4 ms·

Last time I asked this question here, I got downvoted without any answers. So here is my second try, this time specifically for Germany: Show me the calculatio

Last time I asked this question here, I got downvoted without any answers. So here is my second try, this time specifically for Germany: Show me the calculation of where the government will get the money for paying their entire adult population this amount. And let's assume everyone will keep working at their current job. (Which they won't since at a "Basic Income" pricepoint, lots of people would prefer spending more time with their family and so would opt-in working part-time etc). So yeah, were is that realistic calculation of how to pay for full country UBI?

dane-pgp 6y ago
Here's a proposal for how it could be gradually implemented in the UK by simplifying the tax code: https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi-conclusion/ https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi-conclusion/ It seems to roughly involve the top 22% of earners having a tax bill that is up to 10% bigger than currently, while everyone in the bottom 78% of earners is unaffected or a net beneficiary.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  Let me get this straight, the starting point is taxed like this, assuming the average wage in UK which seems to be 35k for a full-time job (https://www.findcourses.co.uk/inspiration/articles/average-salary-uk-2018-14105#:~:text=Their%20yearly%20survey%20showed%20that,for%20those%20in%20part%2Dtime. https://www.findcourses.co.uk/inspiration/articles/average-s...) 35k makes net 12k (not taxed) + 18.4k (at 20% tax rate) = 30.4k net In the conclusion, everyone gets a "UBI" of 666 per month, which basically doesn't even cover rent (https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-rent-by-region-uk/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-r...). If they would follow this German test, it would need to rise to 1100 pounds per month. So in this scenario, that average full-time employee pays 48% flat tax on income: 35k taxed at 48% = 18.2k net, plus the 8k UBI leaves this average full-time employee at 26.2k. That is 4.2K less than before. Looking at that graph at the end, I think there is some "creative graph-plotting" going on, unless I'm seriously mistaken in my calculation. So how can this be the ideal calculation? The graph and conclusion seems to be in complete error. And even then, 8k per year barely seems like a 'basic income'.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > In the conclusion, everyone gets a "UBI" of 666 per month, which basically doesn't even cover rent There are plenty of places in the UK where the average rent is below £500 pcm, or even £400: https://nolettinggo.co.uk/blog/10-cheapest-places-to-rent-in-uk/ https://nolettinggo.co.uk/blog/10-cheapest-places-to-rent-in... It's not a requirement of a UBI that every citizen should be able to live wherever they want, but it is an assumption that most citizens would have some income other than the UBI, or already own their own home, so it's not like everyone in the country would flock to places with the cheapest rent. > Looking at that graph at the end, I think there is some "creative graph-plotting" going on, unless I'm seriously mistaken in my calculation. Your calculations make sense to me, and I think it is reasonable to be distrusting of an economic analysis that doesn't provide the raw data for its most crucial graph (even as a link to a CSV file). The data in the article it links to is more complete, but approaching things from a different angle: https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi---the-realist/ https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi---the-realis...
  - ksrm 6y ago
    £35k is about £27.4k after tax. You have forgotten about national insurance.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      Well spotted. I actually asked the article's author to address the concerns above, and they responded here: https://atlaspragmatica.com/a-united-federal-britain/#comment-71 https://atlaspragmatica.com/a-united-federal-britain/#commen... Like you, they calculated the current take-home pay of this hypothetical person as £27,442 and, under the proposed UBI system, a take-home pay of £26,550. That's a one-off decrease of £892 which is about 2.5% of their gross salary. For an imperfect comparison, Figure 5 here: https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/lessons-decade-failed-austerity?page=2 https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/lessons-dec... shows a similar real terms wage decrease in 2011, supposedly due to the political choice of austerity. As another comparison, the Department for Work and Pensions estimated that 3.5% of their 2010-2011 budget was spent on administration: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_percentage_of_the_dwps_budg#incoming-288818 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_percentage_of_th... Obviously replacing most benefits with a UBI won't remove all government administration costs, but it could lead to multiple society-improving outcomes (like improved health) which could reduce the over all tax level.
balfirevic 6y ago
> Show me the calculation of where the government will get the money for paying their entire adult population this amount. The plan is obviously not that everyone gets UBI-amount more money per month than they do now.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  You are talking about the net result. But in the end, the government is going to pay everyone this amount. So let's say government taxes income at a higher percentage, so that the middle class basically gets the same net amount. How high will you need to tax those middle class jobs?
  - balfirevic 6y ago
    If the middle class basically gets the same net amount, they would need to have their taxes increased by the same amount as UBI. That just follows from the premise of your question. What is that in terms of tax rate? I don't know, Dane-pgp seems to have already answered with a concrete proposal.
    - koonsolo 6y ago
      > That just follows from the premise of your question. That is a bit too simplistic of a calculation, since a tax rate also affects lower and upper class. You might as well end up with way less tax income by applying that simple rule. And that complete proposal is very weak: only 666 pounds per month UBI, which doesn't even cover rent, and the average full-time employee loses 4.2K per year. If that is the best, ideal calculatio you can come up with, it is very weak, no?

dane-pgp 6y ago

Here's a proposal for how it could be gradually implemented in the UK by simplifying the tax code: https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi-conclusion/ https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi-conclusion/ It seems to roughly involve the top 22% of earners having a tax bill that is up to 10% bigger than currently, while everyone in the bottom 78% of earners is unaffected or a net beneficiary.

koonsolo 6y ago
Let me get this straight, the starting point is taxed like this, assuming the average wage in UK which seems to be 35k for a full-time job (https://www.findcourses.co.uk/inspiration/articles/average-salary-uk-2018-14105#:~:text=Their%20yearly%20survey%20showed%20that,for%20those%20in%20part%2Dtime. https://www.findcourses.co.uk/inspiration/articles/average-s...) 35k makes net 12k (not taxed) + 18.4k (at 20% tax rate) = 30.4k net In the conclusion, everyone gets a "UBI" of 666 per month, which basically doesn't even cover rent (https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-rent-by-region-uk/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-r...). If they would follow this German test, it would need to rise to 1100 pounds per month. So in this scenario, that average full-time employee pays 48% flat tax on income: 35k taxed at 48% = 18.2k net, plus the 8k UBI leaves this average full-time employee at 26.2k. That is 4.2K less than before. Looking at that graph at the end, I think there is some "creative graph-plotting" going on, unless I'm seriously mistaken in my calculation. So how can this be the ideal calculation? The graph and conclusion seems to be in complete error. And even then, 8k per year barely seems like a 'basic income'.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > In the conclusion, everyone gets a "UBI" of 666 per month, which basically doesn't even cover rent There are plenty of places in the UK where the average rent is below £500 pcm, or even £400: https://nolettinggo.co.uk/blog/10-cheapest-places-to-rent-in-uk/ https://nolettinggo.co.uk/blog/10-cheapest-places-to-rent-in... It's not a requirement of a UBI that every citizen should be able to live wherever they want, but it is an assumption that most citizens would have some income other than the UBI, or already own their own home, so it's not like everyone in the country would flock to places with the cheapest rent. > Looking at that graph at the end, I think there is some "creative graph-plotting" going on, unless I'm seriously mistaken in my calculation. Your calculations make sense to me, and I think it is reasonable to be distrusting of an economic analysis that doesn't provide the raw data for its most crucial graph (even as a link to a CSV file). The data in the article it links to is more complete, but approaching things from a different angle: https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi---the-realist/ https://atlaspragmatica.com/arguments-for-a-ubi---the-realis...
- ksrm 6y ago
  £35k is about £27.4k after tax. You have forgotten about national insurance.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Well spotted. I actually asked the article's author to address the concerns above, and they responded here: https://atlaspragmatica.com/a-united-federal-britain/#comment-71 https://atlaspragmatica.com/a-united-federal-britain/#commen... Like you, they calculated the current take-home pay of this hypothetical person as £27,442 and, under the proposed UBI system, a take-home pay of £26,550. That's a one-off decrease of £892 which is about 2.5% of their gross salary. For an imperfect comparison, Figure 5 here: https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/lessons-decade-failed-austerity?page=2 https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/lessons-dec... shows a similar real terms wage decrease in 2011, supposedly due to the political choice of austerity. As another comparison, the Department for Work and Pensions estimated that 3.5% of their 2010-2011 budget was spent on administration: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_percentage_of_the_dwps_budg#incoming-288818 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_percentage_of_th... Obviously replacing most benefits with a UBI won't remove all government administration costs, but it could lead to multiple society-improving outcomes (like improved health) which could reduce the over all tax level.

balfirevic 6y ago

> Show me the calculation of where the government will get the money for paying their entire adult population this amount. The plan is obviously not that everyone gets UBI-amount more money per month than they do now.

koonsolo 6y ago
You are talking about the net result. But in the end, the government is going to pay everyone this amount. So let's say government taxes income at a higher percentage, so that the middle class basically gets the same net amount. How high will you need to tax those middle class jobs?
- balfirevic 6y ago
  If the middle class basically gets the same net amount, they would need to have their taxes increased by the same amount as UBI. That just follows from the premise of your question. What is that in terms of tax rate? I don't know, Dane-pgp seems to have already answered with a concrete proposal.
  - koonsolo 6y ago
    > That just follows from the premise of your question. That is a bit too simplistic of a calculation, since a tax rate also affects lower and upper class. You might as well end up with way less tax income by applying that simple rule. And that complete proposal is very weak: only 666 pounds per month UBI, which doesn't even cover rent, and the average full-time employee loses 4.2K per year. If that is the best, ideal calculatio you can come up with, it is very weak, no?