6 ms·

The Panama Papers prove it: we can afford a universal basic income

53 points by mortenjorck 11y ago

alphakappa 11y ago
I fail to see what the proof is. Apart from plenty of opinion, this article fails to present any numbers from the Panama Papers that would prove that we could pay a basic income year after year.
steve19 11y ago
"A larger income, to ensure that no American fell into absolute abject poverty – say, $12,000 a year – would cost around $3.6tn. That is a big number, but one that once again seems far more reasonable when considered through the lens of the Panama Papers and the scandal of global tax evasion" Regardless of what you think about UBI, the Panama Papers do not prove it could or could not work. The US Federal Budget is $3.8 trillion. There is no way tax not being paid in Panama is coming even close to the $3.6 tn they mention. This article is just click bait.
- majewsky 11y ago
  > The US Federal Budget is $3.8 trillion. There is no way tax not being paid in Panama is coming even close to the $3.6 tn they mention. 1. The 3.6tn figure is for the whole world. The US will only be a chunk of that, although probably a large chunk. 2. Why do you not consider these numbers plausible? On what factual basis can you dispute that the US is not in fact missing out on, say, 20-40% of their possible tax income because of tax evasion?
  - theandrewbailey 11y ago
    There are a little over 300,000,000 people in the USA. $12,000 × >300,000,000 = >$3,600,000,000,000 There are a little over 7 billion people on earth: $12,000 × >7,000,000,000 = >$84,000,000,000,000,000
cogware 11y ago
This article is pure polemical, without any justification for its claims (not even a back-of-the-envelope estimate of what kind increase in taxes would result from ending offshore tax evasion). Outrage is not a substitute for mathematics or economics. I personally support UBI, but we need to ensure that it's sustainable.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Well, what is really needed is a tax on international transactions... the moving of anything in, and currency out of the country. That would make evasion and funds shifting far less attractive. Beyond that would be what would be for some a very high base tax rate, universally... something close to 50%. I just have a problem with more than half of what you make going to taxes. From there, funds should be dispersed into accounts... A portion would go to every tax paying citizen (filing income tax required for prior year) as a UBI. Everyone would get the same amount, every week. Of the rest part would be distributed to states based on land size. Part would go to states based on population. The rest would be towards any federal spending... In that, the budget would have to fit the means based on a percent of tax collected first... that would shift incentives a bit. A UBI would also allow for many state and federal welfare programs and subsidies to be nuked. A larger portion multiplier could be applied to citizens over 65, then again at 70... To put those going into retirement years in a better position, displacing Social Security.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Taxing international transactions like international commerce and small things like travel? I don't think that would be good. We've been spending the better part of the last seven decades eliminating barriers to international transactions because of the problems tariffs caused... This would be a step backwards in that direction.
    - weddpros 11y ago
      protectionism and peace: pick one
    - 11y ago
tlarkworthy 11y ago
Totally illogical, how do tax loopholes for the rich get affected by giving everyone a basic income? The middle class will pay more tax and give it to the poor. The super rich will continue paying no tax... The worse thing is the article is titled "proof". Where is this proof? It be nice if the rich did pay for a universal basic income.
grahamburger 11y ago
A variant on UBI that I would like to see explored is to make the payments conditional on doing some kind of community service. Something like cleaning a park or volunteering at a school or something. Maybe a 1-3 hour / week commitment. Not as a way to save money so much as to strengthen communities and give people a way to contribute.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Make it 8. The Government is obligated to find something to do for all of it citizens (that require it) for 1 day per week and no one starves.
  - grahamburger 11y ago
    The reason I'm thinking 1-3 is that allows people to have a full time job and still get the UBI if they want or need to. But yeah that's another thing I've thought about - having a guaranteed job and pay.
- jacalata 11y ago
  Oh like UBI but with all the disadvantages of not being universal.
  - grahamburger 11y ago
    There are also disadvantages to being universal. Let's not pretend that the criticisms of ubi are invalid.
    - jacalata 11y ago
      Sure, but let's be clear that a conditional basic income is very different to a universal basic income, not just some minor tweak on the idea.
- rakoo 11y ago
  So, a job ?
akhatri_aus 11y ago
Assets in cash are a stock not a flow. What happens when it runs out? It's surely not sustainable to do this. I'd hardly use the phrasing that it 'proves it'.
Focalise 11y ago
The opportunistic Guardian strikes again.
omonra 11y ago
This article is retarded on almost every level. I generally detest the Guardian but at least respect them for intellectual consistency. This is just plain atrocious thinking. 1. The fact that rich people from Russia and China hide their wealth in Panama means nothing about the US. There are actually no Americans on that list (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/panama-papers/why-are-americans-not-included-panama-papers-n551081 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/panama-papers/why-are-ameri...). 2. The whole point of UBI is that it can come from savings on OTHER programs - such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. Therefore we don't just take the number of citizens of a country as the new cost - but we also have to subtract savings from eliminating the other programs (and their administration).
dustin999 11y ago
When did self-sufficiency lose its luster as a virtue?

53 points by mortenjorck 11y ago

I fail to see what the proof is. Apart from plenty of opinion, this article fails to present any numbers from the Panama Papers that would prove that we could pay a basic income year after year.

steve19 11y ago

"A larger income, to ensure that no American fell into absolute abject poverty – say, $12,000 a year – would cost around $3.6tn. That is a big number, but one that once again seems far more reasonable when considered through the lens of the Panama Papers and the scandal of global tax evasion" Regardless of what you think about UBI, the Panama Papers do not prove it could or could not work. The US Federal Budget is $3.8 trillion. There is no way tax not being paid in Panama is coming even close to the $3.6 tn they mention. This article is just click bait.

majewsky 11y ago
> The US Federal Budget is $3.8 trillion. There is no way tax not being paid in Panama is coming even close to the $3.6 tn they mention. 1. The 3.6tn figure is for the whole world. The US will only be a chunk of that, although probably a large chunk. 2. Why do you not consider these numbers plausible? On what factual basis can you dispute that the US is not in fact missing out on, say, 20-40% of their possible tax income because of tax evasion?
- theandrewbailey 11y ago
  There are a little over 300,000,000 people in the USA. $12,000 × >300,000,000 = >$3,600,000,000,000 There are a little over 7 billion people on earth: $12,000 × >7,000,000,000 = >$84,000,000,000,000,000

cogware 11y ago

This article is pure polemical, without any justification for its claims (not even a back-of-the-envelope estimate of what kind increase in taxes would result from ending offshore tax evasion). Outrage is not a substitute for mathematics or economics. I personally support UBI, but we need to ensure that it's sustainable.

tracker1 11y ago
Well, what is really needed is a tax on international transactions... the moving of anything in, and currency out of the country. That would make evasion and funds shifting far less attractive. Beyond that would be what would be for some a very high base tax rate, universally... something close to 50%. I just have a problem with more than half of what you make going to taxes. From there, funds should be dispersed into accounts... A portion would go to every tax paying citizen (filing income tax required for prior year) as a UBI. Everyone would get the same amount, every week. Of the rest part would be distributed to states based on land size. Part would go to states based on population. The rest would be towards any federal spending... In that, the budget would have to fit the means based on a percent of tax collected first... that would shift incentives a bit. A UBI would also allow for many state and federal welfare programs and subsidies to be nuked. A larger portion multiplier could be applied to citizens over 65, then again at 70... To put those going into retirement years in a better position, displacing Social Security.
- mc32 11y ago
  Taxing international transactions like international commerce and small things like travel? I don't think that would be good. We've been spending the better part of the last seven decades eliminating barriers to international transactions because of the problems tariffs caused... This would be a step backwards in that direction.
  - weddpros 11y ago
    protectionism and peace: pick one
  - 11y ago

tlarkworthy 11y ago

Totally illogical, how do tax loopholes for the rich get affected by giving everyone a basic income? The middle class will pay more tax and give it to the poor. The super rich will continue paying no tax... The worse thing is the article is titled "proof". Where is this proof? It be nice if the rich did pay for a universal basic income.

grahamburger 11y ago

A variant on UBI that I would like to see explored is to make the payments conditional on doing some kind of community service. Something like cleaning a park or volunteering at a school or something. Maybe a 1-3 hour / week commitment. Not as a way to save money so much as to strengthen communities and give people a way to contribute.

venomsnake 11y ago
Make it 8. The Government is obligated to find something to do for all of it citizens (that require it) for 1 day per week and no one starves.
- grahamburger 11y ago
  The reason I'm thinking 1-3 is that allows people to have a full time job and still get the UBI if they want or need to. But yeah that's another thing I've thought about - having a guaranteed job and pay.
jacalata 11y ago
Oh like UBI but with all the disadvantages of not being universal.
- grahamburger 11y ago
  There are also disadvantages to being universal. Let's not pretend that the criticisms of ubi are invalid.
  - jacalata 11y ago
    Sure, but let's be clear that a conditional basic income is very different to a universal basic income, not just some minor tweak on the idea.
rakoo 11y ago
So, a job ?

akhatri_aus 11y ago

Assets in cash are a stock not a flow. What happens when it runs out? It's surely not sustainable to do this. I'd hardly use the phrasing that it 'proves it'.

Focalise 11y ago

The opportunistic Guardian strikes again.

omonra 11y ago

This article is retarded on almost every level. I generally detest the Guardian but at least respect them for intellectual consistency. This is just plain atrocious thinking. 1. The fact that rich people from Russia and China hide their wealth in Panama means nothing about the US. There are actually no Americans on that list (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/panama-papers/why-are-americans-not-included-panama-papers-n551081 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/panama-papers/why-are-ameri...). 2. The whole point of UBI is that it can come from savings on OTHER programs - such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. Therefore we don't just take the number of citizens of a country as the new cost - but we also have to subtract savings from eliminating the other programs (and their administration).

dustin999 11y ago

When did self-sufficiency lose its luster as a virtue?