Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Guest

The UBI and related chat Thread

Recommended Posts

Seems this discussion in it's many distributaries has taken hold of the wonderful Opinions thread, so I thought I'd set up a different thread to leave the old one is peace.

 

My initial discussion revolved around the need for UBI after the AI explosion and this has led to many other UBI discussions. In my discourse with Colourmy, the discussion has shifted to the use of UBI before the AI explosion and it's contradiction with capitalism and a number of you seem in agreement with colourmy (there has to be a first for everything I guess). So I'd like to suggest that UBI could actually be a saving grace for Capitalism.

 

Surely companies will be attracted to the idea of replacing workers with machines for capitalist reasons - machines can work 24/7 (therefore replacing at least 4 shifts of people), they don't take days off on the sick, their work is predictable and consistent, they don't need a salary or government contributions like NI, they don't need specific Health and safety regulations such as lighting and heating and health plans ... So it would seem natural in a capitalist society that as the price and capability of machines become more reasonable then companies will switch from human to machine production (of course this is already happening and has been since the industrial revolution and you could say since before the wheel was invented). 

 

As machines replace humans, unemployment will grow, unemployment is not good for capitalism as it reduces the spending power of the population and therefore reduces purchases and in turn production which could create more unemployment leading to a vicious spiral and the death of capitalism (and probably the rise of a new fuedal system). The introduction of UBI - at a higher level than Rog suggests - would give people spending power, maintain purchases and production etc...

 

The question of where these taxes should come from has also been brought up with many people confused on the power of income tax, saying that people earning less will mean less tax available as revenue. This is a false argument. For many years the revenue from income tax has been decreasing in terms of its importance. In France and the UK consumption taxes (such as VAT and sales tax) bring in much more revenue than income tax, as do social taxes. If workers are replaced by machines then income tax will decrease, as will social taxes. the decrease in social taxes is a big bonus for companies and the fact that they won't be paying wages to employees is a massive boon, therefore companies will be expecting to pay a higher production tax and will accede to paying a "robot tax", their profits will also be higher meaning that govt. revenue from corporation tax will be improved and of course consumption taxes will continue to bring in good revenue as everyone has a guaranteed income. 

 

As a by-product of the introduction of UBI's guaranteed income, banks will feel more secure to give out housing loans so in turn people will be able to buy their own homes - homes that can be designed and produced targetting the UBI income bracket. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could also argue that as AI increases, the cost of production could either 1) be maintained by taxing robots (or another route to replace the employment / social taxes built into the cost base) to support UBI, or 2) Drop dramatically so that the level of UBI required to live comfortably would be much much lower than now, making it affordable.

 

Funnily enough, I an increasingly convinced that we will see UBI in some form, initially for those out of work, retired, stay at home mums or dads, and gradually becoming a real universal benefit.  The only real alternative is the creation of a new type of job which has social benefit and supports such a payment, but I think again that would be a means of control rather than anything actually beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You could also argue that as AI increases, the cost of production could either 1) be maintained by taxing robots (or another route to replace the employment / social taxes built into the cost base) to support UBI, or 2) Drop dramatically so that the level of UBI required to live comfortably would be much much lower than now, making it affordable.

 

Funnily enough, I an increasingly convinced that we will see UBI in some form, initially for those out of work, retired, stay at home mums or dads, and gradually becoming a real universal benefit.  The only real alternative is the creation of a new type of job which has social benefit and supports such a payment, but I think again that would be a means of control rather than anything actually beneficial.

I agree with you on all points.

 

I wouldn't be averse - in fact I've been advocating for a few years - the idea of socially beneficial part-time jobs for those out of work as part of their benefit claim but it has obvious inherent problems. UBI should be seen as a positive economic and social development and may help remove some of the inequalities, stigmas and abuses of the current benefit system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Would everyone get UBI? or will it be a replacement for the current system and everyone on benefits, income support or tax credits will get the same basic income.

My understanding is it would be everyone hence the term ‘universal’. So even if you earn £100k per year you still get ‘free’ money you don’t really need. Seems crazy to be but I’m sure FIF will put me right if I’m mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

My understanding is it would be everyone hence the term ‘universal’. So even if you earn £100k per year you still get ‘free’ money you don’t really need. Seems crazy to be but I’m sure FIF will put me right if I’m mistaken.

This is what i can't work out as it seems like a license to increase the cost of everything we buy because, as much as we would like to live in a perfect honest society, as soon as the pound signs start flashing, it'll be like a red rag to a bull and honest as the day is long john the used car salesman will soon be putting his prices up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Would everyone get UBI? or will it be a replacement for the current system and everyone on benefits, income support or tax credits will get the same basic income.

 

9 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

My understanding is it would be everyone hence the term ‘universal’. So even if you earn £100k per year you still get ‘free’ money you don’t really need. Seems crazy to be but I’m sure FIF will put me right if I’m mistaken.

There are variations of UBI but the idea is that every individual adult, regardless of income, employment, willingness to work, resources gets a livable income payment which covers their needs - it doesn't cover frills like an Iphone or nike trainers - it's aimed at reducing poverty and increasing equality. The amount set would decide if any other benefits should be paid but it would be expected to replace many benefits though initially it would be unlikely to cover them all, specifically child based benefits. If unemployment becomes the norm instead of the exception (see AI explosion) then the payment would be significantly higher replacing benefits and allowing luxuries.

 

In answer to Muzzy's query even the Queen of England should get it, which may seem crazy to some but it's about equality, just because someone is working and earning more doesn't mean they don't deserve the same payment - they do (in fact that is the case with child allowance at the moment everyone gets the same whether they earn nothing or £100K+). The payment means everything to those earning nothing but is relatively small to those earning a lot. Obviously since we are looking for equality, those with a higher income get taxed more so probably don't get any extra revenue (maybe less) but they still know that if something terrible happens they'll be allowed to recieve the UBI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Automation (and it's different from all the other times people have said it would be a true game-changer IMO, this time it's going to do almost everything) is going to have to result in a sea change in economic structure somehow, or risk mass dissent and conflict.

 

Whether that change involves a UBI or something else, I'm not sure, but I honestly don't think the present structure would survive with robots doing almost all the physical jobs and a lot of the clerical ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

This is what i can't work out as it seems like a license to increase the cost of everything we buy because, as much as we would like to live in a perfect honest society, as soon as the pound signs start flashing, it'll be like a red rag to a bull and honest as the day is long john the used car salesman will soon be putting his prices up.

 

Why would it? Taxes would be needed to cover the cost so the rich would have very little, if any, extra revenue and the poor would have money which would be predominantly spent on the staples. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

There are variations of UBI but the idea is that every individual adult, regardless of income, employment, willingness to work, resources gets a livable income payment which covers their needs - it doesn't cover frills like an Iphone or nike trainers - it's aimed at reducing poverty and increasing equality. The amount set would decide if any other benefits should be paid but it would be expected to replace many benefits though initially it would be unlikely to cover them all, specifically child based benefits. If unemployment becomes the norm instead of the exception (see AI explosion) then the payment would be significantly higher replacing benefits and allowing luxuries.

 

In answer to Muzzy's query even the Queen of England should get it, which may seem crazy to some but it's about equality, just because someone is working and earning more doesn't mean they don't deserve the same payment - they do (in fact that is the case with child allowance at the moment everyone gets the same whether they earn nothing or £100K+). The payment means everything to those earning nothing but is relatively small to those earning a lot. Obviously since we are looking for equality, those with a higher income get taxed more so probably don't get any extra revenue (maybe less) but they still know that if something terrible happens they'll be allowed to recieve the UBI.

I think the child allowance rules have now changed FIF. If one parent earns more than £50k then they’re not entitled to it.

 

Apprecite your explanation on the rest but I’m going to take some convincing that UBI is the way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FIF said:

 

Why would it? Taxes would be needed to cover the cost so the rich would have very little, if any, extra revenue and the poor would have money which would be predominantly spent on the staples. 

But the poor already get money to spend on staples so unless ubi is just a simpler way of distributing walfare state to them (so there is just one payment instead of multiple claims), i can't see any advantage to it. What i can see is those who receive additional money for family support etc, either being worse off or staying the same and those who receive a single benefit payment being better off because their payments will be aligned. I still can't work out what is the actual benefit of ubi is over the system we already have, is it an attempt to re-distribute wealth, because that's never going to happen, or is it a case of increasing everyone's income so we don't have to work if we don't want to because of a lack of future employment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're living in an age where govts the world over are extending the retirement because our longer lives mean we can't afford to sustain pensions. UBI is basically say you can have your pension at 18.

They are extendingthe retirement age because they choose not to afford to sustain pensions and I understand that. If I beleived in an afterlife I might not even take offence at being asked to work until I die. The problem is that there aren't enough jobs now so extending retirement age will make things worse, if AI creates even more unemployment govts need to look at alternative ways to fund non-workers or ways to ensure more deaths.

 

3 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Luddites.

basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FIF said:

They are extendingthe retirement age because they choose not to afford to sustain pensions and I understand that. If I beleived in an afterlife I might not even take offence at being asked to work until I die. The problem is that there aren't enough jobs now so extending retirement age will make things worse, if AI creates even more unemployment govts need to look at alternative ways to fund non-workers or ways to ensure more deaths.

 

 

I'm open to suggestions but if your idea is that we tax everybody to such an extent that's not worth working or running a business so we all decide to live off our UBI instead then I can see there's going to be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm open to suggestions but if your idea is that we tax everybody to such an extent that's not worth working or running a business so we all decide to live off our UBI instead then I can see there's going to be a problem.

But not if we no longer need to work - if the situation is that you can choose to work if you want but that it isn't necessary then where's the problem.

 

In the more immediate future - why would UBI make it not worth working or running a business? If anything the fact you get UBI means that you can invest more in your business or try new ventures and if they fail you still can live without making life hell for your family. Everyone gets UBI. It's universal.

 

p.s. If I don't reply it's because I'm at my limit - it must be close now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FIF said:

But not if we no longer need to work - if the situation is that you can choose to work if you want but that it isn't necessary then where's the problem.

 

In the more immediate future - why would UBI make it not worth working or running a business? If anything the fact you get UBI means that you can invest more in your business or try new ventures and if they fail you still can live without making life hell for your family. Everyone gets UBI. It's universal.

 

p.s. If I don't reply it's because I'm at my limit - it must be close now.

There was an item about this on Newsnight a few years ago. The economist they had on to discuss it said for £100pw the basic rate of tax would have to be 47%, presumably although they didn't say the higher rates would also have to go up proportionately .

 

Why would you risk your own money and put in the long hours starting a business knowing that if you did succeed you'd have to give the govt 80-90% of your profits? If you needed to employ human beings you'd have to pay them enough to make it worth while for them when they can survive without working at all. Those of us who would choose not to work if we could afford not to, I certainly would, would have less disposable income so we'd be paying less in VAT.

 

It's an interesting idea, but totally impractical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

There was an item about this on Newsnight a few years ago. The economist they had on to discuss it said for £100pw the basic rate of tax would have to be 47%, presumably although they did say the higher rates would also have to go up proportionately .

 

Why would you risk your own money and put in the long hours knowing that if you did succeed you'd have to give the govt 80-90% of your profits? If you needed to employ human beings you'd have to pay them enough to make it worth while for them when they can survive without working at all. Those of us who would choose not to work if we could afford not to, I certainly would, would have less disposable income so we'd be paying less in VAT.

 

It's an interesting idea, but totally impractical.

If I were an economist I'd say that increasing income tax was one of the least likely ways to fund UBI, other than to take back the UBI from the very high earners who wouldn't miss it anyway. There are many more efficient taxes that could be increased.

 

If we turn the clock back just 100 years the idea of the state paying for welfare, creating the NHS as it is today and the benefit system would seem a whole lot more impractical and impossible than something like UBI seems today. Welfare state was voluntary provision and charities, yet without that profound change you wouldn't be in the position you are today - you'd probably not even be alive. How did the common working man accept all the taxes we have today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FIF said:

If I were an economist I'd say that increasing income tax was one of the least likely ways to fund UBI, other than to take back the UBI from the very high earners who wouldn't miss it anyway. There are many more efficient taxes that could be increased.

 

If we turn the clock back just 100 years the idea of the state paying for welfare, creating the NHS as it is today and the benefit system would seem a whole lot more impractical and impossible than something like UBI seems today. Welfare state was voluntary provision and charities, yet without that profound change you wouldn't be in the position you are today - you'd probably not even be alive. How did the common working man accept all the taxes we have today?

That's all very well but it doesn't explain where the money's coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There was an item about this on Newsnight a few years ago. The economist they had on to discuss it said for £100pw the basic rate of tax would have to be 47%, presumably although they didn't say the higher rates would also have to go up proportionately .

 

Why would you risk your own money and put in the long hours starting a business knowing that if you did succeed you'd have to give the govt 80-90% of your profits? If you needed to employ human beings you'd have to pay them enough to make it worth while for them when they can survive without working at all. Those of us who would choose not to work if we could afford not to, I certainly would, would have less disposable income so we'd be paying less in VAT.

 

It's an interesting idea, but totally impractical.

Tax rates in the US have been at those levels in the past (50% at least i recall from something i read)

 

It may not sound acceptable but that could be just because what we expect is what we see in the current climate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Tax rates in the US have been at those levels in the past (50% at least i recall from something i read)

 

It may not sound acceptable but that could be just because what we expect is what we see in the current climate

Looking at this;

The%20Income%20Tax%20System%20is%20Progr

https://taxfoundation.org/how-much-do-people-pay-taxes/

 

Taxes in the US are much lower than here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...