Basic Universal Income (BUI)

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

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

No, it just means you have to ask for it, if a billionaire wants it then he/she should have it, although I'm not sure the gain is worth the cost... 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

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.

Indeed, easily and fairly done, for instance, a gradual tax on indulgent items. We all need to get to work and unless you're lucky, that involves some form of transport, to whit a scooter/moped/pushbike would constitute a base level = zero tax, get a small basic car = (let's say) 1% and so on up the scale till we get to a Rolls/supercar = 100% (or more), a chauffeur = 200% (or more). The point is luxury costs, which is the point of luxury, the more it costs the greater the difference (bragging rights) so the more it's taxed the more attractive it becomes (everyone's happy or at least, content).

Edited July 11, 2018 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

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. 

In the US they are called standard deductions (12k for individuals). However, that is somewhat different than the concept of BUI. The latter is, among others, supposed to replace complex welfare systems. A tax-based equivalent (or at least something with similar effects) would be a negative income tax. In that case if one earns less than a minimum amount (e.g. 9 or 12 k in the above examples) would get some kind financial aid. Different models exist for the precise amount.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

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

Food stamps are your example. And as your example points out, giving food stamps to a billionaire doesn't seem like a good use of a program. So why even bring it up, other than an easy target to chop down? (IOW, a straw man) 

BUI and food stamps are not interchangeable.

Yes, everyone would get BUI. A billionaire would not get any net income, because they would be paying tax that exceeds BUI. That would probably be true of a reasonable fraction of the population. If the BUI is $10k (and the numbers here are only for an example) and the tax rate is 40%, then anyone making under $25k would get some net BUI, because 0.4 * 25,000 = 10,000) but everyone over $25k would not.

 

[Phi for All]

It seems what's really needed is an ethical stance that spells out plainly and simply why we need the wealthiest to help with the poorest, while we all try to raise the quality of the circumstances that might surround any human birth. Earlier, swansont quoted the West Wing episode that mentioned applying John Rawls' veil of ignorance when devising tax strategies. One of the best parts about the veil is that you're always better informed when you take it off, and hopefully your perspective is broadened as well. 

Bender mentioned an experiment with BUI in Namibia, and they experienced a 36.5% drop in crime. Saving a third of the costs for police, prosecution, courts, probation, and incarceration definitely helps pay for BUI. If we stop using business models to grow our prison system, more productive people could join the workforce, or even create their own jobs. Businesses will eventually require less to be spent on security as well, if crime drops as it did in other places. 

[Bender]

It could also help to improve how we appraise economies. GDP counts a lot of things we don't want and doesn't count what we do want.

Inefficient healthcare, dangerous roads and vandalism all increase the GDP, so are currently great for our economy.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

If the BUI is $10k (and the numbers here are only for an example) and the tax rate is 40%, then anyone making under $25k would get some net BUI, because 0.4 * 25,000 = 10,000) but everyone over $25k would not.

I know this is just an example, but there are better and more creative ways to raise taxes. I favour taxes on income that is not earned/deserved and/or impacts our society negatively. Examples are: resources, inherited wealth, real estate, most of the financial and marketing sectors, weapons, fuel, alcohol, meat...

Another example that is not particularly popular is a tax on (excessive) savings. Once you realise that the need for savings is significantly reduced when your income and that of your children is guaranteed, then this becomes a lot less unspeakable.

Note that none of these are directly linked to UBI, but are merely suggestions for where to get the required money.

I don't see why you wouldn't give it to the wealthy. It would require paying for a control system which negates the "unconditional /universal " part and might end up costing more than what is saved, since the wealthy are a minority.

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, Bender said:

 

I know this is just an example, but there are better and more creative ways to raise taxes. I favour taxes on income that is not earned/deserved and/or impacts our society negatively. Examples are: resources, inherited wealth, real estate, most of the financial and marketing sectors, weapons, fuel, alcohol, meat...

Another example that is not particularly popular is a tax on (excessive) savings. Once you realise that the need for savings is significantly reduced when your income and that of your children is guaranteed, then this becomes a lot less unspeakable.

Note that none of these are directly linked to UBI, but are merely suggestions for where to get the required money.

Right. It's a largely separate issue.

39 minutes ago, Bender said:

I don't see why you wouldn't give it to the wealthy. It would require paying for a control system which negates the "unconditional /universal " part and might end up costing more than what is saved, since the wealthy are a minority.

You would give it to the wealthy. Everybody gets it. The gross payout is the same. The net payout is not.

 

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Food stamps are your example. And as your example points out, giving food stamps to a billionaire doesn't seem like a good use of a program. So why even bring it up, other than an easy target to chop down? (IOW, a straw man) 

BUI and food stamps are not interchangeable.

Yes, everyone would get BUI. A billionaire would not get any net income, because they would be paying tax that exceeds BUI. That would probably be true of a reasonable fraction of the population. If the BUI is $10k (and the numbers here are only for an example) and the tax rate is 40%, then anyone making under $25k would get some net BUI, because 0.4 * 25,000 = 10,000) but everyone over $25k would not.

 

The billionaire themselves may not receive a direct net income but there would be indirect net benefits. A billionaire with 4 kids that all live in one of the billionaire's many homes would be entitled to BUI and would use it as pocket change.savingbthe billionaire some expenses. There are nurmerous young adults with wealthy or well off parents who provide for them who themselves have no official income. They would receive BUI. In my opinion that would not be useful. Not useful to give a you don't adult who already has a cillege paid for, a car, and and lives rent free BUI. I believe there would be far more of those type of people, those who simply do not need it,  receiving BUI than people at lower economic scales. That is why I keep asking different posters how many people they actually think need it. I see no reason to give 100% of people money just to ensure we help the 20% who could use it. I rather focus on the 20% directly. At 60/40 or 50/50 I would feel differently but I do not believe and no has provided data to show that anywhere near 50% of the population needs a govt provided income. As such the majority of of recpients would be other than the target audience I am interested in assisting.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

The billionaire themselves may not receive a direct net income but there would be indirect net benefits. A billionaire with 4 kids that all live in one of the billionaire's many homes would be entitled to BUI and would use it as pocket change.savingbthe billionaire some expenses. There are nurmerous young adults with wealthy or well off parents who provide for them who themselves have no official income. They would receive BUI. In my opinion that would not be useful. Not useful to give a you don't adult who already has a cillege paid for, a car, and and lives rent free BUI. I believe there would be far more of those type of people, those who simply do not need it,  receiving BUI than people at lower economic scales.

I don't see how the math/statistics support that. Family of 4 poverty level is just under $25k of income. That's the 18th percentile of household income. Those are the people getting net BUI. It may even go higher than that, but these are the target.

https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/2017-federal-poverty-level-guidelines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_household_income_in_2014_according_to_US_Census_data

The 82nd percentile, i.e. the other end, is $125k a year family income. That can be quite comfortable, depending on where you live (in big cities that's not that well off) but that's not kids-lounging-about-at-home rich. $250k a year is the 94th percentile.

 

Also, I think that your look at the benefits is far too narrow a scope. People being healthier are less of a burden on the system. Lower crime rates are less of a burden on the system. The universality of the income reduces bureaucratic load on the system. A safety net for entrepreneurs fosters innovation. Worker conditions would improve if workers could leave bad (exploitive or dangerous) situations.

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

That is why I keep asking different posters how many people they actually think need it. I see no reason to give 100% of people money just to ensure we help the 20% who could use it. I rather focus on the 20% directly. At 60/40 or 50/50 I would feel differently but I do not believe and no has provided data to show that anywhere near 50% of the population needs a govt provided income. As such the majority of of recpients would be other than the target audience I am interested in assisting.

You have to look at net instead of gross. I don't see it as giving everyone money, when they pay more than the BUI in taxes. If I hand you $10 and you hand me $20, do you consider that I have given you $10, or is it the other way around?

[YaDinghus]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't see how the math/statistics support that. Family of 4 poverty level is just under $25k of income. That's the 18th percentile of household income. Those are the people getting net BUI. It may even go higher than that, but these are the target.

https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/2017-federal-poverty-level-guidelines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_household_income_in_2014_according_to_US_Census_data

The 82nd percentile, i.e. the other end, is $125k a year family income. That can be quite comfortable, depending on where you live (in big cities that's not that well off) but that's not kids-lounging-about-at-home rich. $250k a year is the 94th percentile.

 

Also, I think that your look at the benefits is far too narrow a scope. People being healthier are less of a burden on the system. Lower crime rates are less of a burden on the system. The universality of the income reduces bureaucratic load on the system. A safety net for entrepreneurs fosters innovation. Worker conditions would improve if workers could leave bad (exploitive or dangerous) situations.

You have to look at net instead of gross. I don't see it as giving everyone money, when they pay more than the BUI in taxes. If I hand you $10 and you hand me $20, do you consider that I have given you $10, or is it the other way around?

Pretty much sums up my sentiments of BUI

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

The 82nd percentile, i.e. the other end, is $125k a year family income. That can be quite comfortable, depending on where you live (in big cities that's not that well off) but that's not kids-lounging-about-at-home rich. $250k a year is the 94th percentile.

$30,000 a year can be quite comfortable. It depends on where a person lives. When I was living in Idaho I knew people making under $25k a year that considered themselves middle class and we're doing fine, owned their own homes, saved money, and etc.. This is some thing where the stats are very tough to produce. What is required to be comfortable changes everywhere a person lives and varies by family sizes, background, health, and etc. There are people making $250k in San Francisco who struggle more than people than people making a third that living in Lexington, KY. A universal system that provides equally to all without consideration for current status simply makes zero sense to me. It would be a greater to benefit to people in the mid West And south than to everyone else. 

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Also, I think that your look at the benefits is far too narrow a scope. People being healthier are less of a burden on the system. Lower crime rates are less of a burden on the system. The universality of the income reduces bureaucratic load on the system. A safety net for entrepreneurs fosters innovation. Worker conditions would improve if workers could leave bad (exploitive or dangerous) situations.

I simply cannot envision that as the outcome. With other programs politicians at both the local and federal levels constantly tweek who is eligible. We can say the word universal all we want but it won't be universal. It include everyone. Some combination of green card holders, undocumented workers, visa holders, felons, people on probation, and etc will be denied. Which means tens millions will be shut out forced to work harder than everyone else doing the jobs others will have no need for. Those shut out will be overwhelming immigrant and minoriy. While you envision BUI freeing people of burden empowering them to pursue education and entrepreneurship I see something far uglier where a caste system is created that does the opposite. 

12 hours ago, swansont said:

You have to look at net instead of gross. I don't see it as giving everyone money, when they pay more than the BUI in taxes. If I hand you $10 and you hand me $20, do you consider that I have given you $10, or is it the other way around?

 Paying taxes wouldn't be a requirement to receive BUI. There are many people who receiving assistance, tax free, from their families. People are given cars, down payments from homes, have tuition paid for, bought clothes, and etc. Everyone doesn't pay taxes. 

My billionaire with 4 kids example - If I pay $20 dollars in taxes and receive $10 back and then my 4 adult kids each receive $10 which I would have just given them myself anyway my net benefits is $30.  

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 I simply cannot envision that as the outcome. With other programs politicians at both the local and federal levels constantly tweek who is eligible. We can say the word universal all we want but it won't be universal.

Then your argument is about some other system, not BUI.

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

It include everyone. Some combination of green card holders, undocumented workers, visa holders, felons, people on probation, and etc will be denied. Which means tens millions will be shut out forced to work harder than everyone else doing the jobs others will have no need for. Those shut out will be overwhelming immigrant and minoriy. While you envision BUI freeing people of burden empowering them to pursue education and entrepreneurship I see something far uglier where a caste system is created that does the opposite. 

How is that different from the current system, with regard to non-citizens? (i.e. ones who are currently not eligible for government assistance)

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 Paying taxes wouldn't be a requirement to receive BUI.  

Obviously.  

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

My billionaire with 4 kids example - If I pay $20 dollars in taxes and receive $10 back and then my 4 adult kids each receive $10 which I would have just given them myself anyway my net benefits is $30.  

This math is unrealistic. A billionaire would not be paying $20. The billionaire would pay in far more than they got back. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How is that different from the current system, with regard to non-citizens? (i.e. ones who are currently not eligible for government assistance)

It is not any different which is one of the reasons I do not see it as any sort of improvement.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Obviously

Unemployed people do not pay federal taxes. Are you saying unemployed people would not be eligible?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Then your argument is about some other system, not BUI.

How is that different from the current system, with regard to non-citizens? (i.e. ones who are currently not eligible for government assistance)

Obviously.  

This math is unrealistic. A billionaire would not be paying $20. The billionaire would pay in far more than they got back. 

But a person making 200k in Saint George Utah doing the same for his kids would. A billionaire is the extreme example but there are youth adults all over the country who are currently being assisted by family members who are economically comfortable. Making middle class and upper middle class kids even more comfortable than they already are isn't something I am interested in. 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Ten oz

[Bender]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I simply cannot envision that as the outcome. With other programs politicians at both the local and federal levels constantly tweek who is eligible. We can say the word universal all we want but it won't be universal. It include everyone. Some combination of green card holders, undocumented workers, visa holders, felons, people on probation, and etc will be denied. Which means tens millions will be shut out forced to work harder than everyone else doing the jobs others will have no need for. Those shut out will be overwhelming immigrant and minoriy. While you envision BUI freeing people of burden empowering them to pursue education and entrepreneurship I see something far uglier where a caste system is created that does the opposite. 

None here is advocating your system.

An actual UBI would benefit nearly everyone, which is way higher than your 50/50 tipping point. It is well known that rich people are happier when the poorest are less poor. Everyone profits from less crime, less sickness, less depression, more community work, better education... (except perhaps for some power hungry religious conservatives, but who cares about those?)

Even if you don't want to count the indirect effects, at least consider the large group who are "well off" but stuck in a job they hate or feel insecure about the future financial situation of themselves or their children.

PS: I don't live in the US, so I'm not primarily interested in the current political situation there.

[Ten oz]

Just now, Bender said:

None here is advocating your system.

I have not proposed a system. I have been disagreeing with BUI. 

1 minute ago, Bender said:

An actual UBI would benefit nearly everyone

Everyone except people who could actually use it like immigrants which there are millions of living and working in this country. 

 

3 minutes ago, Bender said:

Even if you don't want to count the indirect effects, at least consider the large group who are "well off" but stuck in a job they hate or feel insecure about the future financial situation of themselves or their children.

That group isn't one care about when at the voting both. Too many people have graver concerns that general dissatisfaction with their upper class life. 

[Bender]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I have not proposed a system. I have been disagreeing with BUI. 

I don't see how you do. You only discuss some perverted variant of UBI.

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Everyone except people who could actually use it like immigrants which there are millions of living and working in this country. 

Nobody here excluded those, except you. Illegal immigrants are an issue, but they are free to get registered and either get asylum, with all the benefits, or get a free ride home. The conditions for getting asylum are open for discussion, but have nothing to do with UBI.

26 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That group isn't one care about when at the voting both. Too many people have graver concerns that general dissatisfaction with their upper class life.

Too bad wealth is your only criterion. Do you think these upper class folk are all living a happier, more satisfactory life then those immigrants?

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, Bender said:

Nobody here excluded those, except you. Illegal immigrants are an issue, but they are free to get registered and either get asylum, with all the benefits, or get a free ride home. The conditions for getting asylum are open for discussion, but have nothing to do with UBI.

It has something to do with BUI. How can it be "universal" if it actually doesn't apply to millions? 

7 minutes ago, Bender said:

Too bad wealth is your only criterion. Do you think these upper class folk are all living a happier, more satisfactory life then those immigrants?

The poor are the only group I am interested in helping, yes. I am not interested is a program which would make middle class people even more comfortable while not doing anything for the millions of others. 

[Bender]

44 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

t has something to do with BUI. How can it be "universal" if it actually doesn't apply to millions?

You are the only one who keeps insisting this.

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The poor are the only group I am interested in helping, yes. I am not interested is a program which would make middle class people even more comfortable while not doing anything for the millions of others.

You do realise that money-wise the net effect for the middle class would be zero?

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Bender said:

You are the only one who keeps insisting this.

Well, millions of people living and working in the U.S. wouldn't covered. 

2 hours ago, Bender said:

You do realise that money-wise the net effect for the middle class would be zero?

Middle class and above are the bulk I believe would benefit for numerous reasons already listed. 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

It is not any different which is one of the reasons I do not see it as any sort of improvement.

No different for one group, improvement forcall others.

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Unemployed people do not pay federal taxes. Are you saying unemployed people would not be eligible?

No, not at all. I thought "universal" was pretty clear. Also "Everybody gets it."

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

But a person making 200k in Saint George Utah doing the same for his kids would. A billionaire is the extreme example but there are youth adults all over the country who are currently being assisted by family members who are economically comfortable. Making middle class and upper middle class kids even more comfortable than they already are isn't something I am interested in. 

You continue to mischaracterize the result. Someone making $200k is not going to get a net benefit. 

[Ten oz]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, not at all. I thought "universal" was pretty clear. Also "Everybody gets it."

Everybody to include visa holders, green card holders, undocumented workers, felon, and people on probation? 

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

You continue to mischaracterize the result. Someone making $200k is not going to get a net benefit. 

Would a 20yr old who lives rent free and has full access to every basic need via their parents who makes 200k get it? 

[iNow]

Means testing likely makes sense on this

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Means testing likely makes sense on this

I agree. Not all unemployed people are struggling to get by. I also think it would need to be scaled by location. I don't think giving someone living in Seattle WA the same amount of benefits as someone in Grand Isle LA makes any sense.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Everybody to include visa holders, green card holders, undocumented workers, felon, and people on probation? 

Anyone who has established residency. (Citizens, others who have been in the country a certain length of time)

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Would a 20yr old who lives rent free and has full access to every basic need via their parents who makes 200k get it? 

What part of "everyone" are you not getting? Is it that difficult a concept? There would not be these loopholes. It's universal.

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Means testing likely makes sense on this

It's built in. Once you make a certain amount of money, you pay more in tax than you get in income. 

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I agree. Not all unemployed people are struggling to get by. I also think it would need to be scaled by location. I don't think giving someone living in Seattle WA the same amount of benefits as someone in Grand Isle LA makes any sense.

The simplicity of the system is one of its features. Bureaucracy adds cost.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Means testing likely makes sense on this

 

Asking for it is a self-regulating means test, simply because the Joneses don't need it. 

Which also reduces resentment (ironically) because if everyone gets it no-one can say "why should I have to work to pay for them?"

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It's built in. Once you make a certain amount of money, you pay more in tax than you get in income. 

A lot of people have money and or access to the things money affords (housing, food, transportation, etc) yet do not and have not worked. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Anyone who has established residency. (Citizens, others who have been in the country a certain length of time)

If everyone with residency (regardless of citizenship status) received it that would go an extremely long way towards selling me. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The simplicity of the system is one of its features. Bureaucracy adds cost.

Running a govt isn't simple. Bureaucracy is a necessary hassle just like paying taxes. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Which also reduces resentment (ironically) because if everyone gets it no-one can say "why should I have to work to pay for them?"

Not everyone needs it and money doesn't come from a bottomless pit the govt can just draw from.