"Guaranteed Minimum Income isn't "less progressive."
-
@pol_9000 @codinghorror (also if you can act on the tax rates, higher priority should be given to making the rich pay their dues through a solid progressive taxation system, which would incidentally increase the cash flow and make it easier to implement an UBI)
@pol_9000 @codinghorror I did some calculations on the situation in Italy a few years back, and it would have been quite possible for us. I'm not familiar enough with the US situation to speak about there, especially with the federal vs state system, but from a quick look at the federal budget there's something like 4 T$ devoted to social security &c, which would be what, 1.2K$/person/month if it was an UBI?
-
I don't know about an English write-up on how it was done, sorry. Some of its issues can be addressed, but only up to a certain point. The social stigma is unavoidable, AFAICS, and so is the incentive to clandestine employment. It MAY be possible to design the system in a way that it has lower bureaucratic overhead than what it had in Italy, but an UBI still has practically zero overhead.
@oblomov @codinghorror I m not sure on the social stigma if it is just part of the normal tax declaration. Not sure about Italy, but here in Luxembourg we have good parental leave (6month for each parent, paid at up to 5 thirds of the minimum wage) and there is no stigma about it.
-
@oblomov @codinghorror I m not sure on the social stigma if it is just part of the normal tax declaration. Not sure about Italy, but here in Luxembourg we have good parental leave (6month for each parent, paid at up to 5 thirds of the minimum wage) and there is no stigma about it.
@pol_9000 @codinghorror OK I'm missing something, why would there be social stigma associated with parental leave?
-
@oblomov @codinghorror sounds like those were part of the implementation details? is there any information how it was done? I thought the cleanest way to do it was via a "positive / negative" tax rate, which has low bureaucratic overhead?
@pol_9000 @oblomov @codinghorror Isn't that more-or-less UBI with appropriate adjustments to the income tax thresholds and/or the upper rates? Albeit with a lag factor added of course - you need to consider the previous period's income before deciding to pay people or not - vs UBI being immediately available and the clawback being the part that lags?
-
@pol_9000 @oblomov @codinghorror Isn't that more-or-less UBI with appropriate adjustments to the income tax thresholds and/or the upper rates? Albeit with a lag factor added of course - you need to consider the previous period's income before deciding to pay people or not - vs UBI being immediately available and the clawback being the part that lags?
@brad @pol_9000 @codinghorror and that's a nontrivial factor. Especially for those more in need, 300 now (UBI) may be more important than 700 down the line (MGI)
-
"Guaranteed Minimum Income isn't "less progressive." It's more practical. GMI puts the resources where they actually belong: with the people who are struggling, not in the mailboxes of the wealthy... and as a very wealthy person myself: hell no." https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/1qvngza/comment/o9gt50u/
@codinghorror Can't you implement the same by implementing UBI and raising income tax at the same time?
-
"Guaranteed Minimum Income isn't "less progressive." It's more practical. GMI puts the resources where they actually belong: with the people who are struggling, not in the mailboxes of the wealthy... and as a very wealthy person myself: hell no." https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/1qvngza/comment/o9gt50u/
@codinghorror UBI doesn’t cost more because you can get rid of all the checking infrastructure. And because of UBI you don’t need to worry about how those people are going to survive. Also limiting it to the people in need, as someone else said, incentivise clandestine employment but also disincentivise finding better/any employment, if that would push you over the line.
-
@codinghorror UBI doesn’t cost more because you can get rid of all the checking infrastructure. And because of UBI you don’t need to worry about how those people are going to survive. Also limiting it to the people in need, as someone else said, incentivise clandestine employment but also disincentivise finding better/any employment, if that would push you over the line.
@codinghorror The biggest problem would be inflation from exploitative basic necessities companies, like supermarkets, but that’s already a problem we should address, and good taxation seems to be the only way. So if they raise the prices to extract all UBI you raise more taxes and raise UBI.
-
"Guaranteed Minimum Income isn't "less progressive." It's more practical. GMI puts the resources where they actually belong: with the people who are struggling, not in the mailboxes of the wealthy... and as a very wealthy person myself: hell no." https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/1qvngza/comment/o9gt50u/
@codinghorror I suspect that closing sentence doesn't really say what you mean..?
"GMI... hell no."
-
E em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
"Guaranteed Minimum Income isn't "less progressive." It's more practical. GMI puts the resources where they actually belong: with the people who are struggling, not in the mailboxes of the wealthy... and as a very wealthy person myself: hell no." https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/1qvngza/comment/o9gt50u/
we have to deal with things like "scarcity," "incentives," and "math."
I would argue the big economic problem we are having right now is that "Scarcity" itself is breaking down. While it still technically exists, we can call things out like "Labor" where a lack of scarcity means providers of that product are struggling, and products like "food" where scarcity has been artificially injected.
With Scarcity breaking down, "Incentives" get weird, and the math runs models that don't reflect reality.
GMI avoids this by slowly phasing out the benefit as you earn more,
Unemployment and foodstamps are supposed to do that. When you look at how those worked out, the answer is not well. Putting in the effort to earn money causes those who rely on said benefits to have less resources instead of more. I would not advise adding another system with the same mechanics until we fix the existing ones.
UBI is also inflationary.
Question: Do we fucking care at this point? People could earn less on average and prices will STILL GO UP. Prices go up! That is what they do!
The only way around that is more competition in the markets, which will not happen unless we make it easier and safer to put your time and energy into new companies. This is a place where "Inscentives" have been working against us - people are inscentivised to work for existing companies rather than try their own.
Specific Support: Focusing on the disabled, the elderly, and families with children -- the groups who truly cannot work and need the most help. And GMI can help them get back to work.
I am not saying specific support is not good. I am saying we have existing programs for these people, and these people still struggle because these programs are designed like crap, and then that crap is not experiences by people like us because we don't rely on the programs, allowing said programs to be even more crap.
One advantage of UBI is that... everyone would experience it. The cost of acquiring it. The overhead of filing for it. The benefits of living on it.
And it doesn't start costing you $1.50 for every dolar you earn, with sudden drops as you hit a point where your efforts to put food on the table mean suddenly you lose childcare and have to figure out what you have to cut to be able to both feed your family and care for them.
not in the mailboxes of the wealthy
Imo the easist way to resolve that is to tax the wealthy appropriately. They can have their monthly state money and pay it back with their anual taxes. Less overhead to do it that way, and it means if they fall on hard times... then that's just whatever.
-
@codinghorror Ive recently come to a realization. It’s just as wrong for the intelligent to prosper while the stupid suffer as it was for the strong to prosper while the weak suffered. We need AGI to make sure nobody has to suffer just so someone else can prosper.
@passwordsarehard4 @codinghorror Did you mean AGI or UBI? AGI is an AI thing.
AGI is not needed to prevent people from struggling due to being less intelegent. We have plenty of tools and strategies for that already. We just have to decide as a society that we want to actually take care of each other.
-
we have to deal with things like "scarcity," "incentives," and "math."
I would argue the big economic problem we are having right now is that "Scarcity" itself is breaking down. While it still technically exists, we can call things out like "Labor" where a lack of scarcity means providers of that product are struggling, and products like "food" where scarcity has been artificially injected.
With Scarcity breaking down, "Incentives" get weird, and the math runs models that don't reflect reality.
GMI avoids this by slowly phasing out the benefit as you earn more,
Unemployment and foodstamps are supposed to do that. When you look at how those worked out, the answer is not well. Putting in the effort to earn money causes those who rely on said benefits to have less resources instead of more. I would not advise adding another system with the same mechanics until we fix the existing ones.
UBI is also inflationary.
Question: Do we fucking care at this point? People could earn less on average and prices will STILL GO UP. Prices go up! That is what they do!
The only way around that is more competition in the markets, which will not happen unless we make it easier and safer to put your time and energy into new companies. This is a place where "Inscentives" have been working against us - people are inscentivised to work for existing companies rather than try their own.
Specific Support: Focusing on the disabled, the elderly, and families with children -- the groups who truly cannot work and need the most help. And GMI can help them get back to work.
I am not saying specific support is not good. I am saying we have existing programs for these people, and these people still struggle because these programs are designed like crap, and then that crap is not experiences by people like us because we don't rely on the programs, allowing said programs to be even more crap.
One advantage of UBI is that... everyone would experience it. The cost of acquiring it. The overhead of filing for it. The benefits of living on it.
And it doesn't start costing you $1.50 for every dolar you earn, with sudden drops as you hit a point where your efforts to put food on the table mean suddenly you lose childcare and have to figure out what you have to cut to be able to both feed your family and care for them.
not in the mailboxes of the wealthy
Imo the easist way to resolve that is to tax the wealthy appropriately. They can have their monthly state money and pay it back with their anual taxes. Less overhead to do it that way, and it means if they fall on hard times... then that's just whatever.
@Epic_Null and tell me please how we tax the wealthy when billionaires pay nearly zero today? Explain it to me, step by step. The reason the other programs are “crap” is because they are far more complex than GMI, by the way.
