 2017, 08:40:29 AM »

Something proposed by Yanis Varoufakis is the idea of a "Universal Basic Dividend"; whereby, when companies publically list themselves, a portion of the share capital would be transferred into public ownership, and the dividends used to pay a universal income to everybody.

The theory is that, wealth is created collectively (and often directly through state subsidies, innovations and the like), and therefore a portion of the economy should be owned collectively and the resulting wealth divided between everyone.

It would also bridge the gap between automation and every body losing their jobs. People who currently stand to lose from automation would suddenly have something to gain from it, as higher corporate profits would be directly linked to the universal dividend.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me, although I await for someone to tell me why I'm an idiot and I don't understand.

I don't think it's obviously idiotic, but I'd see two issues. One is that this is already somewhat true - people own a lot of stock through pension funds in the status quo, but are often not very aware of that fact. Related to that, there is a criticism that all that passive ownership leads to less owner-control of managers and that this is a source of a lot of the problems with large corporations. Specifically things like taking on too much risk and CEOs getting way too high compensations.

The second thing is that if this is significant it essentially means that you put a tax on publicly listing your company. That'd presumably lead to people avoiding to do that. This can be problematic on its own and more generally this would lower returns to building successful companies which would slow growth.
Logged
Dmitri Covasku
Rookie
**
Posts: 20
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -7.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2017, 06:43:10 PM »

A basic income can work in the form of a NIT in my opinion.
Logged
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: May 23, 2017, 12:20:52 PM »

I think a basic income is going to be necessary for a lot of people in the future, but I think that a universal one would not be popular at the point it would be most necessary. Automation is going to cause greater equality, but a universal policy by its very nature is going to give "the billy-on-aires" an extra $25k or whatever it works out to. People aren't going to be happy with that.

The best system would probably a really generous negative income tax that starts are some very high threshold, adjusted for the cost of living of each county/metro area. Something like $75,000 a year pp would be more politically popular.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: May 31, 2017, 08:02:02 PM »

horrible idea, on many levels.

I prefer a situation in which if someone wants Tea, Earl Grey, then he walks over to the food replicator and orders it and it appears.  No money changes hands, no tips are expected.  This is the result of a very advanced economy and it will only come about with technological efficiency and motivation.  Government policies which guarantee money in one's pockets not only do not facilitate that end, but they work against it in at least two ways:  they propagate the inherent value of the barter system and they provide without motivation or inspiration for the betterment of mankind.

Maybe I'm a closet socialist.  I don't think I am, but I might be.  Or maybe I'm an unabashed objectivist.  I don't think I am, but I might be.  But the idea of a legally-guaranteed universal basic income would, or at least should, offend both of those groups, precisely because the idea of providing free to the great unwashed masses the crutches of capitalism does not seem to be a good way to advance the economy.

Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: May 31, 2017, 09:14:55 PM »

This is a very good video, only 5 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkyv34eGX7A&feature=youtu.be
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: June 03, 2017, 06:19:03 PM »

Mixed, but it's better than the current system. I will vote for Freedom Policy.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: June 14, 2017, 04:15:21 PM »

[quote}
In conjunction with a massive reduction in the welfare state, support. Otherwise, no.
[/quote]

Agree, pretty much all of the free market advocates of UBI or some other policy like it (Friedman, Charles Murray, and F.A. Hayek) have said it would only work if 'all' other systems of welfare were eliminated. The rest is left to public charity - and it would be not for every single person but applied as a negative income tax. It would be hard to manage and if the amount was too high it would be a major disincentive to work.

I think most progressives, social Democrats, and other modern 'liberals', who typically are fearful of automation and are altruists through the power and kindness of the state want a more robust version of UBI than what Friedman envisioned or what Murray discusses now when not getting heckled for the Bell Curve book.

If there was no Medicaid/Medicare/ACA, no SocSec, no food stamps, no housing assistance, no welfare, but they still had to have something maybe this is OK. But, given how strongly the power players are stuck to these benefit structures with the pull peddlers happy with the status quo insurance companies and large corporations, lobbyists, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. and how hard its been to make inroads in dismantling the power and involvement of the state in our lives I think the UBI would be a bad idea.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 16 queries.