9 ms·

>> "But in the U.S., many liberals see it as naive and a distraction from more practical priorities, such as a $15 minimum wage and paid family leave." I can't

>> "But in the U.S., many liberals see it as naive and a distraction from more practical priorities, such as a $15 minimum wage and paid family leave." I can't see how they could believe this. First of all a minimum wage becomes unimportant as you should hypothetically have enough money to support the kind of lifestyle a minimum wage job would provide without working. Secondly, as it's no longer financially critical to them, people won't be as inclined to take on minimum wage type jobs - which will force the wage up anyway so that the business can attract employees. So it should take care of itself. As for paid family leave (I presume they mean maternity/paternity leave?) you won't need that as your basic income will ensure you still have money coming in. And if the company wants to retain your services after your leave they will offer it anyway. The key point in these examples is that even if you don't get a higher minimum wage or paid family leave it's no longer going to have a big effect on you as you have your UBI to rely on. Also, it doesn't seem to me like there is a left/right split on this elsewhere in the world. This leads me to believe that the problem is the highly partisan US political system. The right is obviously going to support UBI as it would significantly reduce government size - the left can't be seen to be agreeing with the right. I think it's a kind of childishly schoolyard thing you see a lot in US politics (he likes that so I don't).

mseebach 11y ago
The biggest problem with the UBI debate is that few people explicitly name the amounts they imagine. You seem to imply a level near the minimum wage, but that's flat out impossible. The total US tax revenue is around $20k/year/person, so a realistic UBI is upper bounded at perhaps $2-300/month (full time at $15 is about $2,600/month) - and at 20% of total revenue, that would have to replace substantial portions of existing social programs to be viable.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  I envision it as enough for someone to get by. So not enough for luxury expenditures. Basically food and shelter. I'm also looking at this from the perspective of someone in the UK who doesn't have to think of things like health care and education which changes things quite a bit. I'd say around $800 p/m per person would be plenty if you look at food and rent for a room in a shared apartment. Tax revenue should also stretch much further with a UBI. You could reduce huge inefficiency and lay off the majority of staff involved in welfare programs which would amount to massive savings.
  - mseebach 11y ago
    $800/month comes out to just short of 50% of total tax revenue. You need a lot more than massive savings on welfare programs to pull off a 50% cut in all government spending, local, state and federal.
    - k-mcgrady 11y ago
      Ok. I'm just looking at a chart showing the US Federal Budget. 10% on welfare. 25% on pensions. That brings us to 35% so we're still short. Still about 15% off. I believe that the US has lower taxes than many other nations so for a UBI to work that would have to change and would bring us closer to the mark. Reducing some of the 21% spent on defence would also help and the health care sector would be interesting. I think for it to work you go to a completely public system. That would be important to make that $800 figure work and it might also reduce some of the inefficiencies in the current system (US is spending much higher % of GDP than other OECD countries despite having less coverage for citizens). I think there are lots of ways to adjust current spending and make it work. My personal idea would not fly with the American public though (reduce defence spending by 80% and raise taxes - especially for higher earners).
  - notahacker 11y ago
    The savings from laying off a few bureaucrats and jobcentre employees aren't going to change the fact that the £250bn needed just to give a $800/£550 per month BI to working age adults in the UK is a lot more than the £3bn spent on unemployment benefit. (eliminating tax credits, disability benefits and housing benefits will net another £110bn, but also render a lot of poor people poorer or even homeless, which is the opposite of what BI is generally proposed to do)
    - takno 11y ago
      I think you need to view state pensions and minimum income for pensioners into the numbers. You would also want to increase basic rate tax at least to the point where you'd reclaimed the money from anybody at or above the higher rate threshold.
    - 11y ago
crdoconnor 11y ago
>I can't see how they could believe this. First of all a minimum wage becomes unimportant as you should hypothetically have enough money to support the kind of lifestyle a minimum wage job would provide without working. It's considered a distraction because it's a political pipe dream that has a very low chance of being implemented. The reason the left doesn't like it is fourfold: * The pretext for basic income presumes that we have a lack of spending because we've run out of things to spend money on. This couldn't be further from the truth. American infrastructure is crumbling and yet politicians still want to restrict necessary spending, choking off demand and killing jobs. * The pretext for basic income also presumes that we have a wide variety of cheap goods that don't need much US labor because of efficient markets and automation. We don't. We have a wide variety of cheap goods not requiring US labor because China intentionally undervalues its currency. China can pull the plug on that at any point and trigger a torrential level of inflation in the US. * The last time the US faced this problem of high unemployment due to artificially suppressed demand (in the 30s) it was successfully fixed with federal job guarantees that ended up providing useful employment and getting a huge amount of useful infrastructure built that we still use today. * However much you try to deny it or dress it up, people actually want jobs - for more than just the income.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  Some good points, I'm curious about your final point though. Personal want just for more than just the income. IF the UBI worked, are you suggested people would want to, but couldn't work anymore? That jobs would be difficult to find?
BigJono 11y ago
I'm so glad we imported this style of politics to Australia. It's lovely watching our government openly and boldly torch tens of billions of dollars on our Internet infrastructure and condemn our economic prospects for decades simply to spite the other political party, while the idiot masses cheer them on because the blue team is winning against the red team.

mseebach 11y ago

The biggest problem with the UBI debate is that few people explicitly name the amounts they imagine. You seem to imply a level near the minimum wage, but that's flat out impossible. The total US tax revenue is around $20k/year/person, so a realistic UBI is upper bounded at perhaps $2-300/month (full time at $15 is about $2,600/month) - and at 20% of total revenue, that would have to replace substantial portions of existing social programs to be viable.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
I envision it as enough for someone to get by. So not enough for luxury expenditures. Basically food and shelter. I'm also looking at this from the perspective of someone in the UK who doesn't have to think of things like health care and education which changes things quite a bit. I'd say around $800 p/m per person would be plenty if you look at food and rent for a room in a shared apartment. Tax revenue should also stretch much further with a UBI. You could reduce huge inefficiency and lay off the majority of staff involved in welfare programs which would amount to massive savings.
- mseebach 11y ago
  $800/month comes out to just short of 50% of total tax revenue. You need a lot more than massive savings on welfare programs to pull off a 50% cut in all government spending, local, state and federal.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    Ok. I'm just looking at a chart showing the US Federal Budget. 10% on welfare. 25% on pensions. That brings us to 35% so we're still short. Still about 15% off. I believe that the US has lower taxes than many other nations so for a UBI to work that would have to change and would bring us closer to the mark. Reducing some of the 21% spent on defence would also help and the health care sector would be interesting. I think for it to work you go to a completely public system. That would be important to make that $800 figure work and it might also reduce some of the inefficiencies in the current system (US is spending much higher % of GDP than other OECD countries despite having less coverage for citizens). I think there are lots of ways to adjust current spending and make it work. My personal idea would not fly with the American public though (reduce defence spending by 80% and raise taxes - especially for higher earners).
- notahacker 11y ago
  The savings from laying off a few bureaucrats and jobcentre employees aren't going to change the fact that the £250bn needed just to give a $800/£550 per month BI to working age adults in the UK is a lot more than the £3bn spent on unemployment benefit. (eliminating tax credits, disability benefits and housing benefits will net another £110bn, but also render a lot of poor people poorer or even homeless, which is the opposite of what BI is generally proposed to do)
  - takno 11y ago
    I think you need to view state pensions and minimum income for pensioners into the numbers. You would also want to increase basic rate tax at least to the point where you'd reclaimed the money from anybody at or above the higher rate threshold.
  - 11y ago

crdoconnor 11y ago

>I can't see how they could believe this. First of all a minimum wage becomes unimportant as you should hypothetically have enough money to support the kind of lifestyle a minimum wage job would provide without working. It's considered a distraction because it's a political pipe dream that has a very low chance of being implemented. The reason the left doesn't like it is fourfold: * The pretext for basic income presumes that we have a lack of spending because we've run out of things to spend money on. This couldn't be further from the truth. American infrastructure is crumbling and yet politicians still want to restrict necessary spending, choking off demand and killing jobs. * The pretext for basic income also presumes that we have a wide variety of cheap goods that don't need much US labor because of efficient markets and automation. We don't. We have a wide variety of cheap goods not requiring US labor because China intentionally undervalues its currency. China can pull the plug on that at any point and trigger a torrential level of inflation in the US. * The last time the US faced this problem of high unemployment due to artificially suppressed demand (in the 30s) it was successfully fixed with federal job guarantees that ended up providing useful employment and getting a huge amount of useful infrastructure built that we still use today. * However much you try to deny it or dress it up, people actually want jobs - for more than just the income.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
Some good points, I'm curious about your final point though. Personal want just for more than just the income. IF the UBI worked, are you suggested people would want to, but couldn't work anymore? That jobs would be difficult to find?

BigJono 11y ago

I'm so glad we imported this style of politics to Australia. It's lovely watching our government openly and boldly torch tens of billions of dollars on our Internet infrastructure and condemn our economic prospects for decades simply to spite the other political party, while the idiot masses cheer them on because the blue team is winning against the red team.