• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Post Corona - What Will Change?

BG said:
The other thing to consider, is that any money doled out in social programs goes right back into the economy - nobody is hoarding it.
Click to expand...

It's really the key thing which makes it kind of a no brainer. Much better than giving out trillions on stock buybacks and investment income.
 
BG said:
The other thing to consider, is that any money doled out in social programs goes right back into the economy - nobody is hoarding it.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty huge aspect of it. That's only blunted by the fact that so much of that will be vacuumed up by Walmart, Amazon, etc. If UBI was coupled with a real societal change towards buy local whenever possible, it would be game changing.

But yeah, I'd much much rather give 1000 people 24K a year each than give a "job creator a 24 million dollar tax break.
 
I assumed that a minimum income of say $24,000 would mean that if you earned nothing you would get the full $24,000. If you earned $18,000 per year that would be topped up tp $24,000. If you earned $50,000, that is your income.
 
It works because the people at the lower end are not putting money away they are spending it, literally everything the government gives them goes right back into the economy.
 
anne25 said:
I assumed that a minimum income of say $24,000 would mean that if you earned nothing you would get the full $24,000. If you earned $18,000 per year that would be topped up tp $24,000. If you earned $50,000, that is your income.
Click to expand...

I don't think that really helps. I mean people making "nothing" or very little are getting some kind of government assistance already most likely. UBI isn't just for the people at the bottom. I make over 50K and although I lead a fairly frugal lifestyle, an extra 1-2K per month that I don't need to "earn" would be hella useful for the now and later. Would give me way more choice on what I want to do with my life.
 
anne25 said:
I assumed that a minimum income of say $24,000 would mean that if you earned nothing you would get the full $24,000. If you earned $18,000 per year that would be topped up tp $24,000. If you earned $50,000, that is your income.
Click to expand...
That would defeat the purpose no? Why get a job that pays $32K a year if you can make 80% of that doing nothing?
 
Aberdeen said:
That would defeat the purpose no? Why get a job that pays $32K a year if you can make 80% of that doing nothing?
Click to expand...

Because (1) work is a crucial part social inclusion and (2) 8K is a 33% raise if you’re making 24K. It’s real money for someone in that situation.
 
lecoqsportif said:
Because (1) work is a crucial part social inclusion and (2) 8K is a 33% raise if you’re making 24K. It’s real money for someone in that situation.
Click to expand...
Ok, then why take a job making less than 24k, or part time work? I think UBI has to be in addition to your income.
 
Aberdeen said:
Ok, then why take a job making less than 24k, or part time work? I think UBI has to be in addition to your income.
Click to expand...

Good catch. Has to be head of household and spouse. Can’t be a dependent living at home. Can be identified in tax filings.

Students living away from home would be biggest complication. But if this is this a way for them to avoid student debt, it’s worth a look.

Top up would be worth a look. I’m just not sold on disincentive argument.
 
lecoqsportif said:
Good catch. Has to be head of household and spouse. Can’t be a dependent living at home. Can be identified in tax filings.

Students living away from home would be biggest complication. But if this is this a way for them to avoid student debt, it’s worth a look.

Top up would be worth a look. I’m just not sold on disincentive argument.
Click to expand...
Prepare for a lot of paper seperations, divorces, and people not getting married.
 
It’s the dependents that matter.

They are clearly identified in tax filings.

Ironically, we would probably have to move to taxing unit of household, rather than as individuals, as is done in the US.
 
lecoqsportif said:
It’s the dependents that matter.

They are clearly identified in tax filings.

Ironically, we would probably have to move to taxing unit of household, rather than as individuals, as is done in the US.
Click to expand...
I misread, I though you wrote head of household, I didn't see you included spouse.

The system would need to move towards households as a whole, that's for sure.
 
You didn’t really misread, I miswrote.

This would would cause a sea change in how we treat income, work, adult kids, etc. But given the kind of risk that has been downloaded on a lot of households, this probably needs a thorough rethink.
 
MindzEye said:
I think working conditions for minimum wage employees would improve. I still remember how shit I was treated in my late teens/early 20's. Switching shifts without proper notice (don't like it? Quit). Boss is a complete cunt (ditto...quit), work your dick off for months with no raise? Same answer right?

Way easier to tell bad companies/bosses to stick it up their ass and go looking for something else. Shitty working conditions are a major driver of mental health issues.
Click to expand...

But I think you described just about every job out there. If you have a boss, expect to get mistreated 8 out of 10 times.
 
MindzEye said:
With all due respect man, anecdotes are a bad way to view the world. It's how we come to believe that welfare fraud is a thing worth raging over, and that welfare queens are a thing worth worrying about.

We know the effects of poverty on society. If we're too busy looking down our noses at those we feel better than, we're going to miss an opportunity to improve society for everyone. In a UBI scheme, are benefits going to end up going to someone who is able bodied and just doesn't want to work? Sure. But we know through observation that guy is really, really likely to find the motivation to commit crime when he gets hungry. Spend 24K a year housing him now and keeping him lazy (with the possibility that he sorts himself out at some point), or 75K a year (plus the pile of other societial costs of crime) for housing him later?

You're paying for him either way.
Click to expand...

The last part is true too. I mean the costs of housing a criminal in prison are themselves a crime against the taxpayer. There are so many considerations to really flesh out, with each move having a domino effect elsewhere.
 
anne25 said:
I assumed that a minimum income of say $24,000 would mean that if you earned nothing you would get the full $24,000. If you earned $18,000 per year that would be topped up tp $24,000. If you earned $50,000, that is your income.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of different models but the one that seems to be the simplest and work the best is that a dollar figure just gets sent out and that's it. Once you hit a certain threshold on your taxes, that dollar amount tiers downward until somewhere around 75K a year it stops.

The main feature is to ensure that no one in the country is in severe poverty. The secondary feature is that the "working poor" are elevated to being something closer to the lower end of middle income. This would take someone earning 15 dollars an hour (31,200 a year...minus taxes) and push them to 55K (assuming 2K a month as the UBI, which in fairness is a little higher than most numbers I've seen but is close enough that we can used it in a discussion like this).

Which sounds like a lot of money but inflation is a motherfucker. 55K in 2020 dollars is 38K in 2000 dollars. It's really not much more than an okay apartment, bills all paid, no debt a bit of savings and a vacation fund if you're living in a city like Toronto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top