Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Hey Y'all Let's Talk about Basic Income

1141516171820»

Posts

  • DraygoDraygo regular Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    The question about how to pay for a UBI was asked, and I feel has been answered. Can we please move on?
    This has not been answered, not in the least. Its one of the sticking points that has no concrete answer.

    JediabiwanPantsB
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    We get to decide when something has been sufficiently answered!?

    If that case Basic Income is a great idea and also I'm King of the Swamp. Final Answer. No takebacks.

    Checkmate.

    DraygoschussFeraljakobaggerAndy Joe
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    The question about how to pay for a UBI was asked, and I feel has been answered. Can we please move on?

    If there is interest in continuing the discussion around a particular aspect of how the funding could be achieved, e.g. capital gains, let's make a separate thread to discuss.

    how to pay for UBI is like at least half of the discussion of implementing UBI though

    Jediabiwan
  • VanguardVanguard regular A wretched country of duskRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Sorry, I must have missed some parts of this thread but what does the tax rates have to do with Basic Income?
    Talking about tax burdens on various peoples and Nbsp got salty about taxing people who are generating fortunes in investment at a rate approaching that of people drawing a paycheck, they'll all stop investing for... reasons.

    If we incentivize capitol gains then people will just sit around all day investing instead of, you know, working.

    JuliusRegina Fong
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    We get to decide when something has been sufficiently answered!?

    If that case Basic Income is a great idea and also I'm King of the Swamp. Final Answer. No takebacks.

    Checkmate.
    I'm queen of the swamp AND I get the covers.

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    The question about how to pay for a UBI was asked, and I feel has been answered. Can we please move on?

    If there is interest in continuing the discussion around a particular aspect of how the funding could be achieved, e.g. capital gains, let's make a separate thread to discuss.

    how to pay for UBI is like at least half of the discussion of implementing UBI though

    But the same thing can be said for any policy change. It's not unique to a basic income discussion.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • jmcdonaldjmcdonald I voted, did you? DC(ish)Registered User regular
    I'll be frank here - if the anti-ubi faction here is ready to argue costs then I'm taking that as approval of the underlying concept.

    If it isn't, then perhaps the anti-ubi faction should be arguing against the underlying concept first.

    shryke wrote: »
    ...Barack "charisma isn't a dump stat, nerds" Obama...
    QuidThat_GuyDunderDoctorArchAManFromEarthLord_AsmodeusFeralwazillashrykejakobaggerminirhyderVanguardFarangu
  • JepheryJephery regular Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Sorry, I must have missed some parts of this thread but what does the tax rates have to do with Basic Income?
    Talking about tax burdens on various peoples and Nbsp got salty about taxing people who are generating fortunes in investment at a rate approaching that of people drawing a paycheck, they'll all stop investing for... reasons.

    If we incentivize capitol gains then people will just sit around all day investing instead of, you know, working.

    Have the government buy 50% of all stock on the market, then split the dividends from all the stocks between every citizen.

    I have no idea what the numbers on that look like but it sounds hilarious.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    That_Guy
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    We get to decide when something has been sufficiently answered!?

    If that case Basic Income is a great idea and also I'm King of the Swamp. Final Answer. No takebacks.

    Checkmate.

    Motherfucker better step

    If there are still questions it is clearly not answered, Heffling.

    Lh96QHG.png
    Enc
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Sorry, I must have missed some parts of this thread but what does the tax rates have to do with Basic Income?
    Talking about tax burdens on various peoples and Nbsp got salty about taxing people who are generating fortunes in investment at a rate approaching that of people drawing a paycheck, they'll all stop investing for... reasons.

    If we incentivize capitol gains then people will just sit around all day investing instead of, you know, working.

    Have the government buy 50% of all stock on the market, then split the dividends from all the stocks between every citizen.

    I have no idea what the numbers on that look like but it sounds hilarious.

    That's what China does. Only they own 100% of all stock on the market and they don't split it with their citizens.

    camo_sig.png
    Elvenshae
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I'm sorry but Heffling has been some amazing posts complete with numbers. If someone doesn't think the question about funding has been answered at least to some degree then they really should be replying to those posts.

  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I'm sorry but Heffling has been some amazing posts complete with numbers. If someone doesn't think the question about funding has been answered at least to some degree then they really should be replying to those posts.

    All the other side's arguments have boiled down to are "We shouldn't tax the rich equally" and "Basic income will make everyone lazy."

    camo_sig.png
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I'm not big on apportioning sides. I think there could be perfectly valid concerns in how it would be implemented that haven't been mentioned and it'd suck to not hear those concerns because people were afraid of getting dog piled by another "side."

    Phoenix-DprogramjunkieHefflingEncjakobagger
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom regular Registered User regular
    I don't even see another side here, just one goose.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    EncCalica
  • DraygoDraygo regular Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    jmcdonald wrote: »
    I'll be frank here - if the anti-ubi faction here is ready to argue costs then I'm taking that as approval of the underlying concept.

    If it isn't, then perhaps the anti-ubi faction should be arguing against the underlying concept first.


    I think its a good idea to give everyone 1 million dollars. Everyone would agree it would be awesome to get 1 million dollars. Think of all the things I could do with 1 million dollars.

    For me to agree with your concept I need to agree with the program your putting forth to pay for it. Otherwise why don't we just give everyone 1 million dollars?

    In BI's case the cost of the program is the program. Heffings numbers he posted a few posts back still had a ~900 billion dollar shortfall that he didn't account for. If you want numbers applied here it is hard because its hard to possibly find all the impacts a BI policy would have on an economy.

    And the magic bunny of 'capital gains tax' wont work, you do realize that if the market crashes the government has to pay out, and gets no capital gains tax. As with capital gains, there is capital loss. If your BI is partially funded by cap gains how do you make sure a stock crash isn't going to fuck your program over? Borrow money? How long will that last?

    Warning lots of number crunching that isn't entirely meaningful and thoughts may be somewhat random -- you have been warned.


    Well lets get some real numbers in here right because were all about posting numbers even though we don't fully understand all the consequences a BI system will have:

    Ok let me propose this BI type system, Your BI for your household will be equal to the poverty threshold for that year.

    Lets use these 2010 numbers:

    there are 117.5 million households in the united states, the average size is 2.6, the average total payout for BI would be 20k per household
    Now for some more numbers 15.1% of that have income below the poverty line, and 33.9% are below the twice poverty line.
    Now for the first roadblock how will the system work exactly so we can draw reasonable estimates of costs?

    Will it function as a Negative Income Tax? Where you are compensated an amount based on your total income?

    So lets go the NIT route, so under NIT every dollar you earn reduces your BI payout by 50% of that dollar, so if the government would pay out 20k to you, but you earned 10k that year, you would only get a check for 15k. Simple!

    So using super rough estimates here because 15.1% is almost half of 33.9% we will take 33.9% of 117 million households and pretend they average out at equal to poverty line income. Not exactly true but its close enough.

    So we have 39.83 million households that will receive a check from the federal government with an average adjusted payout of 10k, makes numbers easy!
    so 39.83 million times 10 thousand.... 398.325 billion dollars! Not that bad right?

    So that's NIT, but what if we just gave everyone in the united states 20k per household (on average, payout scales with # of people in the household like the poverty threshold)
    117.5*20k = 2.35 trillion dollars.

    so NIT: almost 400 billion dollars
    BI for all: 2.35 trillion
    Heffings numbers he posted for his 1 trillion dollar BI program has a 500 billion dollar shortfall if you go by his numbers, meaning 500 billion dollars in new taxes and other sources of revenue. This includes dropping the 427 billion dollar welfare spending our country currently has.

    So lets use the 2010 budget to keep things consistent:

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_budget_2010_4.html

    The total welfare budget for the united states is 427 billion for year 2010. That number is over NIT and under BI for all. So if I like NIT as a system I could slash all spending in every other welfare program. SSI will be cut as well, and I can pay for NIT without increasing the deficit (in theory). SS would be left alone.

    So using NIT we have a way to keep it in budget assuming that people don't just up and leave higher paying jobs for other jobs lowering taxable income and increasing NIT payouts.

    Edit: Forgot there will be some government overhead for NIT, probably 25 - 50 billion to run the program. And it doesn't really include a good way of finding the homeless.

    Draygo on
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    We get to decide when something has been sufficiently answered!?

    If that case Basic Income is a great idea and also I'm King of the Swamp. Final Answer. No takebacks.

    Checkmate.

    Motherfucker better step

    If there are still questions it is clearly not answered, Heffling.

    The please allow me to rephrase my statement:

    It is my opinion that the topic of funding of public works has reached an impasse. Some forumers are for additional public funding via increased taxation on items that primarily benefit the wealthy, and others here are opposed to any additional taxation. We have reached the point where we should agree to disagree.

    A few pages back, someone asked if felons should continue to receive a UBI. I would recommend that felons not be granted a UBI while in prison, as prison provides those necessities that a UBI is intended for, but that they should be granted the UBI once out of prison. Otherwise, you will create a new class of underprivileged in exactly the same way that the current combination of convicted felon and being poor create a permanent underclass.

    Thoughts?

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    QuidprogramjunkiejakobaggerCalica
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    900 million dollar gap you say Draygo?

    I recommend precisely one less jet fighter every couple years.

    DraygoEnc
  • DraygoDraygo regular Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    900 million dollar gap you say Draygo?

    I recommend precisely one less jet fighter every couple years.

    billion, fixing :)

    Quidjoshgotro
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    We get to decide when something has been sufficiently answered!?

    If that case Basic Income is a great idea and also I'm King of the Swamp. Final Answer. No takebacks.

    Checkmate.

    Motherfucker better step

    If there are still questions it is clearly not answered, Heffling.

    Nope, title's mine now @AManFromEarth . It's been decided.

    Elvenshae
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Withholding UBI from ex-convicts also incentivizes recidivism.

    Unfortunately a lot of Americans want to punish criminals even if that punishment reduces public safety (see: Megan's Law).

    As for prisoners, unfortunately prison does not provide for all of the essentials, especially when it comes to toiletries and hygiene items. But I think that needs to be dealt with as its own issue.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    QuidIncenjucarHefflingshrykeCalica
  • gavindelgavindel The reason all your software is brokenRegistered User regular
    Prison already acts as a massive housing and mental health institution as it is. We could easily fill a thread with all the screwed up incentives and disincentives going on there. (Actually, I think we did at one point?) Even the most penitent felon emerges from prison with no useful money, no job, and few prospects.

    If we are speaking about the benefit of increased social spending, felons are right near the top of the list (assuming they aren't excluded by some morality law). You do, however, have to be careful about your distribution package. If UBI is withheld from prisoners, who is it withheld by? If its the local government in any shape form or fashion, you done screwed up. Financial incentives to jack up judicial punishment already exist and shore up department budgets across the nation on the backs of the worst off.

    This ties into my larger objection that BI funds are vulnerable to financial capture by a variety of bad actors, and the sheer scale of the necessary legislation and social changes to protect them are mind boggling. Its basically "How do we stop the poor from getting ripped off?"

    The objection to my objection is probably "But that already happens." Yep, absolutely. The Ferguson and civil forfeiture topics both covered this in detail.

    Actually, now that I think about it, we haven't really discussed Basic Income versus equivalent, non-financial support programs. For example, what is the benefit of providing a man with 800/month for the purpose of rent versus a revitalized government housing program? What is the benefit of providing money to accomplish a task versus simply accomplishing the task and handing out the result?


    FeralIncenjucarHefflingRegina Fong
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    gavindel wrote: »
    Prison already acts as a massive housing and mental health institution as it is. We could easily fill a thread with all the screwed up incentives and disincentives going on there. (Actually, I think we did at one point?) Even the most penitent felon emerges from prison with no useful money, no job, and few prospects.

    If we are speaking about the benefit of increased social spending, felons are right near the top of the list (assuming they aren't excluded by some morality law). You do, however, have to be careful about your distribution package. If UBI is withheld from prisoners, who is it withheld by? If its the local government in any shape form or fashion, you done screwed up. Financial incentives to jack up judicial punishment already exist and shore up department budgets across the nation on the backs of the worst off.

    This ties into my larger objection that BI funds are vulnerable to financial capture by a variety of bad actors, and the sheer scale of the necessary legislation and social changes to protect them are mind boggling. Its basically "How do we stop the poor from getting ripped off?"

    The objection to my objection is probably "But that already happens." Yep, absolutely. The Ferguson and civil forfeiture topics both covered this in detail.

    Actually, now that I think about it, we haven't really discussed Basic Income versus equivalent, non-financial support programs. For example, what is the benefit of providing a man with 800/month for the purpose of rent versus a revitalized government housing program? What is the benefit of providing money to accomplish a task versus simply accomplishing the task and handing out the result?

    Free market! Hurrrgleburrrgle!

    So, as anybody who's ever received welfare or applied for, say, student aid can tell you, what happens a lot is that for these sorts of social programs, the government spends an inordinate amount of time trying to calculate what your costs should be, and then botching it horribly, and then continuing to use the old botched figures for decades while costs change. You get shit like this: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p44578.pdf Or really shoddy public housing. Or whatever.

    One of the major ideas behind UBI is to cut down on the government doing that. Partially because it costs a lot of money. Partially because the government is bad at it and its restrictions often end up hurting the recipients more than anything (like disincentives to work while on welfare). But the other part of it is to empower the person receiving UBI: they spend the money on the things they deem to be necessary, which not only often better serves them and their unique circumstances, but also improves their self-confidence and feeling of self-worth.

    hippofant on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    That_Guy wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Sorry, I must have missed some parts of this thread but what does the tax rates have to do with Basic Income?
    Talking about tax burdens on various peoples and Nbsp got salty about taxing people who are generating fortunes in investment at a rate approaching that of people drawing a paycheck, they'll all stop investing for... reasons.

    If we incentivize capitol gains then people will just sit around all day investing instead of, you know, working.

    Have the government buy 50% of all stock on the market, then split the dividends from all the stocks between every citizen.

    I have no idea what the numbers on that look like but it sounds hilarious.

    That's what China does. Only they own 100% of all stock on the market and they don't split it with their citizens.

    To be clear, nor would we.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • gavindelgavindel The reason all your software is brokenRegistered User regular
    Right, an argument for efficiency. Housing in particular is interesting in that everyone already needs a place to stay. Injecting basic income doesn't change the fact that you rent an apartment; it only changes the amount of money you consider when you look at what apartment. The homeless population is half a million people, and the American economy could very easily absorb that many new renters.

    However, basic income is not guaranteed to be efficient. Someone proposed means testing for UBI earlier in the thread, which pretty much nukes the efficiency right off the bat. If we are proposing an efficient basic income because of its very small and simple ruleset, why can't we do the same for housing?

    Government uses census and housing data to estimate demand, builds or buys rental units by the thousand. If you want one, show up and give basic proof of identity*. They hand you the keys. We rely on the free market to entice people to pay above and beyond a rental rate of zero in order to have a more desirable location.

    Of course, a renter can absolutely trash the joint, but they can do the same with money in the form of buying hookers and blow. Part of the point of BI is to try and allow autonomy, even knowing that shitheads still exist.

    When I've done volunteering at a soup kitchen, there was no ID check. Show up, hold out your bowl. The kitchens have observed that very few people want to be seen at a soup kitchen, and everyone who shows up probably needed the help.

    *(Issues with illegal immigration and basic income come up as a common Republican sticking point. Suffice to say: "Something something illegals flooding America for our bennies like they do from Calais to Britain")


  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Affordable housing is a shitstorm of construction issues, geography, parking requirements, regulations, transit, NIMBYs, migration, demographics, insurance...

    There is no imaginable strategy where government-owned housing is less hassle than redistributing money for rent.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    schussQuidAManFromEarthshrykeCalica
  • gavindelgavindel The reason all your software is brokenRegistered User regular
    So the goal is for the government to externalize the costs to the rental companies?

    Heh. Usually that goes the other way around...


  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    gavindel wrote: »
    Right, an argument for efficiency. Housing in particular is interesting in that everyone already needs a place to stay. Injecting basic income doesn't change the fact that you rent an apartment; it only changes the amount of money you consider when you look at what apartment. The homeless population is half a million people, and the American economy could very easily absorb that many new renters.

    However, basic income is not guaranteed to be efficient. Someone proposed means testing for UBI earlier in the thread, which pretty much nukes the efficiency right off the bat. If we are proposing an efficient basic income because of its very small and simple ruleset, why can't we do the same for housing?

    Government uses census and housing data to estimate demand, builds or buys rental units by the thousand. If you want one, show up and give basic proof of identity*. They hand you the keys. We rely on the free market to entice people to pay above and beyond a rental rate of zero in order to have a more desirable location.

    Of course, a renter can absolutely trash the joint, but they can do the same with money in the form of buying hookers and blow. Part of the point of BI is to try and allow autonomy, even knowing that shitheads still exist.

    When I've done volunteering at a soup kitchen, there was no ID check. Show up, hold out your bowl. The kitchens have observed that very few people want to be seen at a soup kitchen, and everyone who shows up probably needed the help.

    *(Issues with illegal immigration and basic income come up as a common Republican sticking point. Suffice to say: "Something something illegals flooding America for our bennies like they do from Calais to Britain")

    Locally, I've also started seeing a similar thing with food banks: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/02/08/shutting-food-bank-first-step-in-program-to-add-respect-to-feeding-hungry-keenan.html

    TL;DR:
    1. People are less likely to donate food to food banks due to clunkiness. (Exception, commercial enterprises would donate nearly expired food on mass to food banks, but the article argues that soup kitchens still serve as an outlet for that food.)
    2. Eliminates a lot of logistical overhead for food banks.
    3. Gives users control of what they want/need, as opposed to limiting them to what people donate.
    4. Related: allows new choices, like fresh produce, that would normally not be available.
    5. Removes stigma of going to a food bank.
    6. Related: promotes budgeting, shopping, financial management skills

    Calica
  • NyysjanNyysjan regular FinlandRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Affordable housing is a shitstorm of construction issues, geography, parking requirements, regulations, transit, NIMBYs, migration, demographics, insurance...

    There is no imaginable strategy where government-owned housing is less hassle than redistributing money for rent.

    How about government owned (but not directly controlled) housing companies with the stated goal to provide affordable housing while making (some) profit, and using that profit to make more affordable housing?

    And then we also give people UBI on top of that.

  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Affordable housing is a shitstorm of construction issues, geography, parking requirements, regulations, transit, NIMBYs, migration, demographics, insurance...

    There is no imaginable strategy where government-owned housing is less hassle than redistributing money for rent.

    How about government owned (but not directly controlled) housing companies with the stated goal to provide affordable housing while making (some) profit, and using that profit to make more affordable housing?

    And then we also give people UBI on top of that.

    NGOs fill that role quite well. We do IT for the local housing authority. I can't say their peroperties are the nicest, but they have a pretty dedicated group of people running the place. We are in the process of upgrading their internet infrastructure to fiber MPLS mesh. We have all their properties on keycard access with a managed hvac system. In Fact I do IT for more than a few nonprofits around town.

    I would fully support government funded nonprofits totally taking over the housing and food situation in our country. Everyone I know who works for a nonprofit does so because they have a passion to help people in a way a federal employee (lets not even speak of for-profits) might not.

    Edit: I would be interested to know Bernie's thoughts on the matter.

    That_Guy on
    camo_sig.png
  • schussschuss regular Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    snip
    TL;DR:
    1. People are less likely to donate food to food banks due to clunkiness. (Exception, commercial enterprises would donate nearly expired food on mass to food banks, but the article argues that soup kitchens still serve as an outlet for that food.)
    2. Eliminates a lot of logistical overhead for food banks.
    3. Gives users control of what they want/need, as opposed to limiting them to what people donate.
    4. Related: allows new choices, like fresh produce, that would normally not be available.
    5. Removes stigma of going to a food bank.
    6. Related: promotes budgeting, shopping, financial management skills

    This CAN make sense, but if you look at things like the SF Food Bank (or any food bank near significant farming ops), it's better to have a food bank as you get HUNDREDS of TONS of fresh produce and fruit seconds (IE misshapen) donated for tax write offs. It would get junked otherwise most likely.
    That_Guy wrote: »

    NGOs fill that role quite well. We do IT for the local housing authority. I can't say their peroperties are the nicest, but they have a pretty dedicated group of people running the place. We are in the process of upgrading their internet infrastructure to fiber MPLS mesh. We have all their properties on keycard access with a managed hvac system. In Fact I do IT for more than a few nonprofits around town.

    I would fully support government funded nonprofits totally taking over the housing and food situation in our country. Everyone I know who works for a nonprofit does so because they have a passion to help people in a way a federal employee (lets not even speak of for-profits) might not.

    Edit: I would be interested to know Bernie's thoughts on the matter.

    I'd actually agree with the NGO thing on this. As real estate is a local endeavor, having passionate locals run it is key to making proper properties available and affordable.

    Feral
Sign In or Register to comment.