7 ms·

I'm not 100% convinced on UBI but that's not the case. Employers reducing your pay by X while you receive X from UBI would be the "good outcome" because it mean

by tgb 6y ago

I'm not 100% convinced on UBI but that's not the case. Employers reducing your pay by X while you receive X from UBI would be the "good outcome" because it means that you don't depend on the employer as much as before. Unemployment, whether permanent or temporary, becomes more do-able.

zdragnar 6y ago
Assuming UBI is funded through taxation, that is a net loss to everyone but employers and UBI administrators; whether through income or VAT taxes, you end up with less.
- tgb 6y ago
  That's clearly dependent upon how (or who) you tax. Someone with no income will not have a net negative. And a yacht tax would fund a (miniscule) UBI that benefits everyone but the rich and yacht builders. But the main point is that you gain something nonfinancial: more options or a stability. For the record, to the extent to which I support UBI, I support my own net income decreasing to support others on it and I think any tax plan that does not involve some upper-middle class and middle class Americans paying more than they receive would be financially unviable.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Can I have some of your net income largess?
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      No seriously, if you're giving away net largess, can I have some?
Simulacra 6y ago
Employers reducing your pay by X while you receive X from UBI would be the "good outcome" because it means that you don't depend on the employer as much as before. If you are earning $2000 a month, and the company knows that you were earning $1000 a month from the government, and they cut your pay to $1000 a month, you’re still only getting $2000 a month. Your overall financial health, and way of life has not changed one bit. you have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. We have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. If a Toyota Camry cost $10,000, and all customers are getting $1000 a month free from the government, then raise the price of the Camry to $11,000. Services and goods have not decreased in price, and I contend they will increase, resulting in absolutely zero positive affect. So what if you don’t have to depend on that employer for that extra thousand dollars, you’re depending on the government now. Which is better, depending on the government, or the free market Services and goods have not decreased in price, and I contend they will increase, resulting in absolutely zero positive affect. So what if you don’t have to depend on that employer for that extra thousand dollars, you’re depending on the government now. Which is better, depending on the government, or the free market?
- tgb 6y ago
  I don't understand what your comment is saying, sorry. If total income stays the same, why is the price of the Camry increasing? The point of not depending on the employer is that you can quit a bad job, start a company, etc with much less risk.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    The question you should be asking is this: If total income stays the same, why would the price of the Camry NOT INCREASE? Is there any situation you can think of where there is more cash in the system and the price of goods decreases?
- licebmi__at__ 6y ago
  >If you are earning $2000 a month, and the company knows that you were earning $1000 a month from the government, and they cut your pay to $1000 a month, you’re still only getting $2000 a month. Your overall financial health, and way of life has not changed one bit. you have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. We have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. If a Toyota Camry cost $10,000, and all customers are getting $1000 a month free from the government, then raise the price of the Camry to $11,000 I often argue that the markets do not optimize for the right outcomes, thus not so great, but even I do not think they are that stupid nor inefficient. If your standard of living has not improved (by your previous argument), why would the markets raise the price for the Toyota Camry? So they get less sales? Why would the workers agree to do the same work for less even if they are gettin extra money? An UBI will definitely shift the markets and maybe not in a good way, but that analysis seems so absurd that I consider even calling it an oversimplification to be too generous.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Because your standard of living doesn't matter. Who would get a UBI? Someone making less than 30k? 50k? If you're already making $80k a year you don't worry about price fluctuations as much. but if you're only making $22k a year, and the government decides you get an extra $600 a year, business will factor that into their pricing models. A Macbook might not go up by $600, but your rent, food, entertainment, gasoline, etc. can and probably will. This is why you can never tell a car dealer how much money you have to spend, because they are going to do everything they can to squeeze every last dime out of you. a UBI makes that WAY easier. Quick credit check, how much do you make, oh only $28k. You must be getting a UBI. Let's make sure we factor that into the price they will pay. The only way a UBI works is everyone agrees not to screw people over, and that has never, ever, happened in the history of mankind. So why will it suddenly work for a UBI?

by tgb 6y ago

zdragnar 6y ago

Assuming UBI is funded through taxation, that is a net loss to everyone but employers and UBI administrators; whether through income or VAT taxes, you end up with less.

tgb 6y ago
That's clearly dependent upon how (or who) you tax. Someone with no income will not have a net negative. And a yacht tax would fund a (miniscule) UBI that benefits everyone but the rich and yacht builders. But the main point is that you gain something nonfinancial: more options or a stability. For the record, to the extent to which I support UBI, I support my own net income decreasing to support others on it and I think any tax plan that does not involve some upper-middle class and middle class Americans paying more than they receive would be financially unviable.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Can I have some of your net income largess?
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    No seriously, if you're giving away net largess, can I have some?

Simulacra 6y ago

Employers reducing your pay by X while you receive X from UBI would be the "good outcome" because it means that you don't depend on the employer as much as before. If you are earning $2000 a month, and the company knows that you were earning $1000 a month from the government, and they cut your pay to $1000 a month, you’re still only getting $2000 a month. Your overall financial health, and way of life has not changed one bit. you have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. We have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. If a Toyota Camry cost $10,000, and all customers are getting $1000 a month free from the government, then raise the price of the Camry to $11,000. Services and goods have not decreased in price, and I contend they will increase, resulting in absolutely zero positive affect. So what if you don’t have to depend on that employer for that extra thousand dollars, you’re depending on the government now. Which is better, depending on the government, or the free market Services and goods have not decreased in price, and I contend they will increase, resulting in absolutely zero positive affect. So what if you don’t have to depend on that employer for that extra thousand dollars, you’re depending on the government now. Which is better, depending on the government, or the free market?

tgb 6y ago
I don't understand what your comment is saying, sorry. If total income stays the same, why is the price of the Camry increasing? The point of not depending on the employer is that you can quit a bad job, start a company, etc with much less risk.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  The question you should be asking is this: If total income stays the same, why would the price of the Camry NOT INCREASE? Is there any situation you can think of where there is more cash in the system and the price of goods decreases?
licebmi__at__ 6y ago
>If you are earning $2000 a month, and the company knows that you were earning $1000 a month from the government, and they cut your pay to $1000 a month, you’re still only getting $2000 a month. Your overall financial health, and way of life has not changed one bit. you have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. We have simply replaced one source of income with another. You’re still making $2000 a month, the only difference is, the corporation doesn’t have to pay you. If a Toyota Camry cost $10,000, and all customers are getting $1000 a month free from the government, then raise the price of the Camry to $11,000 I often argue that the markets do not optimize for the right outcomes, thus not so great, but even I do not think they are that stupid nor inefficient. If your standard of living has not improved (by your previous argument), why would the markets raise the price for the Toyota Camry? So they get less sales? Why would the workers agree to do the same work for less even if they are gettin extra money? An UBI will definitely shift the markets and maybe not in a good way, but that analysis seems so absurd that I consider even calling it an oversimplification to be too generous.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Because your standard of living doesn't matter. Who would get a UBI? Someone making less than 30k? 50k? If you're already making $80k a year you don't worry about price fluctuations as much. but if you're only making $22k a year, and the government decides you get an extra $600 a year, business will factor that into their pricing models. A Macbook might not go up by $600, but your rent, food, entertainment, gasoline, etc. can and probably will. This is why you can never tell a car dealer how much money you have to spend, because they are going to do everything they can to squeeze every last dime out of you. a UBI makes that WAY easier. Quick credit check, how much do you make, oh only $28k. You must be getting a UBI. Let's make sure we factor that into the price they will pay. The only way a UBI works is everyone agrees not to screw people over, and that has never, ever, happened in the history of mankind. So why will it suddenly work for a UBI?