(January 6, 2024 at 6:40 am)neil Wrote:

(January 6, 2024 at 6:07 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Would the UBI be in addition to or in lieu of aid to the poor already in place?

Would you put an upper income limit on the UBI?

Boru

A UBI could be implemented in addition to aid to the poor already in place; I also happen to believe that there are ways that aid to the poor already in place can be improved without a UBI, and with a UBI, I think it might be able to further improve aid to the poor already in place.

Personally I don't think that there's any need to put an upper income limit on a UBI; with the approach I propose, everyone gets UBI regardless of income, since it's compensation that the wealthy would be just as entitled to, as compensation in exchange for property rights, as the poor.

Economically/mathematically speaking, it wouldn't be a drain on the allocation of tax (or tariff, etc.) revenue collected from payouts to wealthy vs. poor individuals, since the ratio of wealthy people to poor people is huge; this makes the total going to the wealthy a negligible amount, compared to what still remains for the poor.

You don't think it'll be a tough sell giving a billionaire the same amount as you give a single mum trying to feed three kids?

Boru

(January 6, 2024 at 6:48 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 6, 2024 at 6:40 am)neil Wrote: A UBI could be implemented in addition to aid to the poor already in place; I also happen to believe that there are ways that aid to the poor already in place can be improved without a UBI, and with a UBI, I think it might be able to further improve aid to the poor already in place.

Personally I don't think that there's any need to put an upper income limit on a UBI; with the approach I propose, everyone gets UBI regardless of income, since it's compensation that the wealthy would be just as entitled to, as compensation in exchange for property rights, as the poor.

Economically/mathematically speaking, it wouldn't be a drain on the allocation of tax (or tariff, etc.) revenue collected from payouts to wealthy vs. poor individuals, since the ratio of wealthy people to poor people is huge; this makes the total going to the wealthy a negligible amount, compared to what still remains for the poor.

You don't think it'll be a tough sell giving a billionaire the same amount as you give a single mum trying to feed three kids?

Boru

Sure, it can be a tough sell, but it's a matter of being able to deal with such appeal to emotion.

I think that a single mother trying to feed 3 children is more likely to be able to make ends meet in a society where things are running economically smoothly and logically than one where they aren't.

For instance, think of the cascading effect that a UBI (even one that gives $1,000/mo. to both wealthy and poor); it means more bills can be paid, less crimes of necessity occur, etc. That, in turn, means the collective overhead of bills not being paid & less crimes of necessity happening goes down; costs for goods and services go down; the overall economy gets more and more efficient. This I think only scratches the surface & I could go on and on.

Make a good argument - one that's sound or at least valid, and educate people - society will more likely be willing to accept a UBI, even one that pays the same to the wealthy.

(January 6, 2024 at 4:58 am)neil Wrote: What is your position on implementing something like a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?

A lot of times when people talk about UBI, it has to do with preventing serious poverty, homelessness, etc. 

We ought to keep in mind, too, that it could bring about an unprecedented flourishing of the arts. 

I read an article recently about classical musicians, including composers, and how the current system basically makes it impossible for most people who want to pursue this seriously. Very few make it to union symphony jobs, and even these are not completely secure. The rest do gig work for very little money, or teach if they're lucky. But it's precarious for all but a very few, and those who can live on it are almost always those who come from privileged backgrounds -- they grew up with the money and connections to get the best training and introductions. 

Just think of all the talent there is out there, wasting away because the person had to get a non-music job to survive. If they all had UBI, groups and orchestras could be formed based on musical values alone. 

Likewise the visual arts. Painting takes a hell of a lot of time. You can't sell insurance all day and then go home and do your best work. 

This is one of the main reasons I moved to Japan many years ago. If I lived in the US, I'd have to get a job simply to get reasonable health insurance -- though even those aren't as good as the government plan I have here.

(January 6, 2024 at 7:21 am)neil Wrote: ...society will more likely be willing to accept a UBI, even one that pays the same to the wealthy.

If I'm getting my check, I don't care if Elon Musk is getting one too. The point is that there really is enough money for all, if the political will were there.

So there would be no incentive to be the top of your field?

(January 6, 2024 at 7:33 am)h4ym4n Wrote: So there would be no incentive to be the top of your field?

There might be incentives other than financial ones. 

I've seen that when people say that someone is "successful," they usually mean he's made a lot of money. But there are other kinds of success too. There are other ways to be at the top.

Additionally, I don't imagine that a UBI would be sufficient to get yourself a private island and a Lamborghini, so people who are motivated by that kind of thing would still want more cash.

When Allen Ginsberg was among the best-known and best-selling poets in the US, he made barely any money from his poetry. In fact the guy who was hired to write his biography made more money from it than Ginsberg had ever made.

So being at the top of some fields doesn't come with cash. A UBI would allow more people to shoot for such success.

I would very much enjoy having UBI because then I could afford as much fast food as I wanted to eat.

(January 6, 2024 at 7:40 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(January 6, 2024 at 7:33 am)h4ym4n Wrote: So there would be no incentive to be the top of your field?

There might be incentives other than financial ones. 

I've seen that when people say that someone is "successful," they usually mean he's made a lot of money. But there are other kinds of success too. There are other ways to be at the top.

Additionally, I don't imagine that a UBI would be sufficient to get yourself a private island and a Lamborghini, so people who are motivated by that kind of thing would still want more cash.

So a high school kid going to a trade school and learning a trade would be a waste of money since this person would have the same income as a doctor?

Yes, it would certainly humble a great many people and perhaps even straighten out the Consumer Karen.