5 ms·

A UBI that allows citizen to surive on it is simply unfundable; Let's take Belgium, 1000eur/month per citizen; That's 120 billion eur/year. The Belgian state re

A UBI that allows citizen to surive on it is simply unfundable; Let's take Belgium, 1000eur/month per citizen; That's 120 billion eur/year. The Belgian state revenue is 227 billion eur/year, and Belgium has the highest taxes in the world. How does the discussion on UBI goes past this simple mathematical fact ?

esarbe 9y ago
Yes, how does a discussion on UBI go past this simple mathematical fact? By looking at the income distribution and realizing that a vast majority of the worlds income is concentrated in the hands of a breathtakingly small group of people and is continuing to be concentrated even more by the advent of even more integrated automated production and services. All the while this small group continues to lobby for lower taxes worldwide and engages in tax-avoidance schemes that drive local manufacturers and service providers out of business. Heck, this group has so much money, they don't even know what to do with it anymore! Profits have skyrocketed in the last 30 years, but these increases have gone exclusively to the richest people of the world. Productivity per person has more than quadrupled since the 1950. Yet the wages have stagnant since the 1970. Where did all the money go? I bet you can answer that question yourself. Now, where do you specifically go wrong with the math? By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money. They could afford it. They just don't want to. And the system they built for themselves allows them to get away with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workforce_productivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workforce_productivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance#Methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance#Methods
- terminalcommand 9y ago
  IMHO instead of raising taxes, states could focus on giving employees the salary and the security they deserve. If the productivity indeed increased 3x, then employees should be able to benefit from it not the state. I want to believe in a world, where you receive wealth by creating it.
  - esarbe 9y ago
    Worker-owned production would indeed be a good idea to assure that those creating wealth are actually the ones that are receiving it. However; when faced with more and more integrated and automated production and services, I'm afraid that in the long run there wont be many jobs left to create wealth. Instead all wealth will belong to those owning the production capacity.
    - terminalcommand 9y ago
      I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production. If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth. In that case engineers and technicians get the money they deserve by the wealth they create. The owners of these machines provide the necessary capital (financial/technical) to make automation possible. We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place. That is the very premise of a liberal economy. I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me.
      - esarbe 9y ago
        > I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production. The problem with automation is that more and more people end up without job. That's the only problem with automation I see. As for worker-owned production; in the face of automation, in my opinion it's a medium-term solution only. > If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth. But that's not what happens. Fist, no one "figures out a way to create the machines". You build upon the collective knowledge of you society to improve on existing designs. And it's the use of this collective knowledge that indebts you to society. Second; even if someone figures out a way to improve a machine and automate more work; that person won't be the one to collect the gains. Instead it will be the employer, while the ingenious employee gets a modest one-time bonus. > We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place. Usually the owners of production capacity are not the managers of production capacity. The times where the factory owner was sitting in a bureau above the manufacturing floor are long past. > That is the very premise of a liberal economy. Which is not the economy we have. > I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me. You see, there's the problem; there is no free market. What we have today is a system of crony-capitalism where those with wealth have the power to shape the rules of the market to their advantage while everybody else loses out.
- runT1ME 9y ago
  Nominal wages have increased since 1970. Where did the money go? It's not hard, it's basic math: deficit spending necessitates printing money (done in various ways, notably QE) , which eats away spending power.
  - c22 9y ago
    That explains where the money went, but what happened to all that production?
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  > By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. At the extremes, tiny differences in competence lead to exponentially differing compensation scales. Look at any professional sports league for examples. > They could afford it. They just don't want to. Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing. And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit.
  - esarbe 9y ago
    > How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. If you are relying on rent instead of work for an income, you are mooching, simple and easy. Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation. > Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. Yes, it does. Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling. > You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing. I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not demanding that those earning more than me should be taxed more - I'm very much aware that I'm a privileged member of the 1%. I'm among those that should be taxed more! >And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit. There are good arguments to be made that a UBI scheme would actually be less complicated than the complex tangle of social support systems we have nowadays. At least in Europe.
armenarmen 9y ago
How much of their current revenue goes to social programs? If current spending was removed, or rather reapplied to UBI would the be coming out ahead? Could the UBI as an entitlement program feasibly replace current programs?
armenarmen 9y ago
How much of their current revenue goes to social programs? If current spending was removed, or rather reapplied to UBI would the be coming out ahead? Could the UBI as an entitlement program feasibly replace current programs?
tluyben2 9y ago
Well, rich people move to Belgium to pay (a lot) less tax (popular among Dutch and Americans for instance: you can go to mansion towns like Schilde and Braschaat and find only American and Dutch legal tax evading millionairs); so as with everywhere, you will need to force the rich to pay like everyone all over the world at which point the problem will already look different. Sure they might have worked for that money but paying less or no tax: how is that fair? Won't happen soon though.

esarbe 9y ago

Yes, how does a discussion on UBI go past this simple mathematical fact? By looking at the income distribution and realizing that a vast majority of the worlds income is concentrated in the hands of a breathtakingly small group of people and is continuing to be concentrated even more by the advent of even more integrated automated production and services. All the while this small group continues to lobby for lower taxes worldwide and engages in tax-avoidance schemes that drive local manufacturers and service providers out of business. Heck, this group has so much money, they don't even know what to do with it anymore! Profits have skyrocketed in the last 30 years, but these increases have gone exclusively to the richest people of the world. Productivity per person has more than quadrupled since the 1950. Yet the wages have stagnant since the 1970. Where did all the money go? I bet you can answer that question yourself. Now, where do you specifically go wrong with the math? By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money. They could afford it. They just don't want to. And the system they built for themselves allows them to get away with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workforce_productivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workforce_productivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance#Methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance#Methods

terminalcommand 9y ago
IMHO instead of raising taxes, states could focus on giving employees the salary and the security they deserve. If the productivity indeed increased 3x, then employees should be able to benefit from it not the state. I want to believe in a world, where you receive wealth by creating it.
- esarbe 9y ago
  Worker-owned production would indeed be a good idea to assure that those creating wealth are actually the ones that are receiving it. However; when faced with more and more integrated and automated production and services, I'm afraid that in the long run there wont be many jobs left to create wealth. Instead all wealth will belong to those owning the production capacity.
  - terminalcommand 9y ago
    I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production. If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth. In that case engineers and technicians get the money they deserve by the wealth they create. The owners of these machines provide the necessary capital (financial/technical) to make automation possible. We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place. That is the very premise of a liberal economy. I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me.
    - esarbe 9y ago
      > I don't see any problem in automation and the use of machines and I'm not rooting for worker-owned production. The problem with automation is that more and more people end up without job. That's the only problem with automation I see. As for worker-owned production; in the face of automation, in my opinion it's a medium-term solution only. > If someone figures out a way to create the machines and automate the tasks, he is generating the bigger share of the wealth. But that's not what happens. Fist, no one "figures out a way to create the machines". You build upon the collective knowledge of you society to improve on existing designs. And it's the use of this collective knowledge that indebts you to society. Second; even if someone figures out a way to improve a machine and automate more work; that person won't be the one to collect the gains. Instead it will be the employer, while the ingenious employee gets a modest one-time bonus. > We don't need to envy people who own the production plants. If they're not smart enough, they'll lose their capital, and more talented people will take their place. Usually the owners of production capacity are not the managers of production capacity. The times where the factory owner was sitting in a bureau above the manufacturing floor are long past. > That is the very premise of a liberal economy. Which is not the economy we have. > I think we need to protect the free market and ensure that everyone gets the wealth they deserve. Penalizing people just because they own more doesn't feel right to me. You see, there's the problem; there is no free market. What we have today is a system of crony-capitalism where those with wealth have the power to shape the rules of the market to their advantage while everybody else loses out.
runT1ME 9y ago
Nominal wages have increased since 1970. Where did the money go? It's not hard, it's basic math: deficit spending necessitates printing money (done in various ways, notably QE) , which eats away spending power.
- c22 9y ago
  That explains where the money went, but what happened to all that production?
jimmywanger 9y ago
> By not having a high enough tax on those that mooch away all the money How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. At the extremes, tiny differences in competence lead to exponentially differing compensation scales. Look at any professional sports league for examples. > They could afford it. They just don't want to. Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing. And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit.
- esarbe 9y ago
  > How are they mooching it away? You have not yet proven away that they haven't accumulated the money fair and square. If you are relying on rent instead of work for an income, you are mooching, simple and easy. Accumulating money that way might be legal, but it's neither fair nor square. You are exploiting the production capacity of other people and using economical leverage to enforce that exploitation. > Why should they "afford it"? Just being richer does not give anybody lower on the socio-economic spectrum free reign to determine spending/taxation habits. Yes, it does. Because sooner or later the unemployable, hungry masses will be rallying in the streets with pitch forks and torches, demanding heads to be rolling. > You look at somebody with a mclaren and whine that it's not fair - there are ten people out there looking at your stable supply of food, clothing, and utilities and saying the exact same thing. I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not demanding that those earning more than me should be taxed more - I'm very much aware that I'm a privileged member of the 1%. I'm among those that should be taxed more! >And the system that they built with laws that allow them to get away with it - the proposal is to fix that with more laws, conveniently forgetting that the legal system is a NP complex system, which just creates more unintended consequences that only the extremely rich are allowed to exploit. There are good arguments to be made that a UBI scheme would actually be less complicated than the complex tangle of social support systems we have nowadays. At least in Europe.

armenarmen 9y ago

How much of their current revenue goes to social programs? If current spending was removed, or rather reapplied to UBI would the be coming out ahead? Could the UBI as an entitlement program feasibly replace current programs?

armenarmen 9y ago

tluyben2 9y ago

Well, rich people move to Belgium to pay (a lot) less tax (popular among Dutch and Americans for instance: you can go to mansion towns like Schilde and Braschaat and find only American and Dutch legal tax evading millionairs); so as with everywhere, you will need to force the rich to pay like everyone all over the world at which point the problem will already look different. Sure they might have worked for that money but paying less or no tax: how is that fair? Won't happen soon though.