397
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
397 points (98.5% liked)
Futurology
1808 readers
196 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Which is in line with most other UBI experiments. How many more experiments do we need until politicians just acknowledge that this is good policy and we need to start implementing it?
I'm not against it, but where would the money come from?
Rich people. Increase taxes a tiny bit on the 1% and this will be paid for, and then some.
Well not a tiny bit. Increase taxes in the 0.1% a whole fuckload. I’d increase taxes on billionaires to 90% and start freezing assets of anyone who tries to go overseas to avoid them. levy the world’s strongest ever economic and geopolitical sanctions against countries that harbor billionaire american tax evasion expats or something.
Let's see someone run on that platform and not get JFKed before election day first.
Ok what do you do when foreign investment dries up and no foreign entity wants their money in your bank since you have a habit of seizing it? How strong is the economy then?
I don't think you understand the consequences
Won't happen if they still want access to your markets.
Plenty
No one wants access to markets that seize money or companies. It is why Venezuela isn't seeing foreign investment.
If foreign money isn't coming in your economy us going to be very weak comparatively.
With natural resources and trillions in seized assets? I doubt it.
I suspect you do doubt it but I doubt that you have any education in macroeconomics given that your assertions make zero sense IRL.
You do realize that marginal tax rates were about 90% in America before, right? The single biggest reason they aren't anymore is much like how Walmart keeps their prices low - part of a race to the bottom. You're right, they will go elsewhere. They didn't before because there were no good or practical options. And as long as countries do what Ireland did not too long ago, it will continue to be a problem.
Yes I am aware that the top bracket was at one point 90%. Immalso aware that by changing that with the 1983 tax reforms we dropped tax rates while getting MORE tax revenue. That means that 90% is probably too high.
Regardless even with those brackets we don't have enough money to cover UBI in any meaningful way. We cannot tax the population enough to cone up with the trillions needed. Anyone suggesting we do have that money is likely uneducated in economics and has no idea how things work.
And I suspect you sniff farts.
How convenient "We caaaaaaan't take billionaire money or tehy wiww weave!" lines up with power structures set up by billionaires.
The rich have always funded parroting of taxes being impossible to implement and no one believes it
Who cares? Did you not see how it was cheaper than what we're currently doing because fewer people wind up in hospitals and prisons?
Where does the more money we are currently spending come from?
They just print it. There's nothing tying the value of the currency to what it's worth in terms of purchase power except how much is circulated.
My issue with UBI, at large-scale, is that it will cause inflation that will 100% go to the wealthiest people on the planet. For example, it's not that the cost of a burger would need to go from $10->$15 because companies now need to compete in wages in an environment where their employees have an extra $12k, it's that the cost of a burger will go from $10->$15 because the rich want the extra $5, leaving people receiving UBI with the same (or less) purchasing power.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm excited about the possibilities that these studies show, and I'm not against UBI. I just am getting older and coming to the conclusion that the non-wealthy get fucked every time anything that is meant to help us is implemented.
Yeah the effects on inflation need to be looked at pretty closely. Extra cash to people who need it is great for them. Extra cash for everyone, especially if it is just printed, surely will cause problems. Just the increase in money supply will result in inflation but yeah greedy assholes will find ways to suck up the free money from everyone else.
The problem with the wealthy fucking over us peons is what's truly Universal when we have so much corruption.
If I didn't fear it falling into squalor, along with NIMBY problems, some kind of public free housing would effectively be like a portion of UBI but harder for greedy pricks to suck up the money legally. And at least that way the people who would otherwise be able to work (e.g. those who became homeless due to medical emergencies) wouldn't be at a disadvantage from being unhomed.
Of course the real answer there is universal healthcare and elimination of for profit healthcare and elimination of health insurance. So that medical emergencies are just covered.
It will only cause inflation if you print the money. If the supply of money goes up then value of money goes down.
I hear you there. We have a corrupt political class to blame for that. Which is why I advocate for the Forward party, which aims to break up the duopoly of the political system. It's main policy goals are Nonpartisan primaries and Ranked Choice Voting.
Yes, regardless of if the money gets printed or just ends up in people's bank accounts, as the amount of money in circulation increases, inflation will follow. The only other way to get money in people's accounts is to take it from other accounts, like taxing the crap out of the wealthiest people, purchases over a certain threshold, etc. Then it wouldn't lead to inflation, just redistribution of wealth. I'm not an expert on economies, and I'm sure the semantics of what I'm saying isn't quite right, but I think you know what I mean.
Yeah you have a good grasp of the ideas involved.
If you don't print money to fund a UBI, money in circulation stays the same so there is no inflation.
In fact in the few widescale UBI experiments that have taken place, inflation decreased. Alaska has had a form of a basic income, funded by oil revenues on from state land, since 1982. Ever since, Alaska has had LOWER inflation than the entire U.S. Their term it is the Permanent Fund dividend and it managed by a state owned corporation.
As an aside Economics is a social science, and is imperfect because it cant be replicated. The term for this is Replication crisis. Interesting wikipedia article on that.
I'm not understanding the need for printed money to increase inflation. Wouldn't direct deposit to people's checking accounts have the same effect as printed currency?
No, direct deposit is just the method of moving around currency from the government to people. Inflation is based upon the economic theory of supply and demand. The price of a good is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. If both supply and demand go up equally the price stays the same. If supply goes up without demand changing the price goes down. If demand goes down without supply changing the price goes up.
Supply in this case is how much money is in circulation. When money is moved around from a group of people to another, then the amount of money is still the same. Demand in this case is how much it costs to borrow money. Demand is otherwise known as the interest rate when applied to money.
If both the amount of money in circulation and the interest rate stay steady, than no change will occur in the value of money. This is the case of a UBI funded by cutting spending or increasing taxes.
However if only supply increases and demand stays the same, then the value of money will decrease. Likewise if only demand increases and supply stays the same, then the value of money will decrease.
Inflation is the devaluing of currency caused by either of the above listed changes to the supply-demand equation.
Think about the amount of printed currency like housing supply in LA. The price for housing is ever increasing because the demand for housing is increasing while the supply is barely inching upwards. That is an example of the value of houses in LA inflating. The same concept applies to government backed money. The only difference is the government decides the supply and demand of the currency market.
Thanks. I appreciate the time and effort put into your response.
yeah i've never understood why they can't just print the money. how does that actually force the dude at costco to print new price tags. ohh oh no this amount seems like less now, it's not as though we have abundance beyond our wildest dreams, better increase prices because of the graphs!!
Because money is made up until the point when it isn't and someone wants a debt repaid.
Some of these programs end up saving the governments money, due to reducing other costs like policing, shelters, and maybe also increased tax revenue due to these people improving their employment situations, thus paying taxes.
It may be the case that a less targeted program, ie an actual broad-based UBI, would have an actual cost associated with it. There are a lot of benefits to reducing poverty that reduce the drag on other government support systems, though.
Would you ask that if it came to the defense budget?
I would rather the government spent its money on directly helping citizens rather than only giving it to the military industrial complex.
The defense budget doesn't purport to be a replacement for capitalism.
Neither does a UBI. It merely claims to help people improve their life.
You're the one bringing capitalism into this.
Then in what sense is it "universal"?
It's universal in that everyone receives it.
A UBI is universal in the sense that it applies without a means test or a need to work. Traditional social welfare programs have many overly restrictive policies that limit who is eligible. This results in only about ~25% of those who are eligible actually using those programs.
If you are arguing that the linked article is not an example of a UBI, you would be correct as it is a targeted basic income.
Closing yeah loopholes and making the rich pay their share, churches, decreasing military spending by a fraction etc...
Part of it comes from removing existing social support schemes that UBI supplants. Not only can you reallocate those funds, the simplified ruleset should also reduce bureaucratic overhead, which can also go towards funding UBI.
Will that cover all of the additional expenses? Probably not. But it's a start, at least.
Ideally you use it to reduce/depreciate services that are more expensive counter parts to what UBI provides. Ideally a reduction in homeless shelters, food banks, police services, emergency hospital ect
It could come from rich people or it could come from cutting back on the services that go hand in hand with homelessness. Shelters, policing, less crime, etc
Where would it go?
Partially this is a Cotton Eye Joe reference, but mostly pointing out that people spend money. Spent money is taxed. Huuzah.
Also money isn't real. You can just print the stuff.
The only issue is the productive capacity of the society doing it.
Rolling back trump’s $2 Trillion tax cuts for the rich and corporations would be a great start. From there, increase taxes on both groups substantially. They will still be rich and still be making record profits, but we will gain social safety nets such as UBI in the process.
Alternatively, we could generate funding for this the same way we did to fund over 20 years of military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It could come from the same place we get the funds for subsidizing fossil fuel companies. It could even come from the very same money printers we used to give free PPP loans to “businesses” during the height of the pandemic.
The point being, if it’s good policy, a healthy functioning government does it, and doesn’t waste time asking questions about how we pay for things. Taxes. The answer is always taxes, it’s literally called the Internal Revenue Service.
Weed/drugs in general.