ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th April 2019, 02:25 PM   #321
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
No, but I would guess he is his own economic adviser.
Quote:
I’m an entrepreneur who understands the economy.
I (more or less, I think) understand the economy, too, but I wouldn't run for president without an actual economist (or a team of them) advising me.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 02:51 PM   #322
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,244
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I (more or less, I think) understand the economy, too, but I wouldn't run for president without an actual economist (or a team of them) advising me.

But have you "being named a Champion of Change in 2012 and a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship in 2015" by the Obama White House like he was?
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 11th April 2019 at 02:54 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 03:10 PM   #323
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
But have you "being named a Champion of Change in 2012 and a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship in 2015" by the Obama White House like he was?
Ha!

No, no I haven't. I'm obviously a lesser species of human. lol
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 03:32 PM   #324
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
$#### dollars everywhere to everyone, then they can decide.
Awesome!

Except, it's also bucks from everyone, and that means fewer choices for the people who used to have the money.

Now, if the economic robot apocalypse really does happen and no one has jobs, then we clearly have to do something, but that's been being predicted since the early 19th century, and here we are, all working. This time really might be different, but at this moment in time, it looks like darned near everyone has a job.



And if very few people will quit working as a result of UBI, what good is it? Why don't they just, you know, work? I'm all for a minimum wage, so if it isn't adequate, then we can have economists and politicians and whoever else argue over what it ought to be. As it is, UBI is nothing other than wealth redistribution. Take money from those people. Give it to those other people.

Yang's version is even funded by a nice, regressive, tax. (Or does his proposed flat tax exclude food, medicine or some other basic categories, which makes it progressive.)
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 04:36 PM   #325
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Awesome!

Except, it's also bucks from everyone, and that means fewer choices for the people who used to have the money.

Now, if the economic robot apocalypse really does happen and no one has jobs, then we clearly have to do something, but that's been being predicted since the early 19th century, and here we are, all working. This time really might be different, but at this moment in time, it looks like darned near everyone has a job.



And if very few people will quit working as a result of UBI, what good is it? Why don't they just, you know, work? I'm all for a minimum wage, so if it isn't adequate, then we can have economists and politicians and whoever else argue over what it ought to be. As it is, UBI is nothing other than wealth redistribution. Take money from those people. Give it to those other people.

Yang's version is even funded by a nice, regressive, tax. (Or does his proposed flat tax exclude food, medicine or some other basic categories, which makes it progressive.)
You don't actually need taxes to pay for government programs, as counter intuitive as that sounds. That's not the way the monetary system really works.

See: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/0...ry-theory.html
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 04:57 PM   #326
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You don't actually need taxes to pay for government programs, as counter intuitive as that sounds. That's not the way the monetary system really works.

See: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/0...ry-theory.html
No taxes?!?!?!?! This is getting better all the time! I was going to vote for Vermin Supreme because he was going to give me a free pony, but I'm going to have to rethink it now

(Nothing played on the video for me in your link, but I went to the Wikipedia page about Modern Monetary Theory. They said there still has to be taxes.)
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 05:57 PM   #327
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No taxes?!?!?!?! This is getting better all the time! I was going to vote for Vermin Supreme because he was going to give me a free pony, but I'm going to have to rethink it now

(Nothing played on the video for me in your link, but I went to the Wikipedia page about Modern Monetary Theory. They said there still has to be taxes.)
You do still need to tax, but just not to directly pay for gov spending.

Try the link again...you have to click the arrow to get it to play. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/0...ry-theory.html
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 08:13 PM   #328
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You do still need to tax, but just not to directly pay for gov spending.

Try the link again...you have to click the arrow to get it to play. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/0...ry-theory.html
This time it played. (The first time, there was no arrow, or picture. Just black.)

Fascinating, and correct, in its own way. The problem is that it could be easily misinterpreted as "We can give away a bunch of money to people, and not have to pay taxes to do it!"

MMT would say that it UBI was an absolutely horrible thing to do, especially if you didn't raise taxes to fund it, because it would dump a whole bunch of money into the economy at the same time that it reduced production (because of all the people who, like me, would decide they no longer had to work). So we have real economic shrinkage combined with a giant increase in the money supply. Oops. That's inflation, which is what MMT is supposed to be concerned about.


There's no something for nothing. Right now, I go to work and make stuff. Based on how much money I have now, my age, and a few other factors related to retirement, if you gave me a 1000 dollars a month and paid for my health care (which is surely part of the "basic" in UBI, I would guess. No way could you live on 1000 bucks a month when paying for health insurance and/or care.) I could do the math and figure out that I don't have to go to work tomorrow.


Since no one is going to give me that money, though, I have to stop typing this so I can get up tomorrow and go to work. At least it's Friday.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 01:38 AM   #329
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
This time it played. (The first time, there was no arrow, or picture. Just black.)

Fascinating, and correct, in its own way. The problem is that it could be easily misinterpreted as "We can give away a bunch of money to people, and not have to pay taxes to do it!"

MMT would say that it UBI was an absolutely horrible thing to do, especially if you didn't raise taxes to fund it, because it would dump a whole bunch of money into the economy at the same time that it reduced production (because of all the people who, like me, would decide they no longer had to work). So we have real economic shrinkage combined with a giant increase in the money supply. Oops. That's inflation, which is what MMT is supposed to be concerned about.
Wow, you are a quick study! (Professor Kelton did an excellent breakdown of the core concepts in the video, as well.) And yep. It (a UBI of that size) would cause inflation for the reasons you mentioned.


Quote:
There's no something for nothing. Right now, I go to work and make stuff. Based on how much money I have now, my age, and a few other factors related to retirement, if you gave me a 1000 dollars a month and paid for my health care (which is surely part of the "basic" in UBI, I would guess. No way could you live on 1000 bucks a month when paying for health insurance and/or care.) I could do the math and figure out that I don't have to go to work tomorrow.


Since no one is going to give me that money, though, I have to stop typing this so I can get up tomorrow and go to work. At least it's Friday.
The MMT consensus plan is a federal jobs guarantee, which would expand those federal jobs during times of recession, and peel them back during times of boom, as workers transferred back into the private sector. There are truly productive things which we need to do (infrastructure, R&D, robotics, child care, elder care) and there's something for (almost) everyone in terms of employment. A very small basic income which paid significantly less than the federal jobs, for people who claim to be unable to work, has not been ruled out. That would be for people with physical, mental, or emotional health, or logistical issues which make them incompatible with employment while not meeting the threshold for disability (and disability really need to be expanded, as well. A lot of people who clearly "deserve" disability are routinely rejected.)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 12th April 2019 at 01:39 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 03:47 AM   #330
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Awesome!

Except, it's also bucks from everyone, and that means fewer choices for the people who used to have the money.
Welfare benefits come with a lot of strings attached; especially in the US where the government even attempts to control what food a recipient eats. I understood "ahhell" to be talking about that.

Quote:
And if very few people will quit working as a result of UBI, what good is it? Why don't they just, you know, work? I'm all for a minimum wage, so if it isn't adequate, then we can have economists and politicians and whoever else argue over what it ought to be.
The problem with the minimum wage is that it shouldn't work, in theory.
No employer can pay more in wages than they make off their employers.
In theory, a mimimum wage should simply mean that certain jobs are plain outlawed. You probably have heard about fears that a minimum wage destroys jobs. The fact that it doesn't indicates a huge problem.

Economists like the UBI because it doesn't mess with the free market much.

Quote:
As it is, UBI is nothing other than wealth redistribution. Take money from those people. Give it to those other people.
Do you actually favor a highly unequal society? Or is wealth redistribution something you don't think about in other contexts?
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:15 AM   #331
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Economists like the UBI because it doesn't mess with the free market much.
Which economists advocate a UBI of that size?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:19 AM   #332
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The MMT consensus plan is a federal jobs guarantee,
Makes a lot more sense, although I don't really like the "guarantee" part. Sounds like an office somewhere that has to make something up in order to justify their continued existence. There are times when the market pretty much provides the guarantee without government intervention. I do believe that there are certain times (2009 comes to mind) where government has to step in and put people to work.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:20 AM   #333
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Which economists advocate a UBI of that size?
Milton Friedman is probably the biggest name in recent times.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:22 AM   #334
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Makes a lot more sense, although I don't really like the "guarantee" part. Sounds like an office somewhere that has to make something up in order to justify their continued existence. There are times when the market pretty much provides the guarantee without government intervention. I do believe that there are certain times (2009 comes to mind) where government has to step in and put people to work.
Like I said, when as the private sector recovers, the federal jobs will fall in numbers.

Re: "Sounds like an office somewhere that has to make something up in order to justify their continued existence." - they'd be doing a very real and useful thing. Not just making crap up to justify their existence.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:24 AM   #335
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Milton Friedman is probably the biggest name in recent times.
I actually like his "negative income tax" idea (and would like to see it paired with a jobs guarantee), but it's not a "universal" income the way Yang's idea is.

eta: I think the more appropriate term from Freidman's negative income tax is a "basic income guarantee" (aka, BIG).
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 12th April 2019 at 04:25 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:24 AM   #336
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I actually like his "negative income tax" idea (and would like to see it paired with a jobs guarantee), but it's not a "universal" income the way Yang's idea is.
Why not?
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:25 AM   #337
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Do you actually favor a highly unequal society? Or is wealth redistribution something you don't think about in other contexts?

Define "highly". I think free markets produce both prosperity and inequality. You can't have one without the other. Yes, that whole inequality thing can get out of hand, but some amount of inequality is inevitable.

I think the best way to control the inequality is progressive taxation. The people who make millions can only do it by taking advantage of the infrastructure society provides. It seems reasonable to me that they should pay for that infrastructure.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:27 AM   #338
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Why not?
Once you start making a certain amount of money, you're paying tax, not getting income from the government.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:29 AM   #339
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Define "highly".
Highly.

Quote:
I think the best way to control the inequality is progressive taxation. The people who make millions can only do it by taking advantage of the infrastructure society provides. It seems reasonable to me that they should pay for that infrastructure.
We're on the same page.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:31 AM   #340
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Re: "Sounds like an office somewhere that has to make something up in order to justify their continued existence." - they'd be doing a very real and useful thing. Not just making crap up to justify their existence.
Optimist.

The need for their work will be greater at some times than at others, which means that their staffing needs will be greater at some times than at others. When their staffing needs drop, do you think they will say, "Boss, we really don't need as much budget this year. You can lay off some of my staff and cut my budget."

It's a rare thing, in government or in industry.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:36 AM   #341
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Optimist.

The need for their work will be greater at some times than at others, which means that their staffing needs will be greater at some times than at others. When their staffing needs drop, do you think they will say, "Boss, we really don't need as much budget this year. You can lay off some of my staff and cut my budget."

It's a rare thing, in government or in industry.
That is a tiny problem to worry about compared to the severe consequences of unemployment.

Congress cuts funding for programs all the time, too.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:42 AM   #342
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Once you start making a certain amount of money, you're paying tax, not getting income from the government.
Hmm. I see what you mean but it is rather technical point. After all, the same is literally true for Yang's plan; in that at some point you become a net payer.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 04:50 AM   #343
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Hmm. I see what you mean but it is rather technical point. After all, the same is literally true for Yang's plan; in that at some point you become a net payer.
Yeah, but the whole idea behind his sort of universal income is that it completely avoids the "moral hazard" problem, encourages entrepreneurship, and things like that. It's a clean and simple and easy to understand way of achieving those goals. And even if you're a net payer, you're still getting a $1k a month check from the gov.

The negative income tax is a lot trickier (but probably won't risk inflation), and is NOT a universal income.

I know it seems (and almost is) pedantic, but they are different concepts with different objectives. Poverty alleviation is the only goal of a NIC.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 07:24 AM   #344
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Define "highly".
Given how inequality is increasing that would really just be arguing about the date when the threshold was crossed.

Quote:
I think free markets produce both prosperity and inequality. You can't have one without the other. Yes, that whole inequality thing can get out of hand, but some amount of inequality is inevitable.
Milton Friedman was an arch free marketeer. He favored a UBI precisely because it would interfere less with markets than other forms of welfare.

Quote:
I think the best way to control the inequality is progressive taxation. The people who make millions can only do it by taking advantage of the infrastructure society provides. It seems reasonable to me that they should pay for that infrastructure.
Isn't that an argument one could make in similar form for a UBI? IE a UBI as a form of citizen's dividend?
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 07:30 AM   #345
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,504
Jobs gaurantee thing seems quite insane to me. What would those jobs be? How is a make work job any better for someone than just giving them money?
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 07:44 AM   #346
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Jobs gaurantee thing seems quite insane to me. What would those jobs be? How is a make work job any better for someone than just giving them money?
A lot of it can be stuff like infrastructure improvements and repair, solar assembly/manufacturing for gov buildings, and other things which increase productivity long term. It also helps transition back into the workforce when the economy improves to not have a resume gap.

There are a lot of benefits.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 08:09 AM   #347
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,814
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The negative income tax is a lot trickier (but probably won't risk inflation), and is NOT a universal income.
Why not? Who misses out on the allowance?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 08:17 AM   #348
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Why not? Who misses out on the allowance?
No policies have been proposed on it yet working out where to draw which lines and how, but those making nothing will get paid a basic income, those in the middle will neither pay nor be taxed, and those making above a certain threshold will pay in. You'd want it to be a gentle graduation to prevent disincentivizing work.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 08:47 AM   #349
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,388
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No policies have been proposed on it yet working out where to draw which lines and how, but those making nothing will get paid a basic income, those in the middle will neither pay nor be taxed, and those making above a certain threshold will pay in. You'd want it to be a gentle graduation to prevent disincentivizing work.
There's no reason a negative income tax has to taper off at higher incomes. It can be implemented as a single, universal tax credit, funded by some other revenue stream.

A negative income tax isn't necessarily a basic income, but it certainly can be.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 08:53 AM   #350
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,504
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Awesome!

Except, it's also bucks from everyone, and that means fewer choices for the people who used to have the money.

Now, if the economic robot apocalypse really does happen and no one has jobs, then we clearly have to do something, but that's been being predicted since the early 19th century, and here we are, all working. This time really might be different, but at this moment in time, it looks like darned near everyone has a job.



And if very few people will quit working as a result of UBI, what good is it? Why don't they just, you know, work? I'm all for a minimum wage, so if it isn't adequate, then we can have economists and politicians and whoever else argue over what it ought to be. As it is, UBI is nothing other than wealth redistribution. Take money from those people. Give it to those other people.

Yang's version is even funded by a nice, regressive, tax. (Or does his proposed flat tax exclude food, medicine or some other basic categories, which makes it progressive.)
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Welfare benefits come with a lot of strings attached; especially in the US where the government even attempts to control what food a recipient eats. I understood "ahhell" to be talking about that.


The problem with the minimum wage is that it shouldn't work, in theory.
No employer can pay more in wages than they make off their employers.
In theory, a mimimum wage should simply mean that certain jobs are plain outlawed. You probably have heard about fears that a minimum wage destroys jobs. The fact that it doesn't indicates a huge problem.

Economists like the UBI because it doesn't mess with the free market much.


Do you actually favor a highly unequal society? Or is wealth redistribution something you don't think about in other contexts?
Yes and no, the quote mead was responding to was a bit out of context. I was really just addressing the question as to whether the UBI would adjusted for regional cost of living. I would say no because, let folks decide if they want a crappy one room in the City or a nice house in the burbs for them selves. I do think it would be better to just cut a check rather than cutting a check so long as it is spent in the manner prescribed by the central senate committee and lobbyists.

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
A lot of it can be stuff like infrastructure improvements and repair, solar assembly/manufacturing for gov buildings, and other things which increase productivity long term. It also helps transition back into the workforce when the economy improves to not have a resume gap.

There are a lot of benefits.
What do we do with the folks that don't have those skills? Buggy makers and what not? So far, retraining programs are largely a bust. A jobs guarantee would necessarily be much more than just infrastructure spending.

Last edited by ahhell; 12th April 2019 at 08:55 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 08:54 AM   #351
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
There's no reason a negative income tax has to taper off at higher incomes. It can be implemented as a single, universal tax credit, funded by some other revenue stream.

A negative income tax isn't necessarily a basic income, but it certainly can be.
Yeah, I guess you're right.

Wiki defines it as "a welfare system within an income tax where people earning below a certain amount receive supplemental pay from the government instead of paying taxes to the government."

The "certain amount" could be set at a trillion dollars or whatever. I think you'd probably risk inflation if you didn't start gradually taxing at some point, though.

eta: while I don't think we have to tax to spend (because that's not how it really works) what alternative revenue stream would be out there? Corporate taxes?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 12th April 2019 at 08:56 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 08:57 AM   #352
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,504
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yeah, but the whole idea behind his sort of universal income is that it completely avoids the "moral hazard" problem, encourages entrepreneurship, and things like that. It's a clean and simple and easy to understand way of achieving those goals. And even if you're a net payer, you're still getting a $1k a month check from the gov.

The negative income tax is a lot trickier (but probably won't risk inflation), and is NOT a universal income.

I know it seems (and almost is) pedantic, but they are different concepts with different objectives. Poverty alleviation is the only goal of a NIC.
I think the the unversality is also a good marketing tool, its not just a give away to free loaders, its a give away to free loaders and hard workers. That might be an easier sell?

The US has the earned income tax credit which is a sort of NIT. It does not go to anyone though, you actually have to have a job and thus fill out your taxes. I believe that is considered a feature of most NIT proposals.

This may be the best conversation I've seen on this forum. It actually feels like people trying to figure out the pros and cons of various policy ideas regarding dealing with poverty and joblessness. Thanks.

Last edited by ahhell; 12th April 2019 at 09:00 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 09:02 AM   #353
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
What do we do with the folks that don't have those skills? Buggy makers and what not? So far, retraining programs are largely a bust. A jobs guarantee would necessarily be much more than just infrastructure spending.
On the job training where you're making money while learning isn't a bust. Expanded gov-funded child care and elder care requires little previous skills, too.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 09:25 AM   #354
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,814
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No policies have been proposed on it yet working out where to draw which lines and how, but those making nothing will get paid a basic income, those in the middle will neither pay nor be taxed, and those making above a certain threshold will pay in. You'd want it to be a gentle graduation to prevent disincentivizing work.
You are misinformed about the nature of a NIT. Everybody pays the same marginal rate of tax on each dollar earned and everybody gets the same basic allowance. Whether somebody ends up a net receiver or a net payer depends on the difference between their tax bill and the allowance and this depends on their level of income.

So while some get paid and others have to pay, there is no disincentive because everybody pays tax on their earnings at the same rate and nobody loses the basic allowance. Compare this with welfare where earning just $1 "too much" can see your entire welfare cut off.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 09:30 AM   #355
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I really hate it when government tries to stimulate the economy, with the possible exception of when the economy is truly messed up, like in 2009.


UBI would take money from one set of people and give it to another set of people. How does that stimulate the economy? Do the people who are earning lots of it not spend it?
Not all of it. They stash lots of it offshore. That doesn't stimulate the economy much.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 09:35 AM   #356
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,084
The economy needs a balance of supply and demand - just promoting one but not the other brings diminishing returns.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 09:51 AM   #357
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I think the the unversality is also a good marketing tool, its not just a give away to free loaders, its a give away to free loaders and hard workers. That might be an easier sell?

The US has the earned income tax credit which is a sort of NIT. It does not go to anyone though, you actually have to have a job and thus fill out your taxes. I believe that is considered a feature of most NIT proposals.

This may be the best conversation I've seen on this forum. It actually feels like people trying to figure out the pros and cons of various policy ideas regarding dealing with poverty and joblessness. Thanks.
I'm enjoying it, as well.

You're totally right about the universality and marketing and freeloader stigma problem. That is the main selling point of a UBI.

But I still don't see how it wouldn't cause inflation.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 09:54 AM   #358
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are misinformed about the nature of a NIT. Everybody pays the same marginal rate of tax on each dollar earned and everybody gets the same basic allowance. Whether somebody ends up a net receiver or a net payer depends on the difference between their tax bill and the allowance and this depends on their level of income.

So while some get paid and others have to pay, there is no disincentive because everybody pays tax on their earnings at the same rate and nobody loses the basic allowance. Compare this with welfare where earning just $1 "too much" can see your entire welfare cut off.
So this is incorrect?
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/...IncomeTax.html
Quote:
The needy would, like everyone else, simply file annual—or perhaps quarterly—income returns with the Internal Revenue Service. But unlike other filers who would make payments to the IRS, based on the amount by which their incomes exceeded the threshold for tax liability, NIT beneficiaries would receive payments ("negative taxes") from the IRS, based on how far their incomes fell below the tax threshold.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 10:35 AM   #359
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,814
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No it isn't incorrect but it doesn't contradict my post either. It simply fails to point out that the amount of allowance and the marginal tax rate is the same for everybody. The difference between these two is what determines who pays and who receives.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 10:43 AM   #360
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,621
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No it isn't incorrect but it doesn't contradict my post either. It simply fails to point out that the amount of allowance and the marginal tax rate is the same for everybody. The difference between these two is what determines who pays and who receives.
Do you have a source on that?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.