3 ms·

> The more income you report, the less "universal basic income" you receive, [. This is a misunderstanding. Under UBI, everybody receives the same monthly UBI.

by esarbe 9y ago

> The more income you report, the less "universal basic income" you receive, [. This is a misunderstanding. Under UBI, everybody receives the same monthly UBI. The size of the UBI does not depend on income. > ..] while your taxes will skyrocket to pay for all of the new UBI spending. Well, yes. Of course. Somehow this has to be paid for. But this will more probably be paid for by taxing corporations and shareholders instead of labour. For example by using the ~$2.0tn of US companies cash reserves.

Jabanga 9y ago
>But this will more probably be paid for by taxing corporations and shareholders instead of labour. This is not a good thing. It will discourage investment in the US. >For example by using the ~$2.0tn of US companies cash reserves. Corporations have trillions in debt. They need the cash reserves as a cushion to absorb potential losses from a future economic crisis. The economy is less fragile with companies having these cash reserves. Central economic planning like this, which just assumes "don't worry this will be fine as we take X from Y and spend it on Z" is so reckless. There are always grave negative unintended consequences from forcibly redistributing other people's income/wealth, and if you're not thinking hard about what they may be, you're going to overlook them.
- esarbe 9y ago
  > The economy is less fragile with companies having these cash reserves. Actually, no. Because the stability of the economy depends not on companies but on the cycle of consumption and production. If you have no consumers, there is no reason to produce. If you have no reason to produce, you need no employees. Less people with jobs mean less consumers. And so on. You see, these humongous cash reserves are actually harmful to the economy. Because they are tied up and not circulating, these cash reserves slow down the flow of money. They impede the cycle of consumption and production. > There are always grave negative unintended consequences from forcibly redistributing other people's income/wealth, [...] And there have been incredible good consequences from forcibly redistributing money from the wealthy. Just look at the Central European States, or the Scandinavian countries. They have very high taxes, highest standards of living for everybody, socialized health care. And very vibrant economies.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >Actually, no. Because the stability of the economy depends not on companies but on the cycle of consumption and production. It depends on a huge number of factors. One event that can destabilize an economy is cascading debt defaults that cause mass bankruptcy. At the very least you should consider the possibility that your theories on economics are not right, and that forcibly redistributing huge amounts of privately owned income and savings in order to spur hyper-consumerism may cause severe negative unintended consequences. >And very vibrant economies With the exception of oil-rich Norway, Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant since they adopted large-scale welfare programs in the late 1960s. Just like the US and other advanced economies that shifted massively to the social democratic economic model in the 1960s and 70s, Scandinavian countries have seen stagnant wage growth for the last 40 years, and have seen more market oriented economies close the massive gap that used to exist between them and Scandinavian countries in life expectancy, quality of life, per capita wealth and per capita income.
    - esarbe 9y ago
      > At the very least you should consider the possibility that your theories on economics are not right, [...] Of course always consider the possibility that my hypothesis to might be wrong. But I thank you for that advise and will keep it it mind. > [..] and that forcibly redistributing huge amounts of privately owned income and savings in order to spur hyper-consumerism may cause severe negative unintended consequences. I think you misunderstand the premise of UBI. UBI is not intended to allow for hyper-consumerism. It's purpose is to guarantee a basic standard of living. > With the exception of oil-rich Norway, Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant since they adopted large-scale welfare programs in the late 1960s. What makes you think that the Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant? > Just like the US and other advanced economies that shifted massively to the social democratic economic model [...] I really don't see the US as an example of a massive shift to a social democratic model. The USA has no socialized health care, has no socialized retirement scheme, very limited public education, no socialized child care and certainly no socialized care for the elderly. I could go on, but really; the U.S. of A. is no social democracy. And yes; wages in the US have stagnated as well! > and have seen more market oriented economies close the massive gap that used to exist between them and Scandinavian countries in life expectancy, quality of life, per capita wealth and per capita income. If we consider the U.S. as an example of a more market-oriented economy, I don't see them closing that gap. Be it health care, life expectancy, median standard of living, quality of life or gross national happiness - the U.S. of A. seriously lags in all these areas. Happy to hear your thoughts!

by esarbe 9y ago

Jabanga 9y ago

>But this will more probably be paid for by taxing corporations and shareholders instead of labour. This is not a good thing. It will discourage investment in the US. >For example by using the ~$2.0tn of US companies cash reserves. Corporations have trillions in debt. They need the cash reserves as a cushion to absorb potential losses from a future economic crisis. The economy is less fragile with companies having these cash reserves. Central economic planning like this, which just assumes "don't worry this will be fine as we take X from Y and spend it on Z" is so reckless. There are always grave negative unintended consequences from forcibly redistributing other people's income/wealth, and if you're not thinking hard about what they may be, you're going to overlook them.

esarbe 9y ago
> The economy is less fragile with companies having these cash reserves. Actually, no. Because the stability of the economy depends not on companies but on the cycle of consumption and production. If you have no consumers, there is no reason to produce. If you have no reason to produce, you need no employees. Less people with jobs mean less consumers. And so on. You see, these humongous cash reserves are actually harmful to the economy. Because they are tied up and not circulating, these cash reserves slow down the flow of money. They impede the cycle of consumption and production. > There are always grave negative unintended consequences from forcibly redistributing other people's income/wealth, [...] And there have been incredible good consequences from forcibly redistributing money from the wealthy. Just look at the Central European States, or the Scandinavian countries. They have very high taxes, highest standards of living for everybody, socialized health care. And very vibrant economies.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >Actually, no. Because the stability of the economy depends not on companies but on the cycle of consumption and production. It depends on a huge number of factors. One event that can destabilize an economy is cascading debt defaults that cause mass bankruptcy. At the very least you should consider the possibility that your theories on economics are not right, and that forcibly redistributing huge amounts of privately owned income and savings in order to spur hyper-consumerism may cause severe negative unintended consequences. >And very vibrant economies With the exception of oil-rich Norway, Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant since they adopted large-scale welfare programs in the late 1960s. Just like the US and other advanced economies that shifted massively to the social democratic economic model in the 1960s and 70s, Scandinavian countries have seen stagnant wage growth for the last 40 years, and have seen more market oriented economies close the massive gap that used to exist between them and Scandinavian countries in life expectancy, quality of life, per capita wealth and per capita income.
  - esarbe 9y ago
    > At the very least you should consider the possibility that your theories on economics are not right, [...] Of course always consider the possibility that my hypothesis to might be wrong. But I thank you for that advise and will keep it it mind. > [..] and that forcibly redistributing huge amounts of privately owned income and savings in order to spur hyper-consumerism may cause severe negative unintended consequences. I think you misunderstand the premise of UBI. UBI is not intended to allow for hyper-consumerism. It's purpose is to guarantee a basic standard of living. > With the exception of oil-rich Norway, Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant since they adopted large-scale welfare programs in the late 1960s. What makes you think that the Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant? > Just like the US and other advanced economies that shifted massively to the social democratic economic model [...] I really don't see the US as an example of a massive shift to a social democratic model. The USA has no socialized health care, has no socialized retirement scheme, very limited public education, no socialized child care and certainly no socialized care for the elderly. I could go on, but really; the U.S. of A. is no social democracy. And yes; wages in the US have stagnated as well! > and have seen more market oriented economies close the massive gap that used to exist between them and Scandinavian countries in life expectancy, quality of life, per capita wealth and per capita income. If we consider the U.S. as an example of a more market-oriented economy, I don't see them closing that gap. Be it health care, life expectancy, median standard of living, quality of life or gross national happiness - the U.S. of A. seriously lags in all these areas. Happy to hear your thoughts!