3 ms·

>This works the opposite of that. Everyone always gets the basic income, so there is no "more people wanting" ????? Less time worked correlates with less thin

>This works the opposite of that. Everyone always gets the basic income, so there is no "more people wanting" ????? Less time worked correlates with less things made. Less things made means less sales. Less sales means less sales tax. Less people working means less income. Less income means less income tax.... Sure this doesn't shrink the tax base? After all, when a few percent of people are put out of work during a recession, there are severe tax revenue issues. Basic income experiments so far show that 10% of people simply drop out of the workforce..... >if the tax base was hypothetically reduced then less revenue would be generated to fund the UBI. At a lower UBI amount, more people would work. It's self-balancing. So your UBI pays people a fixed percent of the tax base, not a dollar amount? So during a recession, those UBI people will get really screwed....

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> ????? Everyone gets the UBI, not just people who don't work. If hypothetically fewer people were to work, more people wouldn't start receiving it because everybody gets it either way. > Less time worked correlates with less things made. In general this goes the other way. The history of progress is to make more stuff in less time. If people had more "disincentive to work" then companies would have to pay them more -- which increases the incentive for automation, which creates more stuff with less people working, which solves the problem. This is also why your "disincentive to work" calculations are off. If you pay <1% of people a UBI, it's not going to affect wages. If you pay it to everyone and there is a "disincentive to work" then to get people to work, companies will have to pay more. Which creates a countervailing incentive to work that keeps people working. It also increases wages (and correspondingly spending), which increases the tax base, so there goes that too. > So your UBI pays people a fixed percent of the tax base, not a dollar amount? So during a recession, those UBI people will get really screwed.... Taxes are (approximately) a percent of GDP, not a percent of the stock market. Have a look at the GDP graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP Difference from the height of the housing boom to the bottom of the crash was ~3%. Not a huge difference. And it was back to where it was at the height after one year. (Compare to ~50% drop for the Dow. The stock market is not the economy.)
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  >If hypothetically fewer people were to work, more people wouldn't start receiving it because everybody gets it either way. That money comes from taxpayers. If less people work, less pay into it. >In general this goes the other way. If less people work today, less will get made today. When a few percent of people suddenly don't have work, we have a recession, tax revenues fall drastically, raising deficits. The last recession makes this perfectly clear. The UBI experiments so far have around 10% of people stopping work. That would be devastating to any modern economy. >Taxes are (approximately) a percent of GDP Because people are working. Drop 10% of workers, you lose a massive amount of tax base. Expenses are still fixed for many items, which is why when less people work deficit spending increases. >And it was back to where it was at the height after one year Because people were getting back to work. I also never mentioned the stock market as the indicator to measure - that is a strawman you brought up.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > That money comes from taxpayers. If less people work, less pay into it. But none more receive it. > If less people work today, less will get made today. What do you expect companies to do if some of their employees quit? Give up? No. Either they'll pay higher wages to get employees again or they'll automate the job. There are millions of jobs that could be automated right now, this year, except that the automation equipment costs slightly more than paying current wages, so they pay the wages instead. If it becomes somewhat more attractive to not work and employers have to pay higher wages, some of them will get automated instead. The same work gets done with fewer people. > When a few percent of people suddenly don't have work, we have a recession, tax revenues fall drastically, raising deficits. The last recession makes this perfectly clear. Tax revenues fell and deficits rose because they cut taxes and increased spending. The reduction in GDP (i.e. the tax base) was, again, only ~3% and only for one year. > The UBI experiments so far have around 10% of people stopping work. That would be devastating to any modern economy. I have already explained this. If you give one person a UBI and not everyone, they don't need work as much, but everybody else still does, so employers don't have to pay higher wages since they can still hire any of the other >99% of people who didn't get the UBI and pay them the existing wages. If you give everyone a UBI, employers do have to pay higher wages to retain employees, so they do, and then more people stay working. Someone else also pointed out that your 10% also mostly "stopped working" so they could go to school. Which is obviously not a permanent condition and generally precedes taking a better job, which pays more and generates more tax revenue. > Because people were getting back to work. The unemployment rate went from 5% in 2007 to 9.9% in 2009. It was still at 9.3% in 2010 when GDP had fully recovered. Apparently the economy did just as well without the other 4.3%.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> ????? Everyone gets the UBI, not just people who don't work. If hypothetically fewer people were to work, more people wouldn't start receiving it because everybody gets it either way. > Less time worked correlates with less things made. In general this goes the other way. The history of progress is to make more stuff in less time. If people had more "disincentive to work" then companies would have to pay them more -- which increases the incentive for automation, which creates more stuff with less people working, which solves the problem. This is also why your "disincentive to work" calculations are off. If you pay <1% of people a UBI, it's not going to affect wages. If you pay it to everyone and there is a "disincentive to work" then to get people to work, companies will have to pay more. Which creates a countervailing incentive to work that keeps people working. It also increases wages (and correspondingly spending), which increases the tax base, so there goes that too. > So your UBI pays people a fixed percent of the tax base, not a dollar amount? So during a recession, those UBI people will get really screwed.... Taxes are (approximately) a percent of GDP, not a percent of the stock market. Have a look at the GDP graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP Difference from the height of the housing boom to the bottom of the crash was ~3%. Not a huge difference. And it was back to where it was at the height after one year. (Compare to ~50% drop for the Dow. The stock market is not the economy.)

ChrisLomont 7y ago
>If hypothetically fewer people were to work, more people wouldn't start receiving it because everybody gets it either way. That money comes from taxpayers. If less people work, less pay into it. >In general this goes the other way. If less people work today, less will get made today. When a few percent of people suddenly don't have work, we have a recession, tax revenues fall drastically, raising deficits. The last recession makes this perfectly clear. The UBI experiments so far have around 10% of people stopping work. That would be devastating to any modern economy. >Taxes are (approximately) a percent of GDP Because people are working. Drop 10% of workers, you lose a massive amount of tax base. Expenses are still fixed for many items, which is why when less people work deficit spending increases. >And it was back to where it was at the height after one year Because people were getting back to work. I also never mentioned the stock market as the indicator to measure - that is a strawman you brought up.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > That money comes from taxpayers. If less people work, less pay into it. But none more receive it. > If less people work today, less will get made today. What do you expect companies to do if some of their employees quit? Give up? No. Either they'll pay higher wages to get employees again or they'll automate the job. There are millions of jobs that could be automated right now, this year, except that the automation equipment costs slightly more than paying current wages, so they pay the wages instead. If it becomes somewhat more attractive to not work and employers have to pay higher wages, some of them will get automated instead. The same work gets done with fewer people. > When a few percent of people suddenly don't have work, we have a recession, tax revenues fall drastically, raising deficits. The last recession makes this perfectly clear. Tax revenues fell and deficits rose because they cut taxes and increased spending. The reduction in GDP (i.e. the tax base) was, again, only ~3% and only for one year. > The UBI experiments so far have around 10% of people stopping work. That would be devastating to any modern economy. I have already explained this. If you give one person a UBI and not everyone, they don't need work as much, but everybody else still does, so employers don't have to pay higher wages since they can still hire any of the other >99% of people who didn't get the UBI and pay them the existing wages. If you give everyone a UBI, employers do have to pay higher wages to retain employees, so they do, and then more people stay working. Someone else also pointed out that your 10% also mostly "stopped working" so they could go to school. Which is obviously not a permanent condition and generally precedes taking a better job, which pays more and generates more tax revenue. > Because people were getting back to work. The unemployment rate went from 5% in 2007 to 9.9% in 2009. It was still at 9.3% in 2010 when GDP had fully recovered. Apparently the economy did just as well without the other 4.3%.