3 ms·

What happens in the case I am working in a foreign country on a visa? In that case, I can imagine the home country would refuse GBI because I am no longer resid

What happens in the case I am working in a foreign country on a visa? In that case, I can imagine the home country would refuse GBI because I am no longer resident, and the host country would refuse because I am not a citizen. If that is the case, I can imagine that GBI would put a drag on workers abroad. Maybe people would even refuse to emigrate because they wouldn't be able to afford the few years without GBI before they are a citizen in their new country.

themartorana 11y ago
Best question about UBI I've heard. Usually the argument is that poor people won't work. I don't have an answer, actually, I just wanted to say that your question is reasoned and not politically charged, so thanks. I'm also curious about this?
SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
I think that what you describe is a good thing, when you look at the complete picture. GBI could (should?) function, effectively, like a negative income tax -- below a certain income level the government pays you. Above that level, you earn nothing from the government, because you're making more than some specific threshold already (probably at least 1.5x GBI, preferably higher [1]). So yes, it would discourage people from going to a new country for fun and lounging around there and not working. People who want to move to a new country should do it because there's a job for them in that new country, and if it doesn't pay above the GBI threshold, then yes, they should probably stay home. If you're a consultant who can work from anywhere, and you make more than the cutoff (which I would hope!), then GBI is similarly irrelevant. GBI for a backup income while you're starting a company is also something to think about: Where would the US prefer that you start a company? Here, of course. So I think that GBI encouraging people to work in the country is absolutely appropriate. Finally, GBI could be provided to US citizens and permanent residents who spend more than X% of their time in the country. If that's 51%, then you could spend nearly six months in another country getting situated before GBI would cut off, which should be more than enough time to pick up a job there. Even if it only paid you for 2-3 months of living abroad, that's not bad for a paid vacation and/or job hunt. [1] This may be obvious to most; apologies in advance. If you phase out GBI at a 1:1 rate with what you earn, as in, if you earn $10, you get $10 less GBI, then taking a job that paid less than GBI would earn you nothing (unless you're being paid under the table, but let's assume we don't want to encourage people to cheat). EDIT: My math was wrong. The idea is that you set the marginal tax rates such that every dollar you earn earns you more money, but that by the time your income is at some arbitrary level, you're paying more than GBI in taxes. Figuring out the exact rate curve is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)
- reustle 11y ago
  > So yes, it would discourage people from going to a new country for fun and lounging around there and not working. People who want to move to a new country should do it because there's a job for them in that new country, and if it doesn't pay above the GBI threshold, then yes, they should probably stay home. Absolutely not. I've been traveling through many countries over the past >year working remotely on my personal business based at home in the US. Who are you to say I should be tied down in my home country to receive the same benefits everyone else does, especially since I pay taxes like everyone else? * Sent while on a train traveling through Vietnam
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    Please re-read my reply, especially the line that says: > If you're a consultant who can work from anywhere, and you make more than the cutoff (which I would hope!), then GBI is similarly irrelevant.
overgard 11y ago
What you're suggesting is possible, and perhaps even likely, but ANY large change to a system likely has massive unintended consequences, that doesn't mean you stay in stasis. In my opinion, we have an economic system that demands that you must work for your keep, while at the same time, work is drying up because automation means we need less workers. When you have a large amount of people that WANT to work, and yet no work for them, and as a consequence they're left in poverty, it implies our economic ideas have failed. We're clearly in a transition period.

themartorana 11y ago

Best question about UBI I've heard. Usually the argument is that poor people won't work. I don't have an answer, actually, I just wanted to say that your question is reasoned and not politically charged, so thanks. I'm also curious about this?

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago

I think that what you describe is a good thing, when you look at the complete picture. GBI could (should?) function, effectively, like a negative income tax -- below a certain income level the government pays you. Above that level, you earn nothing from the government, because you're making more than some specific threshold already (probably at least 1.5x GBI, preferably higher [1]). So yes, it would discourage people from going to a new country for fun and lounging around there and not working. People who want to move to a new country should do it because there's a job for them in that new country, and if it doesn't pay above the GBI threshold, then yes, they should probably stay home. If you're a consultant who can work from anywhere, and you make more than the cutoff (which I would hope!), then GBI is similarly irrelevant. GBI for a backup income while you're starting a company is also something to think about: Where would the US prefer that you start a company? Here, of course. So I think that GBI encouraging people to work in the country is absolutely appropriate. Finally, GBI could be provided to US citizens and permanent residents who spend more than X% of their time in the country. If that's 51%, then you could spend nearly six months in another country getting situated before GBI would cut off, which should be more than enough time to pick up a job there. Even if it only paid you for 2-3 months of living abroad, that's not bad for a paid vacation and/or job hunt. [1] This may be obvious to most; apologies in advance. If you phase out GBI at a 1:1 rate with what you earn, as in, if you earn $10, you get $10 less GBI, then taking a job that paid less than GBI would earn you nothing (unless you're being paid under the table, but let's assume we don't want to encourage people to cheat). EDIT: My math was wrong. The idea is that you set the marginal tax rates such that every dollar you earn earns you more money, but that by the time your income is at some arbitrary level, you're paying more than GBI in taxes. Figuring out the exact rate curve is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)

reustle 11y ago
> So yes, it would discourage people from going to a new country for fun and lounging around there and not working. People who want to move to a new country should do it because there's a job for them in that new country, and if it doesn't pay above the GBI threshold, then yes, they should probably stay home. Absolutely not. I've been traveling through many countries over the past >year working remotely on my personal business based at home in the US. Who are you to say I should be tied down in my home country to receive the same benefits everyone else does, especially since I pay taxes like everyone else? * Sent while on a train traveling through Vietnam
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  Please re-read my reply, especially the line that says: > If you're a consultant who can work from anywhere, and you make more than the cutoff (which I would hope!), then GBI is similarly irrelevant.

overgard 11y ago

What you're suggesting is possible, and perhaps even likely, but ANY large change to a system likely has massive unintended consequences, that doesn't mean you stay in stasis. In my opinion, we have an economic system that demands that you must work for your keep, while at the same time, work is drying up because automation means we need less workers. When you have a large amount of people that WANT to work, and yet no work for them, and as a consequence they're left in poverty, it implies our economic ideas have failed. We're clearly in a transition period.