|
My Lil Parachute posted:I honestly don't see why it is morally right to literally pay people to do nothing. At least tie it to trivially easy volunteer work like a few hours a week helping in nursing homes or something. It's not that. It's making zero-poverty default. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Nov 5, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Isn't that another way of saying "I will force other people will grow food for me, build the house I live in, and supply me with entertainment, even though I contribute nothing to them"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Isn't that another way of saying "I will force other people will grow food for me, build the house I live in, and supply me with entertainment, even though I contribute nothing to them"? Isn't playing games on steam for 20+ hours a week a basic human right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
on the left posted:Isn't playing games on steam for 20+ hours a week a basic human right? Steam isn't, but having food, shelter and medical care is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Isn't that another way of saying "I will force other people will grow food for me, build the house I live in, and supply me with entertainment, even though I contribute nothing to them"? Not remotely. Do you say these things about highways? Or Medicaid? It's public policy. Do you say these things about fire departments and food stamps? Because if not, then this is simply more of what you already accept, which is government using tax revenue to maintain and improve society. Besides, GMI test cases suggest minimal reductions in employment. Off the top of my head, the one in Dauphin, Manitoba found that only new mothers and students worked less. Edit: Seriously, think of everything poverty does to society. Think of what it does to people and what it does to the economy. How can preserving that be moral? Accretionist fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Not remotely. Do you say these things about highways? Or Medicaid? It's public policy. Do you say these things about fire departments and food stamps? Because if not, then this is simply more of what you already accept, which is government using tax revenue to maintain and improve society. Even if your a sociopath, there is also an argument for efficiency and public order, more income in lower income brackets means more consumption, and more demand. Higher incomes also create a more stable social environment. Even if someone doesn't care about morality, they should care about making things simply better unless they are a hardcore ideologue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I honestly don't see why it is morally right to literally pay people to do nothing. At least tie it to trivially easy volunteer work like a few hours a week helping in nursing homes or something. Why did you even bother pretending you were concerned about whether it would work if your problem with it was really about "morality" all along
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Even if your a sociopath, there is also an argument for efficiency and public order, more income in lower income brackets means more consumption, and more demand.  business doesn't care about demand for its own sake, it cares about profit. If you take  from my wallet then use it to buy some stuff from my store, I don't come out ahead. It's only a win for small business and businesses large enough to employ clever accountants.quote:Higher incomes also create a more stable social environment. Agreed, but couldn't we make it better still by tying in a handful of hours of community service a week (for those not in full-time work) to be eligible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:
Seems like a solid win, then, given that the highest net worth portion of the American economy both personally and corporately are sitting on huge cash reserves that should be circulating. What you describe is a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:
Overall productivity is more important than the overall accounting of individual corporation though, especially since this money is going to be be flowing through a lot of hands besides theirs. They may not come out on the winning in the end, but likely much of the population will and even if they technically take a loss accounting for higher taxes it is going to be pretty minimized. One way to look at it is the overall economy is not running as efficiently as it could, and it while some balancing needs to happen to raise that efficiency, it will overall be more productive. Basically, what is good for a business is not necessarily good for the overall economy/society even in a utilitarian sense. Also, based on past studies, it probably wouldn't actually cost as much money as you would think. While you could hand out a GMI automatically, you could also just make it means tested and available once you meet a thresh-hold ie rather than giving 200 million (ish) adults a 13k check, if someone makes 8,000 a year then will get a check for 5,000 from the government. You could also incentive work or community service by saying the absolute minimum is 13 year k but for every 1 of wages your "cap" goes up .25-.50 cents. If you make 8,000 your GMI cap could be 17k or 15k instead of 13k for example (I mean you could play around with numbers until the end of time). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 11:04 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
This is not the 19th century where you could just move out west, claim some land that no one was using, build a log cabin, and live your life as a pioneer. Some people seem to refuse to admit that the very basic structure of human society has been fundamentally changed by increased automation and population growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
nah im pretty sure our economy can just keep growing forever
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:nah im pretty sure our economy can just keep growing forever A GMI would certainly smooth out recessions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:A GMI would certainly smooth out recessions. no no no i read an article about this i think it was by mr forbes? anyway recessions are over
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:you could also just make it means tested and available once you meet a thresh-hold ie rather than giving 200 million (ish) adults a 13k check, if someone makes 8,000 a year then will get a check for 5,000 from the government. Isn't this effectively a 100% marginal tax rate on income below 13k?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Isn't this effectively a 100% marginal tax rate on income below 13k? They wouldn't likely be taxed much if anything, 5k would be in addition to their existing income. Also, as I said, you could raise cap of the GMI to include a portion of their working income. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
My job pays 8k, due to GMI I end up with 13k. I work harder to find a job paying 13k, due to GMI I end up with the same amount. Why would anyone work any job that pays less than 13k under this scheme?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Isn't that another way of saying "I will force other people will grow food for me, build the house I live in, and supply me with entertainment, even though I contribute nothing to them"? Why is it moral for some people to be born owning the land, resources, and factories, and others to be born as trespassers in a world already owned by a few with no choice but to sell their labor to those few on their terms? We don't live in a state of nature anymore where you can just carve your living out of the wilderness. Someone owns all the land, deer, and fruit trees now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:My job pays 8k, due to GMI I end up with 13k. I work harder to find a job paying 13k, due to GMI I end up with the same amount. Oh you don't get basic math. Well I don't know what to tell you, maybe we should have forced someone to build a school and pay for an education for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:My job pays 8k, due to GMI I end up with 13k. I work harder to find a job paying 13k, due to GMI I end up with the same amount. Ardennes posted:You could also incentive work or community service by saying the absolute minimum is 13 year k but for every 1 of wages your "cap" goes up .25-.50 cents. If you make 8,000 your GMI cap could be 17k or 15k instead of 13k for example (I mean you could play around with numbers until the end of time). Ardennes posted:Also, as I said, you could raise cap of the GMI to include a portion of their working income. Man, I don't know what the solution could be. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Sounds like you guys want something akin to a negative income tax, which I find more sensible than handing a GMI out to working people, only to take that away again and then some with taxes. However, we have to make sure it's recalculated month-to-month rather than yearly, in case someone's job situation changes over the year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well, you could always change the relations of production. As far as financial policy aimed at addressing financial inequality, it's the best. Separate is whether solving financial inequality gets you everything you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:If you're interested, I just found a poo poo ton of material at Cognitive Policy Works.  Wow look at all the policy successes this guy has achieved with his use of language, truly he is the Lefty Luntz. Oh there weren't any successes? Oh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Sounds like you guys want something akin to a negative income tax, which I find more sensible than handing a GMI out to working people, only to take that away again and then some with taxes. However, we have to make sure it's recalculated month-to-month rather than yearly, in case someone's job situation changes over the year. Ultimately the issue is you need not only to re-calculate it but a person is going to need a next once a month at least, waiting around for a yearly tax credit isn't going to work. Personally, I think a tax return focused system is also flawed simply because someone can fall through the cracks by not returning in a return, when the goal of the system should be absolute universal income that is paid at constant intervals. Ultimately, people who make under 10-11k a year probably don't even need to turn in a return (even if they should) and it doesn't make sense to tax the GMI itself either. I think it makes more sense you just establish a different payment system for the GMI and if someone has other income then it can go through the IRS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:My job pays 8k, due to GMI I end up with 13k. I work harder to find a job paying 13k, due to GMI I end up with the same amount. A full time job at the present minimum wage pays $15080 a year. gently caress off with your blatant concern trolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
UBI: Let's say that you get 12k a year from UBI. If your salary is 0, your get: 0 (salary) - 0 (taxes) + 12k (UBI) = 12k If your income is higher: 5k (salary) - 2k (taxes) + 12k (UBI) = 15k 10k (salary) - 4k (taxes) + 12k (UBI) = 18k 20k (salary) - 9k (taxes) + 12k (UBI) = 23k No matter how high your salary is, you'll never get penalized. There won't be a situation where you get a higher total income by having a smaller salary. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I honestly don't see why it is morally right to literally pay people to do nothing. At least tie it to trivially easy volunteer work like a few hours a week helping in nursing homes or something. Jail is functionally paying a a lot of money so that somebody does just about nothing. Especially in max/supermax security prisons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Jail is functionally paying a a lot of money so that somebody does just about nothing. Especially in max/supermax security prisons. But I get to know that they suffer so there's a positive contribution to society that far outweighs the societal problems of poverty and ill health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Which is why, if automation destroys close to as many jobs as it is predicted to, the best you'll get is indentured servitude for subsistence wages. My job sucks so they should have to suffer to survive, it is only moral. Student loan forgiveness or proposals for cheap HE hits the same wall. Whatever the benefits, some people who don't want others to suffer less than them will ardently oppose it. Eliminationism is more likely to be the solution to truly mass unemployment than Mincome anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:If you take What feeds your business would be untaxed, and you'd have more than one customer while paying only the one tax (and don't forget the others effects like your community having less crime, less hunger, less mental illness, etc). I'll point this out real quick, the terminology here isn't nailed down. Usually it's something like: Universal Basic Income (UBI) - Everyone gets a check Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) - Means-tested Basic Income; Everyone gets their income topped off. So with that in mind, I did some back-of-the-napkin calculations for a UBI. Total Personal Income (TPI) (2012): $13,401,868,693,000 US Pop. (2012): 312,780,968 [Source: Google] If the program simply paid out revenue, then every 1% of TPI paid out $428.47 in 2012. So... code:(Top marginal income tax rate, historical:  [i]Year, # of Brackets, First Rate, Highest Rate) I'll pitch for a progressive income tax here, too, with some utilitarian logic about the progressive income tax scale: Marginal Utility (MU) and Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) are important concepts here. MU is the idea that as income increases, the utility garnered form each additional dollar starts to decrease. Cost of Living in the US ranges, basically, from $15k to $25k. Accordingly, the first $15k to $25k will be your food and shelter money. Dollars $160,001 to $170,000 of a surgeon's salary are going to be scotch and savings money. Taxing high utility dollars, Food & Shelter money, is more harmful than low utility dollars, Scotch & Savings money. And MPC is the idea that as income increases, the proportion spent of each additional dollar starts to decrease. Your food and shelter money will get spent, but part of your scotch and savings money will go toward stocks, mutual funds, REITs and all kinds of poo poo. High MPC dollars are more economically stimulative than low MPC dollars, especially when the economy's suffering from low aggregate demand. Thus, taxing high MPC dollars is more harmful than taxing low MPC dollars. A progressive income tax scale eschews taxation of money at the low end in favor of taxation at the high end. It biases against taxing high utility, high MPC dollars in favor of low utility, low MPC dollars thus minimizing the taxation's proximate negative impact. How's that tie into UBI discussions? Capitalism is a game of upward capital accumulation. Money flows to money; it naturally separates out into low utility, low MPC contexts. UBI corrects for that dynamic. It'll increase the health of the system, the citizenry and capitalism itself. My Lil Parachute posted:My job pays 8k, due to GMI I end up with 13k. I work harder to find a job paying 13k, due to GMI I end up with the same amount. You can address that a few different ways. With a UBI, it's a non-issue because everyone gets the same size check, rich and poor. With a GMI, you could do like Dauphin did and decrease benefit by $0.50 per $1 of income. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
A 50% marginal tax on poor people is pretty awful actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:A 50% marginal tax on poor people is pretty awful actually. In this case it is a reduction in benefits which is a pretty different, you could always scale it but ultimately it a budgetary sense you need to most likely means test at some point. If you have limited resources, a hypothetical example does it make sense to have a 8k GMI for those making 0 but those making 20k a year get 28k in total or have a 13k GMI but those making 20k only get 23k in total?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In this case it is a reduction in benefits which is a pretty different, you could always scale it but ultimately it a budgetary sense you need to most likely means test at some point. It's the same result: a $1 income increase results in a $0.50 loss to the government. quote:If you have limited resources, a hypothetical example does it make sense to have a 8k GMI for those making 0 but those making 20k a year get 28k in total or have a 13k GMI but those making 20k only get 23k in total? Depends. Without hard data it's impossible to answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In this case it is a reduction in benefits which is a pretty different, you could always scale it but ultimately it a budgetary sense you need to most likely means test at some point. Yeah it's not a tax at all, it should only be done in a way so the individual has a consistantly increasing income at the end of it. The thing about means testing is a) it requires the creation of administration to investigate everyone to see if they qualify which reduces the cost/benefit ratio of the program and is often just a way of the state harrassing the poor to the benefit of the rich and b) splits the electorate between the receivers and everyone else which politically makes it a target for someone to attack and gut if they're courting those who don't get it. If everyone gets it it's unpopular to attack it. Universal provision has universal popularity once it passes. This is the problem though. A fixed payment to all who qualify (i.e. citizens income to all legal residents) has the potential to do a lot of good while being really popular.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It's the same result: a $1 income increase results in a $0.50 loss to the government. It is a loss of potential income, not income you already earned. I prefer to make sure the "bottom line" is raised higher and then decreasing the support from there. quote:Depends. Without hard data it's impossible to answer. Put it simply does it make sense to spread what resources you have on the bottom end of a income bracket or evenly across it? namesake posted:Yeah it's not a tax at all, it should only be done in a way so the individual has a consistantly increasing income at the end of it. My point is more focused, it would be great to just give everyone a check but ultimately I expect there will be a budget crunch at a point, so if you had to cut back, how would you do it? One thing is you can reduce income but not eliminate it, even someone making 300,000 a year might get some type of benefit. Logically, they shouldn't care much because they will be taxed higher than what they receive but sometimes playing on the emotion of receiving a check works. They are far on the losing end of the proposition but still "part of the system." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is a loss of potential income, not income you already earned. I prefer to make sure the "bottom line" is raised higher and then decreasing the support from there. I think the salient point would be that under a GMI regime, we're no longer taxing food & shelter money, so the dynamic's different. Cost of living's covered either way (if the benefit's high enough, of course) Also, I wonder how it'd play politically? How would 'Welfare Queen' rhetoric play when recipients are, de facto, taxed 50% until they're off benefit? quote:My point is more focused, it would be great to just give everyone a check but ultimately I expect there will be a budget crunch at a point, so if you had to cut back, how would you do it? How much of a factor would cost be, anyways? A UBI's overhead could be practically zero, so what's taxed-out would be paid-out immediately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I honestly don't see why it is morally right to literally pay people to do nothing. I don't see why it isn't. I don't find much merit in ethics based on the Protestant Work Ethic. What if you live in a society where you have X amount of work that can be done by Y amount of people, but you have Y + Z people (where Z is a nonzero positive integer). What do you do with those Z people, let them starve?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I think the salient point would be that under a GMI regime, we're no longer taxing food & shelter money, so the dynamic's different. Cost of living's covered either way (if the benefit's high enough, of course) It is always going to be a matter of comparable need, and in a practical sense the more you need outlay on higher income brackets, the more it is going to be difficult to make sure those basic needs are fully taken care. Well, I do think it would be easier to push if you do say that work will still be incentivized under the system and you gear how you provide the GMI based on that. quote:How much of a factor would cost be, anyways? A UBI's overhead could be practically zero, so what's taxed-out would be paid-out immediately. It isn't a overhead issue in my opinion, simply the size of the outlay. Granted my point is that the GMI would be one party of a expansive social system that also cover housing, children care, and medical care. In a sense the GMI at a certain point would also become an accounting mechanism for the government to make sure there is efficiency of certain goods. That said, you could always say you can have "all the revenue you want" but I rather have an example that is both fair but relatively cost efficient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Even if your a sociopath, there is also an argument for efficiency and public order, more income in lower income brackets means more consumption, and more demand. Higher incomes also create a more stable social environment. Even if someone doesn't care about morality, they should care about making things simply better unless they are a hardcore ideologue. Again this assumes that the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for the increased income, in which case demand will go back to its original level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Again this assumes that the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for the increased income, in which case demand will go back to its original level. It also doesn't account for the giant fireball that will appear in the sky and consume us all if we were to give money to the poor. Argue against THAT libtards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:12
|
|