• Kurzgesagt - Universal Basic Income Explained – Free Money for Everybody?
    54 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52958930]Or maybe it's a good time to [I]cut defense spending[/I] and [I]put it into social programs[/I]. We have plenty of money to throw at our social programs - all that's necessary is for someone to make it happen. Or, hell, you could also [I]enforce taxes[/I] and make corporations spend on their taxes what they're supposed to be spending instead of well beneath to [I]none[/I] in taxes.[/QUOTE] I don't think you realize the magnitude of the problem. Based on CBO analysis, just Medicare and Social Security is set to have an 82 trillion dollar budget deficit over the next 30 years ([URL]https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52480-ltbo.pdf[/URL]). You could cut the entire defense budget down to zero and tax every dollar over $250,000 at 100%, starting today, and you still wouldn't have enough. This isn't a funding problem, it's a spending problem. [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] This also ignores that interest on debt is going to be skyrocketing in the future. We've had extremely low interest rates that essentially everyone thinks can't stay that way.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52958958]I don't think you realize the magnitude of the problem. Based on CBO analysis, just Medicare and Social Security is set to have an 82 trillion dollar budget deficit over the next 30 years ([url]https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52480-ltbo.pdf[/url]). You could cut the entire defense budget down to zero and tax every dollar over $200,000 starting today and you still wouldn't have enough.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should start implementing a different social security and healthcare system then? One that's been used by other nations and works much more efficiently, maybe? It's no surprise that your Medicare costs are ballooning when your healthcare system gives enormous bargaining power to the health industry which enable them to charge for obscene amounts of money.
It isn't a funding problem - it's a collection (and inefficiency) problem. (See the above post, I don't see the need to make the same argument twice) Does this graph look right to you? Because it should be pretty obvious that given record breaking year of profit after record breaking year of profit, year after year after year, that Corporate Income Taxes should not only be a significant portion of income - it should be utterly trashing all other sources. Hell, by weight, the CBO is basically saying 'over the next 30 years people will by average be taxed more while everyone else will be taxed less'. [img]https://imgur.com/RxDDvxj.png[/img]
[QUOTE=sgman91;52958820]I love the idea of a negative income tax in theory, but I don't think it will work in a political reality. For example, what happens to people who still end up in poverty (drug users, the mentally handicapped, gamblers, etc.)? They will still need targeted welfare unless you're going to allow them to starve.[/QUOTE] Well, like I said previously, I am for a basic income replacing some of the welfare and grant schemes that are already in place, so as to simplify the system, make it more efficient and effective and free people from the very demoralising way most welfare works. For the disabled and other such groups the basic income should obviously be higher. [QUOTE=sgman91;52958820] As we've seen over the past 50 years, spending money on welfare doesn't get rid of poverty. You just end up spending more and more on it as time goes on... seemingly into perpetuity. [/QUOTE] I would argue that is due to flaws in the way our welfare systems work and how money for fighting poverty is currently spent. Generally welfare systems are built with the idea that the people receiving the benefits shouldn't be trusted, even though experiments show the contrary. We spend loads of money fighting the symptoms of poverty, by giving poor people courses on how to use money for example, which does not work. We should instead just be getting rid of the root cause: the poverty itself. Poverty would cause most of us to do stupid things. The best solution is just giving the poor money unconditionally, giving them breathing space to make good decisions. Also, only looking at the costs of something is unfair. You should view eradicating poverty as an investment, one that studies suggest pays itself off massively. It isn't just charity, it is the logical thing to do.
If you're going to cite studies, then please go ahead and cite them. I'll be happy to read through them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52959662]If you're going to cite studies, then please go ahead and cite them. I'll be happy to read through them.[/QUOTE] The video's description has several links to studies Here's one about poverty making people 'dumber' [url]https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/amani/mani_science_976.full.pdf[/url] From an interview with one of the reseachers: "'Our research shows that you lose about 13 IQ points,’ Shafir says. ‘That is comparable to skipping a night's sleep, or being addicted to alcohol.’" [url]https://decorrespondent.nl/511/waarom-arme-mensen-domme-dingen-doen/194257594839-60b7aa93[/url] (Dutch article, but I'm linking it anyway)
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52958972]It isn't a funding problem - it's a collection (and inefficiency) problem. (See the above post, I don't see the need to make the same argument twice) Does this graph look right to you? Because it should be pretty obvious that given record breaking year of profit after record breaking year of profit, year after year after year, [B]that Corporate Income Taxes should not only be a significant portion of income[/B] - it should be utterly trashing all other sources. Hell, by weight, the CBO is basically saying 'over the next 30 years people will by average be taxed more while everyone else will be taxed less'. [IMG]https://imgur.com/RxDDvxj.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] uh, no. There's a reason most OECD countries have relatively low corporate tax rates even compared to our effective rates, and they don't even make up a high percentage of their budgets either. CIT is also really hard to levy since corporations aren't people. We'd be better off actually taxing rich people, for example when the money exits the company, and taxing activities, such as land usage. [QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52958583]But what's the benefit of having targeted welfare over UBI or UBI achieved through negative income tax? UBI theoretically eradicates poverty entirely.[/QUOTE] Effort and taxes on the middle and upper middle class mostly. Also that depends on your definition of poverty. Giving everyone the poverty line is 22k a year and will cost 6 trillion dollars, but 22k is far too low to live in quite a few places. As well most economic estimations for UBI assume pretty much all deductions are eliminated, that'll anger a few people at least initially that they can't write off their mortgage or tuition. That, plus the increased rates that'll be required. But the main con of a UBI I see that'll get in the way of its implementation for awhile is just the effort of redoing everything around it. You have to redo your entire welfare and tax system at the same time, and in the US, our government is deliberately built to be slow. Politicians may be better off just putting their political capital elsewhere, when we're talking normatively. [QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52959402]Well, like I said previously, I am for a basic income replacing some of the welfare and grant schemes that are already in place, so as to simplify the system, make it more efficient and effective and free people from the very demoralising way most welfare works. For the disabled and other such groups the basic income should obviously be higher. I would argue that is due to flaws in the way our welfare systems work and how money for fighting poverty is currently spent. Generally welfare systems are built with the idea that the people receiving the benefits shouldn't be trusted, even though experiments show the contrary. We spend loads of money fighting the symptoms of poverty, by giving poor people courses on how to use money for example, which does not work. We should instead just be getting rid of the root cause: the poverty itself. Poverty would cause most of us to do stupid things. The best solution is just giving the poor money unconditionally, giving them breathing space to make good decisions.[/QUOTE]This is what I mean by overhype tbh. There isn't much to be gained in efficiency. Administrative costs are usually about 1-5% (numbers from TANF, SNAP, and social security.) And UBI will still require administration, gains would exist but not really much. The dehumanizing nature of our welfare systems isn't an inherent flaw to targeted welfare. Honestly, we probably won't even see a serious UBI proposal unless we get over that hump, because without people largely getting over that psychological/economic myth, you're just going to see UBI die or face cuts. Especially because the effects of UBI when it comes to encouraging or discouraging employment aren't really known, and it's theoretical plausible to go in both ways. [quote]Also, only looking at the costs of something is unfair. You should view eradicating poverty as an investment, one that studies suggest pays itself off massively. It isn't just charity, it is the logical thing to do.[/quote] Which aspect? Like, if we're talking about improving education, health, and whatnot. That pretty obviously pays back at least somewhat for the rest of the country. I shouldn't even need to link studies for this but I'll go get them if someone really needs it. But I don't know if this applies to simply dumping money on people all else equal in a unique, at least 1:1 way, for UBI.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52959707] Effort and taxes on the middle and upper middle class mostly. [/QUOTE] I agree with you on that. That's why I'm a proponent of implementing a basic income with negative income tax. If it were universal, relatively rich people would indeed receive a basic income and then have to pay all of it back in huge marginal tax rates that would have to be implemented, pointlessly pumping money around. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52959707] Also that depends on your definition of poverty. Giving everyone the poverty line is 22k a year and will cost 6 trillion dollars, but 22k is far too low to live in quite a few places. As well most economic estimations for UBI assume pretty much all deductions are eliminated, that'll anger a few people at least initially that they can't write off their mortgage or tuition. That, plus the increased rates that'll be required.[/QUOTE] Recently three American economists calculated what it would cost to completely eradicate poverty via negative income tax ([url]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10875549.2014.991889[/url]). They concluded that it would cost 336 billion dollars, max. For American terms that doesn't seem that bad at all. The costs of child poverty in the U.S. are estimated to be 500 billion dollars ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/25/the-cost-of-child-poverty-500-billion-a-year/?utm_term=.5c8477bf47a7[/url]), so it seems like a pretty good investment. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52959707] But the main con of a UBI I see that'll get in the way of its implementation for awhile is just the effort of redoing everything around it. You have to redo your entire welfare and tax system at the same time, and in the US, our government is deliberately built to be slow. Politicians may be better off just putting their political capital elsewhere, when we're talking normatively.[/QUOTE] I guess that could indeed be a hump to overcome. What's pretty funny though, is that the U.S. almost implemented a basic income in the early 70's. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52959707] This is what I mean by overhype tbh. There isn't much to be gained in efficiency. Administrative costs are usually about 1-5% (numbers from TANF, SNAP, and social security.) And UBI will still require administration, gains would exist but not really much.[/QUOTE] Ah well, that might be true for the U.S., but I think for my country there would be a bit more to gain, as we have more seperate welfare schemes than you do. We also spend a lot of money on courses and that kind of stupid stuff I mentioned. I'll have to look into that! [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52959707] The dehumanizing nature of our welfare systems isn't an inherent flaw to targeted welfare. Honestly, we probably won't even see a serious UBI proposal unless we get over that hump, because without people largely getting over that psychological/economic myth, you're just going to see UBI die or face cuts.[/QUOTE] I agree that it isn't an inherent flaw. Obviously I can't speak for America, but a majority of people in Europe like the basic income idea. And when people like an idea, politicians will often follow. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52959707] Especially because the effects of UBI when it comes to encouraging or discouraging employment aren't really known, and it's theoretical plausible to go in both ways.[/QUOTE] There have been several experiments, like the one in Dauphin, Canada, which was with a negative income tax. Very few people stopped working, and if they did, it was because they wanted to raise their children or follow an education. Obviously more research is always good, but I think we have a pretty good idea of what will happen in terms of people working. I think most people want to have meaningful lives, few people will just sit in their homes doing nothing. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52959707] Which aspect? Like, if we're talking about improving education, health, and whatnot. That pretty obviously pays back at least somewhat for the rest of the country. I shouldn't even need to link studies for this but I'll go get them if someone really needs it. But I don't know if this applies to simply dumping money on people all else equal in a unique, at least 1:1 way, for UBI.[/QUOTE] I meant that aspect, yes. All the crime, negative health effects, wasted talent, etc. Look at the estimated cost of child poverty I mentioned and what a negative income tax that eradicates poverty costs. I think it'd be a pretty good investment!
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52959707]But I don't know if this applies to simply dumping money on people all else equal in a unique, at least 1:1 way, for UBI.[/QUOTE] The video does touch on this though, doesn't it? Once people don't have to work two to three jobs merely to survive, they can use the free time they now actually have to study, learn trades or skills, and progressively improve their situation. I'm not sure I should even have to show that a more educated and actually free population contributes to the greater good. Unless you're part of the few who profit off others' misery, of course.
When I was on unemployment, I was receiving about 1000$ a month (calculated from the time spent on my previous job and salary I was getting) but I had very little incentive to find work or even study. If I found a new job, I would maybe make 30% more money but I would lose ALL the free time I had. Unfortunately, I couldn't go study in college because I would lose my unemployment if I went to study full time. The government basically discouraged me from working or studying because doing either would bring me little benefit compared to staying on unemployment. With UBI I would have actually gone looking for a job because I wouldn't lose the benefits, I would only get richer for putting in more effort.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52960082]The video does touch on this though, doesn't it? Once people don't have to work two to three jobs merely to survive, they can use the free time they now actually have to study, learn trades or skills, and progressively improve their situation. I'm not sure I should even have to show that a more educated and actually free population contributes to the greater good. Unless you're part of the few who profit off others' misery, of course.[/QUOTE]I mean that's kind of what I was saying. This applies to standard welfare as well. Hell, you bring up someone working 2-3 jobs for example. If our goal is: "Anybody working a X hours job (let's say 35) should not be living in poverty," we could accomplish this with a SENSIBLE minimum wage (not 15 nation-wide lol) plus an expansion of the EITC system in the US. Which effectively acts as a wage subsidy where the poor get extra money through refundable credits when it's tax time, based on their earned income. The question I was bringing up was whether a UBI is really special in accomplishing this, versus standard, well-designed welfare that avoids traps. I say this as someone who does thrive off of the misery of others'. [QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52960064]Recently three American economists calculated what it would cost to completely eradicate poverty via negative income tax ([URL]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10875549.2014.991889[/URL]). They concluded that it would cost 336 billion dollars, max. For American terms that doesn't seem that bad at all. The costs of child poverty in the U.S. are estimated to be 500 billion dollars, so it seems like a pretty good investment.[/QUOTE]I assumed by UBI you you were saying the kind where everyone is sent a check. a NIT is just a refundable tax credit. But true, and even with a UBI, a lot of people would see a decent chunk of their increased taxes return to them, but Americans are already very tax-phobic. Psychologically, we might succeed better with an NIT because the calculations in that paper seem solid at a quick glance. [quote]I guess that could indeed be a hump to overcome. What's pretty funny though, is that the U.S. almost implemented a basic income in the early 70's.[/quote] Kinda. I dunno if Nixon would have really gone through with it and succeeded, but it's quite possible. And hell even his opponent McGovern wanted it I think. [quote]Obviously I can't speak for America, but a majority of people in Europe like the basic income idea. And when people like an idea, politicians will often follow.[/quote] Yeah, we'll probably see it first in Europe. [quote]There have been several experiments, like the one in Dauphin, Canada, which was with a negative income tax. Very few people stopped working, and if they did, it was because they wanted to raise their children or follow an education. Obviously more research is always good, but I think we have a pretty good idea of what will happen in terms of people working. I think most people want to have meaningful lives, few people will just sit in their homes doing nothing.[/quote] These are small short-term experiments, however. It's useful, but it doesn't completely settle things with me if you get what I mean. But I will add that from what I can remember, the people who do quit working are the "good" kinds. If you get my drift, these were usually students (in some countries they get bursaries to encourage the same) and new parents. Being able to complete school faster/with higher grades, and raising children, is obviously great. [quote]I meant that aspect, yes. Look at the estimated cost of child poverty I mentioned and what a negative income tax that eradicates poverty costs. I think it'd be a pretty good investment![/quote] Yeah I'm not really saying that UBI is a bad idea. If I had a choice I would probably take the leap of faith and implement it in the US. And I mean Daddy Milty Friedman did endorse the NIT. Actually bringing up someone who's loved by libertarians is an amusing thing, most recent UBI proposals in America iirc were from the libertarian party. I guess they kind of want to say "government get out stop regulating stuff no more bureaucracy" but know that they gotta give something if they want to avoid feudalism.
Libertarians, Friedman included, want the NIT as a total replacement for all welfare, which would never work in our society.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52960131] I say this as someone who does thrive off of the misery of others'. I assumed by UBI you you were saying the kind where everyone is sent a check. a NIT is just a refundable tax credit[/QUOTE] It can basically amount to basic income. It is often brought up by prominent UBI advocates as a way to implement it. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52960131] Kinda. I dunno if Nixon would have really gone through with it and succeeded, but it's quite possible. And hell even his opponent McGovern wanted it I think.[/QUOTE] It was actually the democrats who blocked it in the senate after it had been through the House of Representatives twice. They wanted the proposed basic income to be higher, lol. Eventually the idea was sort of forgotten after that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52960145]Libertarians, Friedman included, want the NIT as a total replacement for all welfare, which would never work in our society.[/QUOTE] Not all libertarians, and I would actually dispute him being a libertarian as well, since he acknowledges market failures and where the governments role is, when we talk what he was written economically. It has too much empiricism and not enough prax for libertarians. But why would it never work?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52960145]Libertarians, Friedman included, want the NIT as a total replacement for all welfare, which would never work in our society.[/QUOTE] Then I guess lets stop working on a solutions for just keep doing what we're doing right
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52960161]Not all libertarians, and I would actually dispute him being a libertarian as well, since he acknowledges market failures and where the governments role is, when we talk what he was written economically. It has too much empiricism and not enough prax for libertarians. But why would it never work?[/QUOTE] Because there will inevitably be people who still need help. There will still be the gamblers, the alcoholics, the drug abusers, the mentally unstable, those who don't plan very well, etc., not to mention their families. All these people will still need targeted assistance.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52960170]Then I guess lets stop working on a solutions for just keep doing what we're doing right[/QUOTE] I mean, if he's talking about getting it, that might be a potential concern. If political capital allowed for simply expanding and improve standard welfare, and not for attaining a UBI, the answer is obviously to do the former. Kind of like how Obama would have gotten nothing if he went straight for Universal Healthcare. [QUOTE=sgman91;52960213]Because there will inevitably be people who still need help. There will still be the gamblers, the alcoholics, the drug abusers, the mentally unstable, those who don't plan very well, etc., not to mention their families. All these people will still need targeted assistance.[/QUOTE] Targeted assistance as in rehabilitative services? That's doable with an NIT. The assumptions I've seen under most proposals is not an elimination of [I]every [/I]kind of social spending, but just welfare as in, food stamps, social security, and deductions like the mortgage deduction. Although, I guess "welfare" is a broad term, and to many libertarians a drug rehabilitation clinic might count.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52960170]Then I guess lets stop working on a solutions for just keep doing what we're doing right[/QUOTE] What? Since when does saying that one specific solution wouldn't work mean that nothing should change at all?
I'm continually impressed by this channel's ability to display all sides of a complicated and hotly debated topic in detail while keeping the videos entertaining.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52960216]What? Since when does saying that one specific solution wouldn't work mean that nothing should change at all?[/QUOTE] Well I don't know, you seem to believe UBI wouldn't work and claim welfare is an "unsustainable mess", so what other options are we left with here?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52960249]Well I don't know, you seem to believe UBI wouldn't work and claim welfare is an "unsustainable mess", so what other options are we left with here?[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Unless he means the alternative is no social net.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52958820] You also have the issue with the UBI becoming a political issue. Running on raising the UBI will be an easy path to victory as more and more people utilize it.[/QUOTE] Only if you're retarded/bought out and make it possible for it to be a political issue in the first place. Just implement it in law that UBI can't be raised more than to adjust for inflation and changes to cost of living, and allow it to automatically adjust without bullshit bills to meet said goals. That way no one can campaign that someone is preventing the UBI from adjusting to inflation or cost of living, and no one can campaign on raising it in any meaningful way because that's not legally possible without rewriting the law first, which would account for such a problem to be arising and give the country time to fix the issue.
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;52960257]Only if you're retarded/bought out and make it possible for it to be a political issue in the first place. Just implement it in law that UBI can't be raised more than to adjust for inflation and changes to cost of living, and allow it to automatically adjust without bullshit bills to meet said goals. That way no one can campaign that someone is preventing the UBI from adjusting to inflation or cost of living, and no one can campaign on raising it in any meaningful way because that's not legally possible without rewriting the law first, which would account for such a problem to be arising and give the country time to fix the issue.[/QUOTE] I mean yeah you'll want it to automatically index with inflation but uh.. What do you mean forbid it from being risen by passing another law? You can't do that without an amendment. Otherwise they'd just write a similar bill with higher rates, repeal and replace, done. Also I find it unlikely that raising it will be so easily popular our country bankrupts itself or something, remember, the UBI isn't here to benefit everybody. It mostly is for the poor, middle class people will likely either see minimal change, or a negative change from the necessary taxation if politicians try to raise it significantly.
This is an issue that's not specific to UBI anyway, a politician who claims he'll lower taxes can have just as much influence as one who claims he'll increase UBI.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.