|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: universal basic income (UBI)
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Ontario project. The idea is that everyone gets a basic amount of income, no strings or requirements attached. Because automation eliminates employment and there's no sense in wealthy companies with no one to buy anything, and no one can afford to get training without a subsistence wage.
This was previously tried in Dauphin, Manitoba for 5 years in the 1970s with results that mothers with young children stopped working to parent, and teens stopped working and more of them graduated from school.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Thanks for sharing the Manitoba study -- interesting. As is the news of the Ontario one.
Don't have much to say except I'm in favour of looking at different means of social support as workforce participation decreases due to automation -- and will continue to do so I believe. UBI seems like a good thing to start trialling asap, as it is being done, so issues can be sorted out and tweaks made for the time when it is needed on a broader scale.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
The Lord giveth...
I have a very cautious optimism. Finland has already implemented this on a very limited experimental basis, but I don't know that they have published any results yet. I understand the rationale behind streamlining the delivery of support, and simplifying the support network, but my caution is with regards to which support programmes will be reduced or eliminated. For instance, while income supplements obviously would be eliminated, what would happen to programmes with a specific target, such as the Trillium programme for prescription drugs? Would such programmes be part of the formula, or remain unaffected?
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
For instance, while income supplements obviously would be eliminated, what would happen to programmes with a specific target, such as the Trillium programme for prescription drugs? Would such programmes be part of the formula, or remain unaffected?
There are some people with high needs whose requirements can't be met with a UBI. Whilst you can reasonably replace the ensemble of general-purpose benefits that many people get with a UBI, it's not going to meet the needs of people who require paid carers, or those who require an expensive drugs regimen. Those things need to be separate.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Regarding universality of Benefits&Taxes
I think there's a lot to be said for that (I think means testing gives a wedge to divide, and for that matter having 'non-tax paying' workers).
On it's mildest (in UK terms), it seems to be effectively renaming tax allowance (~£40/wk+£x)
/ Pension credit (£150-SP) /JobSA (~£70/wk)/Income support* (>£60), for most people.
And then using the savings from filling in those sheets**, to cover the people in the middle where JSA fades but aren't earning enough (the benefit trap), and the very rich (at least unless you then take something back)
Some comparison ought to be made with Ian DS's Universal Credit (which does have some similarities, and tbh&f if it had been done competently and not at the same time as the "poor people caused the crash" rhetoric, would be easily persuaded by).
Also Child benefit (£20) would be replaced by the childs UBI.
In that case it basically doesn't cost anything, and simplifies things. (Though not completely).
The higher variants, need the money to come from somewhere else.
*for basically broke single mothers of babies.
**if nothing else Jobcentres could be made a lot friendlier, and at that point could probably be mobile.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Also Child benefit (£20) would be replaced by the childs UBI.
Am I misunderstanding, or under UBI do under-18s get payments? I had assumed it only applied to "adults".
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Also Child benefit (£20) would be replaced by the childs UBI.
Am I misunderstanding, or under UBI do under-18s get payments? I had assumed it only applied to "adults".
Depends on the scheme, (it makes a degree of sense to include children as people in their own right, and not totally as some appendage, but not enough to encourage baby farming either).
When I went to a talk about a hypothetical one, there was a reduced rate for children, and young adults. There also seemed to be a lot of confusion on the part of all, including me, the current system was, and as such how the scheme compared. In my understanding, it was nearer the renamed benefits, rather than an actual income (like the Ontario scheme almost is). Which left people confused as to why They weren't better off.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Tax robots. Tax wealth.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I understand the benefits of paying parents and caregivers for the costs of childcare and care of the infirm and elderly, and maybe one day work itself will be obsolete, but for the time being perhaps it might be better to have the government subsidize wages (ie, pay 75% of the first $20,000 a year that someone earns) so that employers hire more people? There would be problems making sure that the self-employed are not gaming the system but for people earning a paycheck it would basically be a way of setting a higher minimum wage without incentivizing employers to hire fewer workers.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I have a very cautious optimism. Finland has already implemented this on a very limited experimental basis, but I don't know that they have published any results yet.
I share your interest. We recently had a referendum on the introduction of a basic income here in Switzerland. I voted in favour, albeit in the knowledge that it had a very poor chance of being accepted. In the event, the proposal was clearly defeated. Nevertheless, a threshold was reached that will keep it on the political agenda in the years to come.
I think it has a lot of potential, but much will hinge on how it is calibrated and delivered. E.g. supposing you defined say $2000 as the minimal living wage per month. Do you cover part of that, or all of that? Do you give it per person, or per household? What do you do with part-earners? Do you give the stipend to people regardless of their income (i.e. always $2,000 + income) and tax it back from higher earners, or do you guarantee it only if people early less (i.e. your UBI income is reduced one $ for every $ your earn)? Or do you seek some kind of in-between model? There is a lot of incentive-based economics and psychology to work through.
Bearing in mind that tax credits are already a proto-model for UBI, it might be worth tinkering with them before we go for the full version.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Do you give the stipend to people regardless of their income (i.e. always $2,000 + income) and tax it back from higher earners,
Yes. That way you get the gains of minimizing paperwork. You throw away your means-testing apparatus.
Your suggestion of removing a dollar of guaranteed income per dollar of increased wage is horrible - it's 100% marginal taxation.
[ 26. February 2017, 22:57: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
