5 ms·

The system breaks down when people get to democratically vote for their own UBI. Why work extra for a cool car or nice vacation when you can just vote for more

The system breaks down when people get to democratically vote for their own UBI. Why work extra for a cool car or nice vacation when you can just vote for more benefits?

Dylan16807 2y ago
People could already vote for free cars to citizens, but they don't because the economics are terrible. I don't see UBI making that risk worse.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  UBI is the risk in question, and the economics ARE terrible. The average US income is ~$37K and that includes workers. How does that stack up with expectations for UBI, given that it would take 100% socialization of income to reach that level of UBI.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > it would take 100% socialization of income to reach that level of UBI I want to see you attempt to do the math to show that. Here's my rough math: Mean income is about $60k. If we take the extra simple option, we can increase all tax brackets by 20% and give everyone a $12k credit, and it trivially balances. The median income increases, the low end of income drastically increases, and higher incomes drop. Such an outcome is very far from total socialization. The effective tax rate of anyone below $60k income drops, and the max marginal rate is a not-crazy 57%. But also we can make the tax increase progressive as well. And we can include capital gains as income and lower the percents. And we can cut a good chunk of existing welfare which decreases the tax burden. This isn't a suggestion for an optimal method, it's a basic sanity check.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and entertainment. My newspapers are full of stories on how 100k/yr isn't a living wage in California
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > 60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. It's close enough, that's for 240 million people. If I use Gross National Income I get a much higher number. I'm not worried about children right this second. > You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. Another 20%, minus 12 thousand dollars. That makes a big difference. The median worker would pay significantly less than before. And I already said progressive would be better. But a flat tax like that is very simple and would not be the end of the world. > My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. Are you taking the minus 12k into account? If so it sounds like you're making a lot more than the people you just described that can't find reasonable housing. You'll be fine. > 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and entertainment. My newspapers are full of stories on how 100k/yr isn't a living wage in California The nice thing about having a guaranteed income is that you actually can move without massive risk. Or you can adjust it based on location, idk, I'm going with the simple version first. If it only helps most people then that's enough to show the idea has merit. Nitpicking won't work!
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        do you know that Gross National Income has nothing to do with average individual income? If you are taking that as your baseline, you have already nationalized every industry and productive asset in the country.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Income taxes wouldn't need to-- nevermind. Okay. Please stop nitpicking and either defend your claim about "100% socialization of income" or admit you were wrong. Sorry for saying irrelevant words, I will try to minimize them. A flat tax increase of 20% of income minus 12k would be far from ideal, but anyone making less than 60k would have less taxes, anyone making 60k-120k would have a 0-10% of income increase, and super high cost of living places could use different numbers. The exact details don't matter because I only made that scenario to prove your claim wrong. Because it's wrong.
- literallycancer 2y ago
  They do vote for free roads instead of rail infrastructure even though the economics are worse. Especially for cargo traffic.

The system breaks down when people get to democratically vote for their own UBI. Why work extra for a cool car or nice vacation when you can just vote for more benefits?

Dylan16807 2y ago

People could already vote for free cars to citizens, but they don't because the economics are terrible. I don't see UBI making that risk worse.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
UBI is the risk in question, and the economics ARE terrible. The average US income is ~$37K and that includes workers. How does that stack up with expectations for UBI, given that it would take 100% socialization of income to reach that level of UBI.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > it would take 100% socialization of income to reach that level of UBI I want to see you attempt to do the math to show that. Here's my rough math: Mean income is about $60k. If we take the extra simple option, we can increase all tax brackets by 20% and give everyone a $12k credit, and it trivially balances. The median income increases, the low end of income drastically increases, and higher incomes drop. Such an outcome is very far from total socialization. The effective tax rate of anyone below $60k income drops, and the max marginal rate is a not-crazy 57%. But also we can make the tax increase progressive as well. And we can include capital gains as income and lower the percents. And we can cut a good chunk of existing welfare which decreases the tax burden. This isn't a suggestion for an optimal method, it's a basic sanity check.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and entertainment. My newspapers are full of stories on how 100k/yr isn't a living wage in California
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > 60k is the average working income, not average adult income or human income. It's close enough, that's for 240 million people. If I use Gross National Income I get a much higher number. I'm not worried about children right this second. > You are also casually applying a 20% hike, which for many people is their entire budget after taxes and housing. Another 20%, minus 12 thousand dollars. That makes a big difference. The median worker would pay significantly less than before. And I already said progressive would be better. But a flat tax like that is very simple and would not be the end of the world. > My effective rate is already >40%, and you are proposing another 20%. That would mean others are getting more of my salary than I am. Are you taking the minus 12k into account? If so it sounds like you're making a lot more than the people you just described that can't find reasonable housing. You'll be fine. > 12k seems an absurdity low number to provide universal shelter, Healthcare, food, security, and entertainment. My newspapers are full of stories on how 100k/yr isn't a living wage in California The nice thing about having a guaranteed income is that you actually can move without massive risk. Or you can adjust it based on location, idk, I'm going with the simple version first. If it only helps most people then that's enough to show the idea has merit. Nitpicking won't work!
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        do you know that Gross National Income has nothing to do with average individual income? If you are taking that as your baseline, you have already nationalized every industry and productive asset in the country.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Income taxes wouldn't need to-- nevermind. Okay. Please stop nitpicking and either defend your claim about "100% socialization of income" or admit you were wrong. Sorry for saying irrelevant words, I will try to minimize them. A flat tax increase of 20% of income minus 12k would be far from ideal, but anyone making less than 60k would have less taxes, anyone making 60k-120k would have a 0-10% of income increase, and super high cost of living places could use different numbers. The exact details don't matter because I only made that scenario to prove your claim wrong. Because it's wrong.
literallycancer 2y ago
They do vote for free roads instead of rail infrastructure even though the economics are worse. Especially for cargo traffic.