Why universal basic income is gaining support, critics or The destruction of our Republic
It's back again...
"He figures the plan would cost about $1.75 trillion a year. Ending welfare programs would save about a third of that. Another third could come from ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs. The remaining third could come from new sources such as a tax on carbon emissions or financial transactions."
1/3 through "ending welfare programs" - will never happen but okay...
1/3 through "ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs" - So they are going to take my mortgage interest deduction away and give it to someone else.
1/3 through more taxes - robbing Peter to pay Paul again
Also, this is paper napkin figures, government will double the cost with half the production.
"He figures the plan would cost about $1.75 trillion a year. Ending welfare programs would save about a third of that. Another third could come from ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs. The remaining third could come from new sources such as a tax on carbon emissions or financial transactions."
1/3 through "ending welfare programs" - will never happen but okay...
1/3 through "ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs" - So they are going to take my mortgage interest deduction away and give it to someone else.
1/3 through more taxes - robbing Peter to pay Paul again
Also, this is paper napkin figures, government will double the cost with half the production.
The UBI discussion here is to use that to pay for a handout… I understand that I would be getting “some” of this back. My problem is that it’s not the governments money to give to me in the first place, it’s my own money. They take it with a tax and then “decide” if you should get more than/the same as/less then you paid in based on a merit that isn’t a merit I consider a virtue. The beginning of serfdom…
You’ll find that the government can collect more in tax revenue by reducing the tax rates and increasing the “velocity” of the money. Each time the dollar changes hands, the government gets a piece of it.
See the Laffer curve - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_...
This never made sense to me except in cases where taxes are nearly 100% or there's a "cliff" where a change in earnings affects taxes on all income.
Let's say the Fed gov't taxes 30% of GDP now, and we reduce it to 25%. GDP would have to increase 20% to cause revenue to stay constant. GDP growth will stay in the 3% range. Maybe by lowering taxes, leaving business alone, and providing a safe place to do business, the gov't can make growth 5% or more. After years of compounding, that's huge. So eventually gov't spending, and spending on everything, could be way higher. But it's a dream that you can somehow cut taxes and not increase borrowing or decrease gov't spending. Gov't spending must decrease.
He said they should be if interest income is taxed.
Wait -- change that LOL to chuckle. Wait -- change that chuckle to a grim smile. Wait -- change that.....Oh, hell just forget it. It's just too stupid to contemplate.
You are a day late and a dollar short; the republic has been destroyed.
Just keep in mind that we are seeing, experiencing the ALTRUISTIC movement taking over the country. and it has been in the works for over 100 years.
As for the government doubling the costs at half the production, even that is wildly over-optimistic! Just another "pipe dream" for the terminally stupid and/or naive!
then I guess all those sub-humans would have to go on UBI also.
If you've ever read "The Gulag Archipelago" you'll recall that was Stalin's plan. It didn't work out well for millions of unemployed.
This would be called "for the universal better good."
Me age 70 but I think I've ample time to see something like that.
After all, I started to see the flag being burned back during the 60s.
I agree with your analysis about the thirds. I would support replacing Welfare programs with some sort of direct payments if it meant the same money going to the needy but with less administrative overhead and no new spending.
The other two thirds are, as you say, veiled tax increases. I actually agree with things like mortgage interest not being a deduction. I would rather them lower the rate and eliminate deductions meant to subsidize certain spending, e.g. spending on mortgage interest. I agree with a tax on carbon emissions because the evidence shows those emissions will cost other people money in the future. They can do that in a revenue neutral way, reducing taxes on money made through work and investing, which unlike burning stuff do not threaten the environment.
I am concerned, though, that something like this will be passed. People will show some numbers about how many hours you have to work to pay for a basket of groceries 50 years ago and now. They'll show you many baskets of groceries worth of wealth you'd need to have to earn enough feed a family 50 years ago and now. It will make socialism look more appealing. 50 years is a blip of time, but it feels long compared to our lifetimes.
I can see a Trump-like figure and a Sanders-like figure joining forces in support of this. Hopefully I'm just in a cynical mood.
When you say a "huge application process to determine need," I think of the socialist system at the motor plan in AS. It gives a good description of to whom people would submit their application.
The only way forward is to retrain people for the maintenance, design, coding and manufacturing of the automation. Right now, I’m speaking about the digital menus used to replace the waiter, the machine in Mc Donald’s that replaces the french-fry cook or the automated car that replaces the taxi driver. This the first wave of automation already beginning. The second wave occurs when these businesses reap massive rewards for being the first and everyone else plays catchup. Before here is when the next Microsoft, IBM or Apple is born for automation by publishing API, OS and hardware for automation.
Here, where automation takes hold is where I see a massive disruption in the economy while everything readjusts. It has to, without UBI. This bullshit about machines building machines with the artificial intelligence to rival humans is way, way off…
Once this threshold is reached, then it will capable of replacing the jobs done by 95% of humanity.
Up til now automation has replaced repetitive, well-defined tasks. When it can replace ill-defined ones then what?
No need for general purpose machines as that is a complex endeavor with little profit on the return building the AI and mechanics. A dumb machine is quicker and cheaper.
If you can build one device that sells into all those markets, even it is a bit more expensive it will be preferable to designing, building and supporting separate product lines. Plus you will be much more agile in meeting emerging needs.
Once it becomes practical, it will be inevitable.
The key application is home assistance. With nursing homes exceeding 75K a year and an aging population there is an amazing need and budget for a general purpose home assistant. And if it can do that job, it can do pretty much anything.
Demographics says we're in trouble if we don't do this!
I agree the technology will disrupt nursing homes and assisted living.
Also, when my kids grouse about doing housework, I tell them one day the task will be done by a robot and doing it yourself will seem as primitive like having to out in the cold to use the outhouse.
I don't know exactly, but it will be as big a chance as the industrial revolution eliminated most jobs. I think it will increase production by the same amount, creating a world of plenty unrecognizable to people from before the revolution.
Are you saying that you would prefer to subsidize guaranteed jobs over guaranteed income? If so, nether would work. If the job is guaranteed, the employee would not have a motive to keep the job. It would be glorified adult-daycare. The bureaucracy of this program would cost more than simply just handing the people our money.
Or are you saying you would prefer to receive a guaranteed job over guaranteed income? If this is your true intent, I truly feel sorry for you and wish you all the best. You’re not in control of your own status and future status but look to other to provide for you. Very said, I hope for you that this isn’t what you intended?
By the way, “Huh” isn’t a word…
Unless the government will 'guarantee jobs' by outlawing automation.
Your comment makes sense, but it also accepts craigerb's premise that jobs are something that can be rationed. Jobs are just people serving one another for money. To get things done, we need to serve one another, either willingly in mutually-agreed trade or under the whip or some other sort of coercion.
Suppose a kid sees I'm letting my grass grow long and offers to mow it. I might use that time to find more clients of my own or to get rest/energy hanging out with my family or just goofing off on a website like now. That might cause me to hire more people, ship more overnight packages, send more bins of electronic junk to my neighbor who sells them on e-bay and keeps half the money. All these people are serving one another. It doesn't make sense to share these precious jobs. There are as many jobs as people can find ways to serve one another.
"The only way forward is to retrain people for the maintenance, design, coding and manufacturing of the automation"
I agree completely, but when we put it like that it is sounds kind of dour. It actually means we have amazing new tools that don't require huge upfront investment to use. It's actually staggering to think of all the prosperity people will create with those tools.
"The people promoting UBI are not your friend"
Yes. No kidding. The only part I said I agreed to is to the extent it replaces programs run by bureaucrats with a simpler program that just hands people cash. I am skeptical of that, though, because it could grow and become a third rail entitlement, and there's no guarantee more gov't spending wouldn't come back.
My point is all that stuff you said is very good fodder for sophistry showing that times are so unusual that socialism is the answer. That's why I said when I'm feeling cynical I imagine a Trump supporters and Sanders supporters joining forces under the banner of that sophistry.