Universal Basic Income

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't think you want to pick a fight with kbate.



She's way above your weight class when it comes to intelligence...

 

[pollynova]

If this happens can I just quit my job and never work again? Please say yes...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, that point escapes a lot of people.


A few states recently tied food stamps to a work requirement and viola the participation rate in the food stamp program dropped dramatically...



Good intentions do not abrogate human nature any more than they create sound economic policy.

 

[Phelia]

Yes, AJ, we all know kbate is a lot smarter than you. Perhaps that is why she enjoys engaging with you and Ish and deflector-shields herself out of any conversation that requires actual critical thought.

Work requirements do nothing to reduce poverty, but I'm guessing that means little to a moron.

 

[Phelia]

Just to summarize the "against":

• I believe/think/feel it will not work and is a bad idea.
• But what about those homeless people I saw and assumed were on drugs? Therefore, everyone will buy drugs. Oh, you have a study disproving that? WHATEVER I HATE BOOKS.
• It can't be done because it hasn't been done before (this one has the distinction of being both face-meltingly stupid and misleading to the point of inaccurate).
• Dumb!

Awesome work, team!

 

[hsnh]

Wow!

Such threads always deliver.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Work doesn't reduce poverty...


omg


In the United States, we don't have anywhere near the level of poverty of a vast majority of the world.

 

[Phelia]

Work requirement, you barely literate fuck. I expected the logic to be challenging for you - not basic comprehension.

But I can't say I'm surprised!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You have no economic acumen, do not understand the issue and therefore are reduced to snark.


The modern Progressive "intellect."

 

[Freudian_Slit]

I'm generally sympathetic to UBI, but I lack the exposure to call myself a supporter. Yet. I have the impression there is some more rigorous analysis to be done on the implementation. And I am interested in the particulars of UBI schemes. So I've tried to do some digging around - I'd be interested if any of these schemes have been peer reviewed.

Charles Murray:

It’s possible that you think $13,000 a year isn’t enough. It’s certainly not going to be a plush lifestyle by American standards, not when someone decides to do no work at all to top it up. But it’s also true that $13,000 a year puts you in the top 12% of all global income earners. It would be nicer if there was some more significant digit there, like $13k puts you into the global 10% or something, but that does seem a fair enough guarantee to get purely through the privilege of having been born an American.

There’s two issues which also get entirely solved by such a plan, over and above our destruction of the current welfare state….and as Murray points out, we would indeed destroy that:

The UBI is to be financed by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper.

Andy Stern:

$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP. In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows:

Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)

Cut military spending

Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax

Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Aside from the almost insulting absurdity of your opening "logic,"

Other than the obvious not being a yes man for you, what exactly is insultingly absurd about it?

There's data, it exists,

I find that hard to believe seeing as no 330 million person world super powers has ever done UBI.

I've linked multiple sources in this thread.

And I found them lacking, they are speculative at best.

I am not going to engage with a brick wall. I do not give a fuck about what you have a hard time seeing. Bye!

LOL trust me, your "agree with more or I'll name call." style of "discussion" walking off isn't breaking my heart Mrs.Busybody.

 

[Que]

The problem with all of the numbers that supporters of any of these variously structured redistributive ideas is they use static modeling. They look at the needs and the resources as they exist now, and reimagine a world where this amount covers that, and comes out of that pocket.

For any of those numbers to be even remotely realistic that depends on a whole lot of actors not being at all impacted by the redistribution. it assumes that the Haves will not modify their behavior in order to resist the scheme or simply sit on their hands in order to not participate. It also assumes that the Have Nots will neither develop increasingly costly "needs" or become more numerous, either from outright reproduction, or others not currently in need joining their ranks either because it is a magnet for encouraging lethargy, or they get hit by unintended economic consequences.

That above sentence is nowhere near as complex as it needs to be to scratch the surface of the complexity that humans bring to any economic model.

It is completely unreasonable to base any of your assumptions on the idea that such a program would reduce (or even maintain) the number of people who would need such a program or that such a program would increase (oe even maintain) the number of people who would be available to contribute to such a plan.

Art Laffer did not invent the Laffer Curve, the economic ideas behind that have been long understood, but he brought the idea into common understanding. Take more capital out of society, and you leave less capital to generate income which is the driver for both employment opportunities and taxation opportunities. Less aggregate income means less to "spread around" however you devise to do so.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The problem with all of the numbers that supporters of any of these variously structured redistributive ideas is they use static modeling. They look at the needs and the resources as they exist now, and reimagine a world where this amount covers that, and comes out of that pocket.

For any of those numbers to be even remotely realistic that depends on a whole lot of actors not being at all impacted by the redistribution. it assumes that the Haves will not modify their behavior in order to resist the scheme or simply sit on their hands in order to not participate. It also assumes that the Have Nots will neither develop increasingly costly "needs" or become more numerous, either from outright reproduction, or others not currently in need joining their ranks either because it is a magnet for encouraging lethargy, or they get hit by unintended economic consequences.

That above sentence is nowhere near as complex as it needs to be to scratch the surface of the complexity that humans bring to any economic model.

It is completely unreasonable to base any of your assumptions on the idea that such a program would reduce (or even maintain) the number of people who would need such a program or that such a program would increase (oe even maintain) the number of people who would be available to contribute to such a plan.

Art Laffer did not invent the Laffer Curve, the economic ideas behind that have been long understood, but he brought the idea into common understanding. Take more capital out of society, and you leave less capital to generate income which is the driver for both employment opportunities and taxation opportunities. Less aggregate income means less to "spread around" however you devise to do so.

BUTT!!! BUTT!!!! If we just give the government all our money and godlike power the utopia will come to fruition!!! Nothing could possibly go wrong!!!

 

[Ishmael]

The problem with all of the numbers that supporters of any of these variously structured redistributive ideas is they use static modeling. They look at the needs and the resources as they exist now, and reimagine a world where this amount covers that, and comes out of that pocket.

For any of those numbers to be even remotely realistic that depends on a whole lot of actors not being at all impacted by the redistribution. it assumes that the Haves will not modify their behavior in order to resist the scheme or simply sit on their hands in order to not participate. It also assumes that the Have Nots will neither develop increasingly costly "needs" or become more numerous, either from outright reproduction, or others not currently in need joining their ranks either because it is a magnet for encouraging lethargy, or they get hit by unintended economic consequences.

That above sentence is nowhere near as complex as it needs to be to scratch the surface of the complexity that humans bring to any economic model.

It is completely unreasonable to base any of your assumptions on the idea that such a program would reduce (or even maintain) the number of people who would need such a program or that such a program would increase (oe even maintain) the number of people who would be available to contribute to such a plan.

Art Laffer did not invent the Laffer Curve, the economic ideas behind that have been long understood, but he brought the idea into common understanding. Take more capital out of society, and you leave less capital to generate income which is the driver for both employment opportunities and taxation opportunities. Less aggregate income means less to "spread around" however you devise to do so.

The whole point of the UBI crap is the 'Universal' element. The idea there is to make sure that capital has no where to go to avoid this miss-begotten scheme.

While the 'gimmee's' scream for 'Social Justice', I just go, "Nope, I'm all about Social Darwinism."

Ishmael

 

[Que]

Why would any sensible person attempt to engage someone who has read the trial balloons for the 2018 DNC appeal to the workin' man, but hasn't the requisite background to understand, much less intelligently discuss complex economic systems on even a basic, "let's agree that supplying anything for free creates increasing demand" basis? Never mind the obvious, "let's agree that rich people, their lawyers and accountants don't sit idly by, and not react to your attempt to take their stuff."

John Maynard Keynes would be astounded at the level of spending his idea about priming the pump has morphed into.

Karl Marx would be astounded that people assert that you can use his ideas ala carte and select the benefits without the societal sacrifice and totalitarian control necessary to enact his ideas.

Look at Oreo's quote above. UBI has been tried in the US for nearly my entire lifetime, we just dont call it that, nor do we hand it out with just one agency or program. Yes, it WOULD be more efficient than the present, ill-conceived, rag-tag collection of agencies and programs appended on top of each other to fill the gaps of need in truly impoverished people. We call all of that the War on Poverty and it did just as good a job at eliminating poverty as the War on Drugs did at eliminating drugs. It not only made no difference, if anything, made it worse. Because actual economic principles.

All of those programs exist because the other programs caused unintended consequences that created ever-increasing needs and costs. Our health care expenses are entirely the fault of the tax code going back to the 1930s. Government always makes things worse it never makes things better, because it can't.

The root cause of poverty is lack of employment opportunities not lack of money sitting around waiting to be spent. The root cause of lack of employment is lack of economic growth. The root cause of lack of economic growth is poor economic conditions which are almost invariably some version of government malfeasance. Bubbles that burst due to bad Economic Policy. Fiddling with the monetary system. Excessive taxation. Excessive regulation.

It took a year to get Tip O'Neill out of the way we lost all that opportunity for growth for that year. The next year-and-a-half the economy grew 12 and a half percent.

The Republicans are going to squander this opportunity because it's what they always do but at the moment the voters have given them all three levers of taxing power. If they did nothing else but drop the corporate tax rate to Ireland's it would have a bigger impact on poverty than any of the above ideas.

 

[Que]

The whole point of the UBI crap is the 'Universal' element. The idea there is to make sure that capital has no where to go to avoid this miss-begotten scheme.

While the 'gimmee's' scream for 'Social Justice', I just go, "Nope, I'm all about Social Darwinism."

Ishmael

It really is about power and all those who espouse these economic models are always doing so with the idea that they themselves or their tribe of thinkers will somehow be involved in the administration of this, or benefit from it. Nobody that espouses these ideas truly believes that they are going to be giving according to their ability.

If they cared, they would already be giving of their time, talents and resources, not castigating others for not joining their drumming circle to have gov't do it.

They can't envision a world where a non-Democrat administration actually could throw out and replace the bean counters and just decide that the gov't will do this or that tbat will devastate their region.

what if we just decided that it's unreasonable for the federal government to provide cost-of-living increases that keep up in California why can't we just simply decide that those people are paying too much for real estate and we are not going to pay any more UBI to Californians than to Mississippians?

They are used to the big population centers bossing everyone around and it doesn't occur to them that at any time the power shifts, any of these redistributive schemes can be horribly skewed any way the powers-that-be wish

What they should want is economic prosperity for tbeir city, then State, then the Nation as a whole and look at removing any and all obstacles to that, whatever they may be.

Raytheon down in Tuscan loved us spending millions on blowing up a third-world, battle-scarred airport. all the capital that's going to have to come out of society to restock those missiles didn't benefit America in any way. No matter which Keynesian Economist tells you that it did.

I could probably sell that argument to any Progressive in the country. Yet they can't understand how their schemes are exactly the same thing if what you're trying to do does not increase the GDP you have squandered capital.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

It really is about power and all those who espouse these economic models are always doing so with the idea that they themselves or their tribe of thinkers will somehow be involved in the administration of this, or benefit from it. Nobody that espouses these ideas truly believes that they are going to be giving according to their ability.

If they cared, they would already be giving of their time, talents and resources, not castigating others for not joining their drumming circle to have gov't do it.

They can't envision a world where a non-Democrat administration actually could throw out and replace the bean counters and just decide that the gov't will do this or that tbat will devastate their region.

what if we just decided that it's unreasonable for the federal government to provide cost-of-living increases that keep up in California why can't we just simply decide that those people are paying too much for real estate and we are not going to pay any more UBI to Californians than to Mississippians?

They are used to the big population centers bossing everyone around and it doesn't occur to them that at any time the power shifts, any of these redistributive schemes can be horribly skewed any way the powers-that-be wish

What they should want is economic prosperity for tbeir city, then State, then the Nation as a whole and look at removing any and all obstacles to that, whatever they may be.

Raytheon down in Tuscan loved us spending millions on blowing up a third-world, battle-scarred airport. all the capital that's going to have to come out of society to restock those missiles didn't benefit America in any way. No matter which Keynesian Economist tells you that it did.

I could probably sell that argument to any Progressive in the country. Yet they can't understand how their schemes are exactly the same thing if what you're trying to do does not increase the GDP you have squandered capital.

Oh look, an economics lesson from a University of Phoenix online graduate. Write back once you get a clue.

 

[MGurkus]

Oh look, an economics lesson from a University of Phoenix online graduate. Write back once you get a clue.

Oooh, Connie made a new alt.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm generally sympathetic to UBI, but I lack the exposure to call myself a supporter. Yet. I have the impression there is some more rigorous analysis to be done on the implementation. And I am interested in the particulars of UBI schemes. So I've tried to do some digging around - I'd be interested if any of these schemes have been peer reviewed.

Charles Murray:



Andy Stern:

There's the nut of your problem. Economics is a study in Chaotic Systems. Perhaps you have followed the antics of the CBO in the US of scoring economic plans proposed by Congress which have proved in every single instance to be exercises in futility that never hit the mark, and by a lot.

That is because you can only give a static analysis based on past historic economic models which are never going to be right because an economy is dynamic and based upon Human Action, i.e., human nature. As technology changes, as tastes change, as goals change and as government programs evolve into Leviathans, human adapt their behavior to new circumstances. A UBI would rob a society of its vitality because a lot of people would just drop out of the struggle to improve their position in life and accept a state of comfortable poverty (and pass that mentality on to their progeny creating a class of permanent underachievers).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The problem with all of the numbers that supporters of any of these variously structured redistributive ideas is they use static modeling. They look at the needs and the resources as they exist now, and reimagine a world where this amount covers that, and comes out of that pocket.

For any of those numbers to be even remotely realistic that depends on a whole lot of actors not being at all impacted by the redistribution. it assumes that the Haves will not modify their behavior in order to resist the scheme or simply sit on their hands in order to not participate. It also assumes that the Have Nots will neither develop increasingly costly "needs" or become more numerous, either from outright reproduction, or others not currently in need joining their ranks either because it is a magnet for encouraging lethargy, or they get hit by unintended economic consequences.

That above sentence is nowhere near as complex as it needs to be to scratch the surface of the complexity that humans bring to any economic model.

It is completely unreasonable to base any of your assumptions on the idea that such a program would reduce (or even maintain) the number of people who would need such a program or that such a program would increase (oe even maintain) the number of people who would be available to contribute to such a plan.

Art Laffer did not invent the Laffer Curve, the economic ideas behind that have been long understood, but he brought the idea into common understanding. Take more capital out of society, and you leave less capital to generate income which is the driver for both employment opportunities and taxation opportunities. Less aggregate income means less to "spread around" however you devise to do so.

Damn. I just wasted time...

 

[Que]

Damn. I just wasted time...

My post wssn't that bad.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

My post wssn't that bad.

Yeah, it really was.

 

[Ramone45]

Work doesn't reduce poverty...


omg


In the United States, we don't have anywhere near the level of poverty of a vast majority of the world.

I agree with you. There really isn't poverty in the United States.We have a benevolent society and we have an abundance of resources. We DO have plenty of mental illness. Our society has abrogated it's responsibility to address that because sometimes the solutions are not pretty. Admittedly the solution is expensive no matter how you address it. I don't think cost is the only issue, though. We have cultural problems. Some people believe they are "entitled". This was probably cultivated by the obscenely misguided "War on Poverty". If you haven't won that war in,what, 55 years, it's seriously time to surrender. Do the people a favor and tell them the truth. You're on your own and there is no safety net. Good citizens take care of themselves and are not a burden on society. You need to study hard, work hard and take care of your health. Those are your responsibilities.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I agree with you. There really isn't poverty in the United States.

http://55.media.tumblr.com/1e7f0b32aa72285c08c09d22a73d1327/tumblr_nls3igdwg41terwlso1_400.gif

http://38.media.tumblr.com/d15e30b2817e9a980ed03d066d6d93a3/tumblr_mvv4gc02Yx1sgl0ajo1_400.gif

http://crasstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maz02mOLEu1rwzsbso1_500.gif

 

[BotanyBoy]

http://55.media.tumblr.com/1e7f0b32aa72285c08c09d22a73d1327/tumblr_nls3igdwg41terwlso1_400.gif

http://38.media.tumblr.com/d15e30b2817e9a980ed03d066d6d93a3/tumblr_mvv4gc02Yx1sgl0ajo1_400.gif

http://crasstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maz02mOLEu1rwzsbso1_500.gif

I agree with Zumi...there is poverty.


I probably disagree why though. He probably thinks it's something other than the poor people being shit with their money and engaging in self destructive behavior most of the time. Probably the evil white boogeyman with all his privilege holding everyone else down!!

I think most poverty is self induced.