Basic Universal Income (BUI)

[Ten oz]

@Bender who will receive UBI? Please don't just respond by saying everyone because that obviously isn't accurate less everyone one with a tourist, student, work and etc visas (millions of people) would be receiving it.

How would it be paid for? You insist it handle large unemployment yet taxes on employment is where the govt gets the bulk of it's money. Less employment equals less federal tax revenue. 

[CharonY]

On 7/1/2018 at 4:59 AM, Ten oz said:

As a result they all have massive amounts of foreign migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and etc. For example only 15% of Qatar's population are citizens. The rest are foreign workers. Labor, tradesmen, janitorial, and most all service industries are 100% foreign workers. 

I would have to check it out in more detail, but I don't think that is an accurate description of the situation. Qatari unemployment rate is close to zero, i.e. they have deficiency of workers. The large amount of foreign workers is not due to Qatari not being willing to work, but rather due to rapid economic expansion. Also, a quick search did not reveal an universal income system, so maybe you could elaborate on that bit?

Note that in limited experimental studies implementation to something like UBI has as a whole not shown to be an disincentive to do work. It has, however, resulted in folks getting better jobs by going back to school, for example.

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would have to check it out in more detail, but I don't think that is an accurate description of the situation. Qatari unemployment rate is close to zero, i.e. they have deficiency of workers. The large amount of foreign workers is not due to Qatari not being willing to work, but rather due to rapid economic expansion. Also, a quick search did not reveal an universal income system, so maybe you could elaborate on that bit?

Note that in limited experimental studies implementation to something like UBI has as a whole not shown to be an disincentive to do work. It has, however, resulted in folks getting better jobs by going back to school, for example.

The situation is Qatar is well known. 

Quote

 

Qatar has about 2.6 million inhabitants as of early 2017, the majority of whom (about 92%) live in Doha, the capital.[1] Foreign workers amount to around 88% of the population, with Indiansbeing the largest community numbering around 691,000. As of an unofficial 2017 report, there were a further 350,000 Nepalis, 280,000 Bangladeshis, 260,000 Filipinos, 200,000 Egyptians, 145,000 Sri Lankans and 125,000 Pakistanis among many other nationalities.[2][3] The treatment of these foreign workers has been heavily criticized in recent years, with living conditions suggested to be exploitative and abusive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Qatar

 

 

[CharonY]

On 7/1/2018 at 4:59 AM, Ten oz said:

To @fiveworlds point citizens in those countries have no incentive to work. As a result they all have massive amounts of foreign migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and etc. For example only 15% of Qatar's population are citizens. The rest are foreign workers. Labor, tradesmen, janitorial, and most all service industries are 100% foreign workers. 

I was referring to this. I.e. you seem to assert that because of Government incentives Qataris have incentive to work (please clarify if I got you wrong). My counterpoint was that that Qatari are basically fully employed. Importing (and abusing workers) is therefore not due to government incentives (for which I have difficulties finding details on, other than education, health and other subsidies, so maybe you could help out there) but rather a means to grow their economy. 

The only other scenario that would be consistent with your point is if a) Qataris do indeed receive UBI and b) are still not listed in unemployment statistics. However, a cursory glance at the number of Qataris in working age, it is very close to the number of unemployed citizens.

What is true, however, is that for Qataris the government is the biggest employer. However that is different from receiving welfare or UBI. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I was referring to this. I.e. you seem to assert that because of Government incentives Qataris have incentive to work (please clarify if I got you wrong). My counterpoint was that that Qatari are basically fully employed. Importing (and abusing workers) is therefore not due to government incentives (for which I have difficulties finding details on, so maybe you could help out there) but rather a means to grow their economy.

 

On 7/1/2018 at 6:59 AM, Ten oz said:

 

 

 Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Eremites,  Kuwait, and Bahrain all have versions in place. All citizens receive a form of profit sharing from the oil and other govt (Monarchy) controlled industries. It isn't workable though in the terms I think most westerners think in. In those OPEC wealthy nations it simply creates a sort of caste system. To @fiveworlds point citizens in those countries have no incentive to work. As a result they all have massive amounts of foreign migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and etc. For example only 15% of Qatar's population are citizens. The rest are foreign workers. Labor, tradesmen, janitorial, and most all service industries are 100% foreign workers. 

In European nations with strong social programs providing free healthcare, education, and varies housing programs to citizens a similar trend emerges. In Switzerland nearly a quarter of the workforce are migrants. The Swiss govt has strict immigration policies where by immigrants are either temporary, annual, or permanent. To become permanent one must have first been on an annual basis for 10yrs. 

In the U.S. I feel we are already teetering on our own sort of caste system. We use our immigration policies and legal system to create a classes of people society deems unfit for quality employment. It is those classes which must clean our toilets, dig our ditches, and do all the back breaker work. Those classes includes people with: Felonies, multiple misdemeanors, on various forms of probation, in the country illegally, and a variety of temporary Green Card holders. More and more credit history is becoming part of standard employment background checks so in the near future we'll be adding people with bad credit history to the unfit for quality employment to the list. I think BUI would be like pouring gasoline on that fire. 

 

I wasn't saying people in Qatar do not work. I was saying that they had no incentive to accept low income employment. The result is a migrant population doing all the undesirable work. I am not interested in seeing that replicated in the U.S. where migrants and minorities are froze out and force to serve in low pay/quality employment. 

[CharonY]

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

I wasn't saying people in Qatar do not work. I was saying that they had no incentive to accept low income employment. The result is a migrant population doing all the undesirable work. I am not interested in seeing that replicated in the U.S. where migrants and minorities are froze out and force to serve in low pay/quality employment. 

Well, UBI is expected to have only a moderate effect in this regard. After all, typical models have a fairly income. It does provide an incentive in seeking better education, though.

However. what you describe is already a reality. If you look at low-income jobs, especially physically demanding ones, you rarely see non-migrants doing the work. The best example is probably in agriculture, which has ca. 77% of immigrant workers.

In Qatar, most of the immigrants work in construction. In the US the rates are lower, but in e.g. Texa or California well above 40% of construction workers are immigrants. Perhaps UBI could increase the rate, but it would be only one of many aspects.

 

As a matter of fact, it is more likely an effect of full employment and resulting lack of labour, combined with having access to low income labour pools.

Edited July 5, 2018 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

However. what you describe is already a reality. If you look at low-income jobs, especially physically demanding ones, you rarely see non-migrants doing the work. The best example is probably in agriculture, which has ca. 77% of immigrant workers.

Correct, it is already a reality. I rather see criminal justice reform a d immigration reform passed to scale it back than UBI pass to strengthen it. 

[Bender]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Correct, it is already a reality. I rather see criminal justice reform a d immigration reform passed to scale it back than UBI pass to strengthen it. 

Those aren't exclusive. I would also like a justice reform.

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@Bender who will receive UBI? Please don't just respond by saying everyone because that obviously isn't accurate less everyone one with a tourist, student, work and etc visas (millions of people) would be receiving it.

How would it be paid for? You insist it handle large unemployment yet taxes on employment is where the govt gets the bulk of it's money. Less employment equals less federal tax revenue. 

Everyone adult citizen. Immigration is obviously an issue, but not more than it is now.

As for the cost: a major tax reform would be required. Taxing employment and added value is convenient, but not really what you want if you want people to work or to add value.

Other options would be to tax eg luxury, resources, real estate, dead money... Denmark IIRC taxes SUV's 180%.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Bender said:

Everyone adult citizen. Immigration is obviously an issue, but not more than it is now.

As for the cost: a major tax reform would be required. Taxing employment and added value is convenient, but not really what you want if you want people to work or to add value.

Other options would be to tax eg luxury, resources, real estate, dead money... Denmark IIRC taxes SUV's 180%.

Every citizen without exception regardless of criminal history, financial background, number of people to a home, marital status, location, education, age, and etc. Every adult citizen gets the same flat income?

Raising taxes to pay for BUI is one of the issues I have with BUI. If we were able to raise taxes the system we currently have would work significantly better and there wouldn't be a need to toss it out and start fresh with BUI. In the 80's Reagan went through 3 rounds of tax cuts. In the early 00's Bush went through 2 rounds of tax cuts. Now Trump has already cut taxes. Between those 6 cuts taxes have never been raise back to previous levels. During that same time numerous services have been cut. If we could raise taxes we'd be able to secure Social Security without constantly debating the age limit, expand Medicare , included education grants with unemployment benefits, expand food programs like SNAP, and etc.  The problem is we can't get taxes raised and introducing BUI doesn't change that. 

Immigration reform and criminal justice reform too are things we desperately need and can't get done. BUI doesn't help either of those debates either. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Every citizen without exception regardless of criminal history, financial background, number of people to a home, marital status, location, education, age, and etc. Every adult citizen gets the same flat income?

It would effectively phase out if you had a job, depending on your income. You'd pay more in tax than you get in income.  

Quote

Raising taxes to pay for BUI is one of the issues I have with BUI.

~200 million adults, ~100 million kids. $10,000 a year for adults and $5k for kids costs $2.5 trillion. But social security's budget is $1 trillion, and also add in the other safety net income. At least half of this is already in place. Plus a lot of hidden costs in the economy would be reduced - people being able to get proper nutrition and health care makes everyone more productive. Crime goes down. 

Quote

If we were able to raise taxes the system we currently have would work significantly better and there wouldn't be a need to toss it out and start fresh with BUI. In the 80's Reagan went through 3 rounds of tax cuts. In the early 00's Bush went through 2 rounds of tax cuts. Now Trump has already cut taxes. Between those 6 cuts taxes have never been raise back to previous levels. During that same time numerous services have been cut. If we could raise taxes we'd be able to secure Social Security without constantly debating the age limit, expand Medicare , included education grants with unemployment benefits, expand food programs like SNAP, and etc.  The problem is we can't get taxes raised and introducing BUI doesn't change that. 

Immigration reform and criminal justice reform too are things we desperately need and can't get done. BUI doesn't help either of those debates either. 

That's an issue of political will. Won't, as opposed to can't.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

~200 million adults, ~100 million kids. $10,000 a year for adults and $5k for kids costs $2.5 trillion. But social security's budget is $1 trillion, and also add in the other safety net income. At least half of this is already in place. Plus a lot of hidden costs in the economy would be reduced - people being able to get proper nutrition and health care makes everyone more productive. Crime goes down. 

$10,000 for adults and $5,000 for kids would be fantastic for people living in rural states with low costs of living. People living in larger metro would still struggle. 10k per for a married couple living in West Virginia where the average rent is $600 would be enough to stabilizes themselves and empower them to pursue education and what not. For the same couple in NYC where the average rent for a tiny one bedroom is $3,000 that 10k would not be enough. For the couple living in NYC better legislation regarding rent control and affordable housing would go further than 10k a year. Free access to the subway, parking, and troll roads, and etc might be more beneficial to people living in metro areas than 10k would be. Here in Washington DC I work with people who literally drive to train train stations( VA railway express, Amtrak, MARC), pay to park at the station, transfer to the Metro, then bus in from the metro everyday just to get to work. They spend a several hundred a month on that stuff. 

I don't see it as a one size fits all problem. Some areas people may need govt support in the form of food and temporary income. In other areas people need support in the form of better infrastructure and education.  

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's an issue of political will. Won't, as opposed to can't.

Of course. That said from where we currently sit, an environment where the controlling political party demagogues people from even receiving food stamps or free meals at public schools, I don't see how BUI could become a thing. If BUI were to become a thing I have little doubt many demands would be placed on it to disenfranchise large portions of the population. I rather see taxes increased to fix Social Security , fortify and improve the ACA, and so on. The system we have can work. It doesn't work because we allow politicians who openly campaign on sabotaging the system to hold office. 

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

$10,000 for adults and $5,000 for kids would be fantastic for people living in rural states with low costs of living. People living in larger metro would still struggle. 10k per for a married couple living in West Virginia where the average rent is $600 would be enough to stabilizes themselves and empower them to pursue education and what not. For the same couple in NYC where the average rent for a tiny one bedroom is $3,000 that 10k would not be enough. For the couple living in NYC better legislation regarding rent control and affordable housing would go further than 10k a year. Free access to the subway, parking, and troll roads, and etc might be more beneficial to people living in metro areas than 10k would be. Here in Washington DC I work with people who literally drive to train train stations( VA railway express, Amtrak, MARC), pay to park at the station, transfer to the Metro, then bus in from the metro everyday just to get to work. They spend a several hundred a month on that stuff. 

I don't see it as a one size fits all problem. Some areas people may need govt support in the form of food and temporary income. In other areas people need support in the form of better infrastructure and education.  

But your objections make it sound like you are presenting it as a one-size-fits-all. Thus I don't see this as a valid argument against BUI. Higher cost of living would require some supplemental programs.

In short, there is never going to be a single, simple solution to complex problems. Objections based on "this single solution doesn't solve all the problems" aren't valid, since the solution was never intended to fix all of the problems.

 

[Endy0816]

Could do something like the cost of living allowance military has.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Immigration reform and criminal justice reform too are things we desperately need and can't get done. BUI doesn't help either of those debates either. 

1

Neither does it hinder, immigrants, make a positive fiscal contribution to a countries economy and since BUI would be a citizen privilege, a simple calculation would determine when a migrant becomes a citizen.

The average contribution of a working migrant - the average cost of a citizen = citizen when the answer is greater than zero.

Edited July 5, 2018 by dimreepr

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

People living in larger metro would still struggle.

Side point to consider in this context: Those individuals and families would also now have the money to move elsewhere with lower cost of living. Too often, people get trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle. Too poor to move, hence they stay poor because they’re stuck living in a high cost of living area and don’t have any financial cushion or liquidity. A UBI would immediately erase that particular challenge give them flexibility. They’d have the means to relocate to a cheaper place to live if they so desired. 

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Neither does it hinder, immigrants, make a positive fiscal contribution to a countries economy and since BUI would be a citizen privilege, a simple calculation would determine when a migrant becomes a citizen.

The average contribution of a working migrant - the average cost of a citizen = citizen when the answer is greater than zero.

I believe it does hinder them. It deepens the cycle where citizens refuse to work in labor or sanitation and enact policies that force other populations of people into those fields. 

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I believe it does hinder them. It deepens the cycle where citizens refuse to work in labor or sanitation and enact policies that force other populations of people into those fields. 

Given CharonY's contribution, in this thread, I'm surprised you bring that up? If everyone refused to do the shit but necessary jobs, the value of that job would increase exponentially until the partners of said citizens would crow mightily that the job be filled.

Edited July 5, 2018 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Side point to consider in this context: Those individuals and families would also now have the money to move elsewhere with lower cost of living. Too often, people get trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle. Too poor to move, hence they stay poor because they’re stuck living in a high cost of living area and don’t have any financial cushion or liquidity. A UBI would immediately erase that particular challenge give them flexibility. They’d have the means to relocate to a cheaper place to live if they so desired. 

I disagree with this on a couple different fronts. For starters I do not like the idea of increasing sprawl. I think have people in the large cities is superior as it pools the tax revenue and resources which allows for mass public works like transportation, Academies, and etc. Dispersing people out isn't the answer. Better infrastructure and city planning in the answer. Secondly I do not believe people living in larger cities like NYC, Philly, San Fran, and etc are trapped. I think it is the people living in rural areas that are trapped. People living in rural areas are the ones unable to afford a move to larger areas and often lack the experience and education to compete if they did.

Quote

 

Overall, 59 percent of rural high-school grads—white and nonwhite, at every income level—go to college the subsequent fall, a lower proportion than the 62 percent of urban and 67 percent of suburban graduates who do, the clearinghouse says. Forty-two percent of people ages 18 to 24 are enrolled in all of higher education, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, but only 29 percent come from rural areas, compared to nearly 48 percent from cities.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-rural-higher-education-crisis/541188/ 

 

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I disagree with this on a couple different fronts. For starters I do not like the idea of increasing sprawl. I think have people in the large cities is superior as it pools the tax revenue and resources which allows for mass public works like transportation, Academies, and etc. Dispersing people out isn't the answer. Better infrastructure and city planning in the answer. Secondly I do not believe people living in larger cities like NYC, Philly, San Fran, and etc are trapped. I think it is the people living in rural areas that are trapped. People living in rural areas are the ones unable to afford a move to larger areas and often lack the experience and education to compete if they did.

You're too caught up in the concept that work = meaning, sometimes it does but mostly it means drudgery and pain with the hope of more money so we don't have to work.

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Given CharonY's contribution, in this thread, I'm surprised you bring that up? If everyone refused to do the shit but necessary jobs, the value of that job would increase exponentially until the partners of said citizens would crow mightily that the job be filled.

Yet that isn't happening is it. No kid dreams of growing up to become a dishwasher and yet pay for dishwashers hasn't increased. Rather than paying more to make the job more attractive business finds people who due to their legal history or immigration status have no other option. Keeping a cheap source of labor to do unattractive jobs is one of the reasons criminal justice reform and immigration reform doesn't happen in my opinion. It would force companies to improve wages. 

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Yet that isn't happening is it. No kid dreams of growing up to become a dishwasher and yet pay for dishwashers hasn't increased. Rather than paying more to make the job more attractive business finds people who due to their legal history or immigration status have no other option. Keeping a cheap source of labor to do unattractive jobs is one of the reasons criminal justice reform and immigration reform doesn't happen in my opinion. It would force companies to improve wages. 

 

That very much depends on where you live... 

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're too caught up in the concept that work = meaning, sometimes it does but mostly it means drudgery and pain with the hope of more money so we don't have to work.

I absolutely do not think this. Please qoute which post I made that implies work=meaning. Seems to me like you are just projecting common arguments on to me which I have not made. 

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That very much depends on where you live... 

Does it, where is the exception?

Quote

 

But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

 

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I absolutely do not think this. 

 

Really? Then why do you object to UBI?

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Really? Then why do you object to UBI?

It would be much easier for you to qoute which statement I made that implies work = meaning?

I have already outline why I am opposed in several posts. 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It would be much easier for you to qoute which statement I made that implies work = meaning?

Well, you did start this thread, which, BTW, seemed to be a diversion from my argument in the previous.