3 ms·

> Who gets to choose which artists and athletes are funded? Preferably via UBI which would prevent cheating and inconsistencies and minimise the bureaucracy ar

by Y-bar 2y ago

> Who gets to choose which artists and athletes are funded? Preferably via UBI which would prevent cheating and inconsistencies and minimise the bureaucracy around it. > When do we start funding them? Smarter people than me have already answered this, but generally at 18 years of age or after graduation seems to be a common answer. > I have a 6yo son who is really good at doing various crafts and he really enjoys it, does he count as an artist? As far as I am concerned yes, he should be provided with UBI once he reaches a mature age (see earlier answer as well). > How do we define art? Are we counting the preforming arts? Does someone playing the guitar in the subway count? What about my garage band that I have with my friends? That's what's so great about UBI, no need for subjective/objective debates. Everyone gets it, nobody gets to gate-keep, no expensive investigations into what is art and so on. All these people are eligible for UBI. > On the flip side, are we also going to ensure Taylor Swift has a livable wage for life? Tom Brady? That's where the _Universal_ part of _Universal Basic Income_ makes itself reminded.

chii 2y ago
And how is such a UBI funded, pray tell? Will you agree to a 90% tax rate for your regular job, so that UBI could be had?
- Y-bar 2y ago
  What you do not consider is that all serious UBI initiatives will see UBI as a _replacement_ to multiple other already existing welfare programs such as housing stipends, childcare benefits, maternity leave benefits, illness benefits, food stamps, veteran care... Not only will those be removed if UBI is implemented, the bureaucracy around those benefits will be eliminated or significantly reduced which means that more of the money paid in taxes will be distributed to people. As far as my own tax burden, I pay a marginal tax rate of about 33% and would have no issue increasing that. I also think I pay too little in property taxes for my house. I am also getting a tax write-off to my loan which means I can take on a higher loan that I maybe should have (this write-off is bad on a macro scale because of the increased risk), I think that write-off should be phased out. There are also other taxes to adjust such as Tobacco taxes, VAT:s (we have four tiers today: 0, 6, 12, and 25 percent VAT depending on the type of good), Wealth taxes, Carbon taxes, and Financial taxes such as those on dividends and transactions.
nradov 2y ago
No actual smart people think that UBI is an effective answer to anything. The math simply doesn't work. Those claiming that UBI is the answer are either innumerate or are making ideological claims at odds with objective reality.
- khafra 2y ago
  UBI would have an expense comparable to the entire current welfare state, which is a large part of the federal budget even in America--much larger than defense spending, for example. However, GDP keeps going up, and many people would argue that "real" labor force participation keeps going down (e.g., bullshit service sector jobs, which mostly provide value to customers who want to feel superior to someone). At some point, UBI is going to be affordable; especially if it replaces most of the current welfare state. Is there any other part of the math that simply doesn't work?
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    You can't replace most of the current welfare state since you are ultimately going to have to provide food, medical and housing payments directly because people will blow all their UBI and not have those things. Unless you are willing to let people starve to death since they wasted their money you will end up with both systems.
    - khafra 2y ago
      Ok, you're guessing that current welfare recipients are uniformly imprudent and lack all virtue, rather than having some sizeable minority who are simply temporarily down on their luck. Let's grant your assumption, for the sake of this argument. The biggest parts of the federal welfare budget by far are social security and medicare/medicaid. SS is simply a QBI, a UBI which is for qualified recipient instead of universal. So that's $1.4T saved, right there. Medicare/Medicaid together are another $1.4T, and replacing them isn't automatic--a UBI high enough to cover contemporary American medical costs would be huge. I must note, though, that these exorbitant medical costs are being collectively paid by Americans anyway; if we switched to literally any other system--from Robin Hanson's "buy life insurance and medical care from the same company" to EU-style public/private insurance--we'd save enough for UBI from that alone. The rest of welfare is comparitively penny-ante stuff--food stamps are only $120B, section 8 housing is $70B, etc. Even if we still had to provide Guaranteed Basic Food and Guaranteed Basic Housing in addition to UBI, it could still end up cheaper than our current system. And even if it didn't, I stand by my observation that the GDP keeps going up. If we genuinely can't afford a UBI at a GDP of 27T, what about at 30T? That increase covers the entirety of the current spending on both social security and medical aid. If not at 30T, what about at 40T or 50T?
josephcsible 2y ago
UBI sounds good on paper, and I was in favor of replacing the rest of our safety nets with it until 2019. The problem is, after trying it, as happened in lots of different places during the COVID lockdowns, way too many people will decide to live off of it alone while doing absolutely nothing useful.

by Y-bar 2y ago

chii 2y ago

And how is such a UBI funded, pray tell? Will you agree to a 90% tax rate for your regular job, so that UBI could be had?

Y-bar 2y ago
What you do not consider is that all serious UBI initiatives will see UBI as a _replacement_ to multiple other already existing welfare programs such as housing stipends, childcare benefits, maternity leave benefits, illness benefits, food stamps, veteran care... Not only will those be removed if UBI is implemented, the bureaucracy around those benefits will be eliminated or significantly reduced which means that more of the money paid in taxes will be distributed to people. As far as my own tax burden, I pay a marginal tax rate of about 33% and would have no issue increasing that. I also think I pay too little in property taxes for my house. I am also getting a tax write-off to my loan which means I can take on a higher loan that I maybe should have (this write-off is bad on a macro scale because of the increased risk), I think that write-off should be phased out. There are also other taxes to adjust such as Tobacco taxes, VAT:s (we have four tiers today: 0, 6, 12, and 25 percent VAT depending on the type of good), Wealth taxes, Carbon taxes, and Financial taxes such as those on dividends and transactions.

nradov 2y ago

No actual smart people think that UBI is an effective answer to anything. The math simply doesn't work. Those claiming that UBI is the answer are either innumerate or are making ideological claims at odds with objective reality.

khafra 2y ago
UBI would have an expense comparable to the entire current welfare state, which is a large part of the federal budget even in America--much larger than defense spending, for example. However, GDP keeps going up, and many people would argue that "real" labor force participation keeps going down (e.g., bullshit service sector jobs, which mostly provide value to customers who want to feel superior to someone). At some point, UBI is going to be affordable; especially if it replaces most of the current welfare state. Is there any other part of the math that simply doesn't work?
- ImJamal 2y ago
  You can't replace most of the current welfare state since you are ultimately going to have to provide food, medical and housing payments directly because people will blow all their UBI and not have those things. Unless you are willing to let people starve to death since they wasted their money you will end up with both systems.
  - khafra 2y ago
    Ok, you're guessing that current welfare recipients are uniformly imprudent and lack all virtue, rather than having some sizeable minority who are simply temporarily down on their luck. Let's grant your assumption, for the sake of this argument. The biggest parts of the federal welfare budget by far are social security and medicare/medicaid. SS is simply a QBI, a UBI which is for qualified recipient instead of universal. So that's $1.4T saved, right there. Medicare/Medicaid together are another $1.4T, and replacing them isn't automatic--a UBI high enough to cover contemporary American medical costs would be huge. I must note, though, that these exorbitant medical costs are being collectively paid by Americans anyway; if we switched to literally any other system--from Robin Hanson's "buy life insurance and medical care from the same company" to EU-style public/private insurance--we'd save enough for UBI from that alone. The rest of welfare is comparitively penny-ante stuff--food stamps are only $120B, section 8 housing is $70B, etc. Even if we still had to provide Guaranteed Basic Food and Guaranteed Basic Housing in addition to UBI, it could still end up cheaper than our current system. And even if it didn't, I stand by my observation that the GDP keeps going up. If we genuinely can't afford a UBI at a GDP of 27T, what about at 30T? That increase covers the entirety of the current spending on both social security and medical aid. If not at 30T, what about at 40T or 50T?

josephcsible 2y ago

UBI sounds good on paper, and I was in favor of replacing the rest of our safety nets with it until 2019. The problem is, after trying it, as happened in lots of different places during the COVID lockdowns, way too many people will decide to live off of it alone while doing absolutely nothing useful.