Basic Universal Income (BUI)

[Ten oz]

22 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

No matter how you word it, there will always be someone who will take advantage of the incentives. This only becomes impossible if EVERYONE GETS THE SAME PERIOD. And even more strictly so of nobody gets anything because then there are no secondary effects like increased inflation

What percentage of the population do you feel needs, should have, or would benefit society at large if they received  assistance? 

[swansont]

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And that's the fundamental issue to overcome; how come they get something I have to work for (it's not fair)? 

Because you may be in the same position some day. Or, you couldn't know you'd be in this position, years ago. This kind of resentment comes from a position of privilege.

 

From The West Wing (Will, speaking about taxes) 

"Imagine before you're born you don't know anything about who you'll be, your abilities, or your position. Now design a tax system."

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because you may be in the same position some day. Or, you couldn't know you'd be in this position, years ago. This kind of resentment comes from a position of privilege.

 

I couldn't agree more but that's a hard sell, privilege generally means a strong resistance to change, because they may be in that position one day.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What percentage of the population do you feel needs, should have, or would benefit society at large if they received  assistance? 

In a bonfire of the vanities who doesn't get burned?

Edited July 10, 2018 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In a bonfire of the vanities who doesn't get burned?

I struggle to see how this is useful? We are literally discussing govt programs. Are you proposing that everyone in the country do everything (pay taxes and receive all benefits) per a flat universal rate. A billionaire pay the same tax as a part-time fast food employee or a millionaire receive the same food stamps as a single mother of three? Those aren't insincere questions either. I am literally asking if that is what you are implying.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We are literally discussing govt programs.

No, we aren't, we're discussing a proposal. 

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Are you proposing that everyone in the country do everything (pay taxes and receive all benefits) per a flat universal rate.

I'm proposing since we can afford to, feed and house everyone. 

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

A billionaire pay the same tax as a part-time fast food employee 

 

If only, in percentage terms, my fair lady springs to mind (Pygmalion).

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, we aren't, we're discussing a proposal. 

A proposal of a govt program. One that would impact other programs and taxes. 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm proposing since we can afford to, feed and house everyone. 

I down understand your answer. Not being argumentative but I honestly don't understand. Are you saying to provide for and tax everyone, no matter what, the exact same way per some universal flat rate?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Are you saying to provide for and tax everyone, no matter what, the exact same way per some universal flat rate?

Another hard sell, can you imagine a billionaire agreeing to pay the same percentage of tax on his/her wealth that a part-time fast food employee does?

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Another hard sell, can you imagine a billionaire agreeing to pay the same percentage of tax on his/her wealth that a part-time fast food employee does?

That would be a tax increase, yes, since generally the top 1% (even perhaps 10%) pay a lower rate than those of us closer to the middle of the pack, or on the lower tier of income. But they are outnumbered. It's possible to do, if there is the will.

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Another hard sell, can you imagine a billionaire agreeing to pay the same percentage of tax on his/her wealth that a part-time fast food employee does?

Hard sell, what sell? I am asking you if this is what you are suggesting. 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

That would be a tax increase, yes, since generally the top 1% (even perhaps 10%) pay a lower rate than those of us closer to the middle of the pack, or on the lower tier of income. But they are outnumbered. It's possible to do, if there is the will.

1

I'm guessing there isn't.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

But they are outnumbered. It's possible to do, if there is the will.

Aye, there's the rub. They own the media, they own the political machine, they own the entertainment, and they manage to steal enough of our numbers through lies, promises, threats, and misconceptions to stay in power. What we're asking is fairly simple and reasonable, and it gets drowned out in the blare, and the need for outrageousness we've cultivated as a culture.

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Are you saying to provide for and tax everyone

Yes...

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yes...

You cut my post short enough to keep your response ambiguous. If you don't want to discuss it with me just stop qouting me. If you don't understand the question ask for clarification. 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You cut my post short enough to keep your response ambiguous. If you don't want to discuss it with me just stop qouting me. If you don't understand the question ask for clarification. 

I cut your post to reduce ambiguity since my response to the full post is seen as ambiguous. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

no matter what, the exact same way per some universal flat rate?

No matter what, what? Flat rate of what? Now that's ambiguous.

[Ten oz]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I cut your post to reduce ambiguity since my response to the full post is seen as ambiguous. 

No matter what, what? Flat rate of what? Now that's ambiguous.

"No matter what" -  regardless whether one is rich, poor, disabled, young, old, etc. Absolutely everyone. 

"Flat rate" - taxes and benefits

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I struggle to see how this is useful? We are literally discussing govt programs. Are you proposing that everyone in the country do everything (pay taxes and receive all benefits) per a flat universal rate. A billionaire pay the same tax as a part-time fast food employee or a millionaire receive the same food stamps as a single mother of three? Those aren't insincere questions either. I am literally asking if that is what you are implying.

 

[Bender]

On 9/7/2018 at 8:34 PM, YaDinghus said:

I love dark turns ;-)

"Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme" is a real thing in Germany. People create a problem for someone to solve just to make them do something. It's like an empty reference joke: the reference itself is the joke and doesn't depend on the content. 

Not only in Germany. In Belgium 14% of the people say their job is utterly useless. Since people tend to like seeing purpose in what they do, I'm guessing the amount of jobs that is actually useless is even higher.

This phenomenon masks the underlying problem that there simply isn't enough work to do. We can discuss all we want about pros and cons of UBI, but in the end it is the only reasonable answer to a structural (as in: does not depend on how well the economy does) job shortage.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Bender

[YaDinghus]

 

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

On 7/9/2018 at 2:45 PM, YaDinghus said:

No matter how you word it, there will always be someone who will take advantage of the incentives. This only becomes impossible if EVERYONE GETS THE SAME PERIOD. And even more strictly so of nobody gets anything because then there are no secondary effects like increased inflation

What percentage of the population do you feel needs, should have, or would benefit society at large if they received  assistance? 

What I was actually going about was the fact that wording isn't really the issue, and that we need to rethink (economic) justice for BUI to work. The trivial solution where nobody gets anything is the one with the least effort on a societal scale involved, but zero effort is actually the antithesis to social justice, on an individual level as someone getting all for no effort offends the one giving their all and getting no more or even less. This also applies to trust fund kids who have no matierial worries because their predecessors were successfull, nut just victims of neoliberalism; on the collective level because that is in effect neoliberalism, because there is no collective effort to avoid the poor from being exploited by the rich.

I feel that every person should have the money needed to pay for 20 square meters and 2500 kcal worth of food plus 50% without having to work for it. That should guarantee a measure of choice concerning what a person can eat, where they live, and also a small vice to persue. Obviously this would have to depend on wjere they live, as 20 square meters in Iowa cost less than 20 square meters in Chicago

 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

feel that every person should have the money needed to pay for 20 square meters and 2500 kcal worth of food plus 50% without having to work for it. That should guarantee a measure of choice concerning what a person can eat, where they live, and also a small vice to persue. Obviously this would have to depend on wjere they live, as 20 square meters in Iowa cost less than 20 square meters in Chicago

Right, but what percentage of people to you think currently don't already have that? Or are you saying the govt should provided regardless whether you could use it or not?.

[YaDinghus]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, but what percentage of people to you think currently don't already have that? Or are you saying the govt should provided regardless whether you could use it or not?.

The concept o BUI is afaik that it is universal, so everyone should be afforded this by society, which is usually the government when it comes to paying up. Honestly I have no clue of the percentage of people who don't or just barely have access to this, I guess it's near 10% in Europe and the US. 

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

The concept o BUI is afaik that it is universal, so everyone should be afforded this by society, which is usually the government when it comes to paying up. Honestly I have no clue of the percentage of people who don't or just barely have access to this, I guess it's near 10% in Europe and the US. 

Are any federal govt services truly universal? I can not think of a single one. Everything has caveats. As I think most things should. For example I personally do not think people who already have all the food they could ever need should receive food stamps. That is just a waste of resources. I absolutely think the government should afforded housing and food for those without. However teveryone isnt without out. Those without are not even a majority. 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Are any federal govt services truly universal? I can not think of a single one. Everything has caveats. As I think most things should.

Depends on what you mean by universal. Does everyone use the service, or is it available to all, or does everyone have a chance to benefit from it? I think availability and benefit are what's important.

 

Knowing the time is pretty universal. 

I don't think any individual is blocked from using GPS.

Everyone benefits (directly or indirectly) from having standardized weights and measures.

Highways are pretty useful.  

 

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

For example I personally do not think people who already have all the food they could ever need should receive food stamps. That is just a waste of resources. I absolutely think the government should afforded housing and food for those without. However teveryone isnt without out. Those without are not even a majority. 

The discussion is BUI, not food stamps. Money can be used to buy food.

You seem to be strawmanning here. You are the only one suggesting that a billionaire be handed food stamps.

[YaDinghus]

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Are any federal govt services truly universal? I can not think of a single one. Everything has caveats. As I think most things should. For example I personally do not think people who already have all the food they could ever need should receive food stamps. That is just a waste of resources. I absolutely think the government should afforded housing and food for those without. However teveryone isnt without out. Those without are not even a majority. 

I don't care what anyone does with the money. I wouldn't give out food stamps. I also wouldn't make having an apartment a condition. It should just be enough to buy food and have a small apartment or sublet, and a little extra. As @Strange just said, this isn't about food stamps. If you have a job that earns more money than whatever is the BUI, I would suggest the BUI level is what can be earned free of tax, and after that a progressive increase. This is pretty close to the german model, where 9000 € per year (2018) can be earned free of tax, as it is the so-called Existenzminumum. There is however no BUI there. 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Ten oz said:

"No matter what" -  regardless whether one is rich, poor, disabled, young, old, etc. Absolutely everyone.

Still yes but with two caveats:

1. Absolutely everyone = adults = 18yo.

2. every capable person has to ask for it.

Everyone else is a ward of the state.

18 hours ago, Ten oz said:

"Flat rate" - taxes and benefits

Why are you conflating the two? A poll tax is a flat rate and simple but it's not fair. I realise taxes need to be raised to pay for BUI but it's more than possible to do so fairly.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The discussion is BUI, not food stamps. Money can be used to buy food.

You seem to be strawmanning here. You are the only one suggesting that a billionaire be handed food stamps.

Right, food stamps were an example. What I am asking is whether or not everyone, to include wealthy people, would receive BUI?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Still yes but with two caveats:

1. Absolutely everyone = adults = 18yo.

2. every capable person has to ask for it.

Everyone else is a ward of the state.

If one must ask does that mean they can be told no?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Why are you conflating the two? A poll tax is a flat rate and simple but it's not fair. I realise taxes need to be raised to pay for BUI but it's more than possible to do so fairly.

Taxes are where the govt gets money. If we (govt) are going to give everyone a universal income there will need to be taxes to pay for it. The two are associated.