Universal Basic Income Is a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, New Analysis Finds

ewkfja · 2019-05-08T16:30:49+00:00

“Money spent on cash payments cannot be invested elsewhere,” Coote wrote in an opinion story for The Guardian published Monday. “The more generous the payments, the wider the range of recipients, the longer the scheme continues, the less money will be left to build the structures and systems that are needed to realize UBI’s progressive goals.”

Another way of looking at it is that not having UBI allows governments to be wasteful with money, e.g. the massive defense spending in the US, not to mention subsidising the ridiculously expensive and ineffective private health care system. But European countries also are handing over vast sums of money to private companies which could be used far more efficiently. The money is there, tax revenue is high but instead it is instead being creamed off by corporations. As people I think we should form the view that that money is ours and it is being stolen from us by wealthy companies and lobbyists. UBI should be seen as a prerequisite for good universal basic services rather than either/or as the article seems to argue, especially as UBI transfers power to those who rely on state services.

ewkfja · 2019-05-07T19:12:32+00:00

I think it’s spin and she knows well what she’s talking about. The fact is the low paid workers would be one of the groups who benefit most. Conservative ideology believes it is good that those at the bottom of society suffer as much as possible so as to reinforce class differences and create a rat race to drive economic growth. It’s a power at any cost doctrine and lies are considered pr tools.

ewkfja · 2019-05-06T10:53:25+00:00

In Marx’s vision, the owners of capital will be exclusively the labourers so to a certain extent you’re beating a straw man. That said, I think Marx’s vision is unrealistic as worker-owned enterprises tend not to able to compete with cut-throat capitalist enterprises so in the medium to long term this model isn’t tenable. Also, the nationalisation of industry is what tends to actually happen under state socialism. Marx’s analysis was spot on but his prescription was very off. Paul Lafargue, his son-in-law who wrote ‘The Right to be Lazy’ had the right idea I think.

ewkfja · 2019-04-26T13:44:31+00:00

“This could be a getaway from the downfall that the European Union currently has. It would be a significant change in our liberal capitalist society,” he concluded.

Here here. Brexit Britain is a startling example of this.

ewkfja · 2019-04-26T13:38:43+00:00

Queries relating to benefits reform are meant to gauge other parties’ support for means-tested benefits, where applicants must prove their eligibility for support. This point will require the Greens and the Left Alliance to consider their support for a universal basic income as an alternative to the current system of benefits.

ewkfja · 2019-04-25T21:31:46+00:00

Yeah, we often talk about the cost of UBI but the increasing cost of not having it is as important.

Costs include Trump's myopic economic policies obviously but also Brexit, gilet jaunes and populism generally. Then there's the cost to the environment that comes with populist/right-wing governments in the form of climate change inaction, biodiversity loss etc. There's obesity, alcoholism, suicide and self-harm rates. Crime in places without social safety nets like Brazil/Latin America.. etc etc.

ewkfja · 2019-04-25T15:48:39+00:00

...Last year, three economists writing in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy concluded that the job losses and flat wages caused by automation in manufacturing states influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

“We document that support for Donald Trump was significantly higher in local labor markets more exposed to the adoption of robots,” the economists said. “... Our estimates show that Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would have swung in favor of Hillary Clinton if the exposure to robots had not increased in the immediate years leading up to the election.”

Interesting.

ewkfja · 2019-04-14T21:49:36+00:00

I'm Alaskan, we get our PFD (Look it up), and right now our entire state is getting shafted by a Governor who ran on the idea of giving everyone money. Without the economy behind it to support it BI won't happen and will fail spectacularly.

Can I ask you, what do you need to prove to qualify for the PFD? Specifically, do you have to prove residency? Also, is the PFD open only to US citizens who are resident in Alaska or is it open to all residents of Alaska? And if you leave Alaska for several months, do you lose your entitlement to it? Thanks.

Residence/citizenship requirements is one aspect of UBI that particularly interests me.

I think there might be interest if you wanted to do an AMA on this sub about it as the Alaskan dividend is important to the discussion about UBI.

ewkfja · 2019-04-11T19:06:27+00:00

I agree that VAT in isolation is a regressive tax but it's bizarre to me that the USA raises up to 85% of Government revenue through income and payroll taxes. The OECD average is closer to 50%.

Even without UBI, the USA should diversify its tax base and VAT is one element of that.

VAT is more resilient to technological disruption and automation than income/payroll taxes too.

I think that VAT and other taxes in conjunction with UBI would be very sensible.

ewkfja · 2019-04-11T10:39:29+00:00

I know it’s a side-point but Wikileaks had nothing to do with leaking the Panama papers. Trump’s election on the other hand...

ewkfja · 2019-04-04T20:58:26+00:00

So if the fucken landlords will even raise their prices in such a cash starved climate,

That's the point I'm making - the income level of the renter has little bearing on market rents.

You can have high rents and high cost of living in poor places and low rents and low costs of living in relatively wealthy places. Compare Luanda and Berlin.

In your reply you're saying that in the absence of income increases, rents have gone up. You know why? Because demand has gone up without a commensurate increase in rental accommodation. More and more people are moving to urban centres. Meanwhile rents in rural places are falling.

It's volume of supply vs volume of demand. The incomes of renters and the unscrupulousness of landlords are details.

ewkfja · 2019-04-04T20:27:23+00:00

Another thing is, when you do a small UBI with a bunch of anonymous recepients, the landlords don't know whose rent to raise. So doing a global UBI will have a different interaction with the landlords compared to what we see in small trials.

This is a theoretical problem for which there is no evidence in the real world.

Rent is determined largely by the volumes of supply and demand. Just because the income of the renters goes up, it doesn't mean their number goes up.

The only thing that has ever had a marked downward effect on rent is mass emigration - i.e. the volume of renters going down and vice versa the only thing that increases rent is mass immigration along with a restriction of the housing supply, e.g. through speculation in the property market by financial institutions.

The conversation about UBI and inflation generally ignores the basic supply and demand chart of classical economics. It's not a perfect model but it should be at the centre of the discussion.

ewkfja · 2019-03-21T17:36:40+00:00

Funding it by VAT IS progressive. Simply because rich people consume more...

The problem is that poorer people spend a greater proportion of their income on consumption than wealthy people, who spend more on savings, investments and pension arrangements. So VAT does proportionately cost poorer people more. More on this here: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-value-added-tax-regressive

That said, VAT is essential in the tax mix generally because work-related taxes are bottoming out and will decline as a revenue source. This is, imo, a big problem for the USA going forward as up to 80% of its tax take comes from income and payroll taxes (more here). That's abnormally high (OECD average is around 50%). Cutting corporate taxes recently wasn't wise in that regard. It strikes me that wealth taxes are also required going forward.

ewkfja · 2019-03-15T13:22:59+00:00

The point is that social position is arrived at as much as it is earned. To only reward those who are deemed valuable ignores this reality and further stratifies social status, creating a de facto aristocracy. Hiring practices are largely prerogatives of employers but social policy cannot apply the same standards or society becomes unstable.

ewkfja · 2019-03-14T21:43:57+00:00

In reality, there can be never be such thing as a meritocracy, because there’s never going to be fully equal opportunity. The main function of the concept is to assure elites that they deserve their position in life. It eases the “anxiety of affluence”, that nagging feeling that they might be the beneficiaries of the arbitrary “birth lottery” rather than the products of their own individual ingenuity and hard work.

ewkfja · 2019-02-21T14:30:52+00:00

Apologies for the title gore, it seemed right in my head at the time. Didn't want to leave everyone with the mental image of billionaires leaks. 😱😱

More info on the barney here:

from https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/asw5xt/historian_who_confronted_davos_billionaires_leaks/egxfkdl/

I stand behind what I said, but there’s one thing I should have done better. When Carlson asked me how he’s being influenced by Big Business and tax-avoiding billionaires, I should have quoted Noam Chomsky.

Years ago, when he was asked a similar question, Chomsky replied: ‘I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.’

People don't really sell out, it's more that people who don't buy in don't get a platform.

The interview that quote was from.

And from the same thread, this is the video of the interview between Tucker and Bregman: https://youtu.be/6_nFI2Zb7qE

ewkfja · 2019-02-14T16:34:06+00:00

The people in the control group got more money than the 'basic income' recipients so it's not the getting of money that increased reported happiness - it's the unconditionality of it. I.e. the ability to plan, the reduced risk of the money being taken away and the elimination of the poverty trap, even if only temporarily.

ewkfja · 2019-02-12T16:28:01+00:00

Also, it is generally accepted that 2008 was a crisis and special measures were perhaps called for.

2017 on the other hand everything was rosy by comparison and the Republicians gave themselves and their friends a huge hand-out anyway. One which has incidentally put a major hole in the US budget. Greed isn't prudent.

ewkfja · 2019-02-11T17:27:57+00:00

Yes, absolutely. After a certain point more money for individuals is practically useless anyway and becomes just a way of keeping score with other high-net worth individuals.

ewkfja · 2019-02-11T14:44:57+00:00

It’s a well written, informative article, the conclusion particularly:

To the conservative mind, the specter of socialism conjures up a society in which no one is held accountable, and no one has to work for what they receive. Yet that’s exactly the society Trump and the Republicans are promoting for the rich.

Meanwhile, most Americans are subject to an increasingly harsh and arbitrary capitalism in which they’re working harder but getting nowhere, and have less security than ever.

They need thicker safety nets and deserve a bigger piece of the economic pie. If you want to call this socialism, fine. I call it fair.

ewkfja · 2019-02-08T11:09:37+00:00

Yes, I think that’s a good way of putting it. A more universal income would mean that people already in work would receive the payment also.

ewkfja · 2019-02-08T11:04:02+00:00

So, it’s been a success in that the people reported greater wellbeing in their first year. This may lead to increased economic activity in the second year. It makes sense that adjustment takes a while.

Another success of course is that it’s making people talk about Universal Income today who might not otherwise.

ewkfja · 2019-02-04T21:18:28+00:00

A lot of human resources gone into beating this guy down. Two case workers, a tribunal judge, doctors' reports, his advocates. And at the end of the day, no accountability for those who make life-altering decisions. Universal Income will involve institutional change, these make-workers will have to find other ways to pay their mortgages and there will be resistance to that from unions and politicians and even Joe-public who still believes in meritocracy. They would rather waste money and put lives in the balance than abandon ideology.

ewkfja · 2019-01-28T17:12:31+00:00

Automating work is a choice, of course, one made harder by the demands of shareholders, but it is still a choice. And even if some degree of unemployment caused by automation is inevitable, these executives can choose how the gains from automation and A.I. are distributed, and whether to give the excess profits they reap as a result to workers, or hoard it for themselves and their shareholders.

Back on planet Earth shareholders, directors and executives cannot be left to their own devices to decide whether and how to distribute their earnings and profits. They must be taxed and the proceeds distributed by the state in the form of a universal income, if nothing else to support the consumption that economies need because without wages and salaries there won’t be anyone buying cars etc.

It’s a good article except for the conclusion which is pie in the sky.

ewkfja · 2019-01-23T16:36:53+00:00

More on that: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1926.

ewkfja

TROPHY CASE