If $1000 a month is an unreasonable burden in the abstract, how about once it's embodied?
If instead of "someone" paying $1000/mo to a random person, what if it's you paying $1000/mo to a random person? Or worse, multiple $1000/mos to multiple people, since a minority of people will be net tax providers and will likely have to pay disproportionately for the benefits paid to a large pool of net tax consumers.
If instead of "someone" paying $1000/mo to a random person, what if it's you paying $1000/mo to a random person? Or worse, multiple $1000/mos to multiple people, since a minority of people will be net tax providers and will likely have to pay disproportionately for the benefits paid to a large pool of net tax consumers.
Politicians wouldn't want to make something they're going to be caught doing illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jinqC67U3LE
If a politician is telling you something is good in 2024, it isn't and you should probably run away in terror.
If a politician is telling you something is good in 2024, it isn't and you should probably run away in terror.
Now how is O'Keefe supposed to get unimaginably powerful people to say the most retarded things imaginable?
Here in Canada when you lobby for basic human rights they just seize your bank account and call you a nazi.
The number of $1000/mo is hardly arbitrary in terms of what's being proposed by others. It was what Andrew Yang proposed during his presidential campaign, it was the dollar value proposed in the study cited in the news story I linked to, and it's also the number used in the study cited in the LA times article that started all this. If the number is unreasonable, it's not because I picked an arbitrary number to be unreasonable, it's because the proposed number is unreasonable.
No matter how you slice it, if the government gives $1000/mo to everyone, they need to get that money somehow. Usually the proposal I see is "progressive taxation", which I've factored into my argument. You could create a federal sales tax, but that would need to be extremely high and would greatly increase cost of living. You could tax large businesses, but most people don't realize how little money is actually there -- in my example of Canada, the entire TSX stock exchange has a market cap of only 3,529 billion, so an annual cost of 360 billion(again just using the numbers the others suggested) would take 10% of the value of all publicly traded companies in the country and would completely use up that money in a single decade.
No matter how you slice it, if the government gives $1000/mo to everyone, they need to get that money somehow. Usually the proposal I see is "progressive taxation", which I've factored into my argument. You could create a federal sales tax, but that would need to be extremely high and would greatly increase cost of living. You could tax large businesses, but most people don't realize how little money is actually there -- in my example of Canada, the entire TSX stock exchange has a market cap of only 3,529 billion, so an annual cost of 360 billion(again just using the numbers the others suggested) would take 10% of the value of all publicly traded companies in the country and would completely use up that money in a single decade.
The only thing socialists hate more than productivity and food is other, slightly different socialists.
A centrist said to me "at least Kamala Harris didn't engage in a coup" and I was like "uh, you mean like the one that just occurred?"
Hey.... Uh... I'm not trying to be rude or anything, science reporting is just really bad these days.... But I read the paper the articles are talking about this and it was actually about using ferric chloride as an insecticide. They suggested instead using the ferric chloride as an etchant of copper, titrating out the resulting ferrous chloride using sodium hydroxide, and using the remaining copper chloride instead or alternatively just leave our some sugar cubes because spiders love sugar cubes and a happy spider isn't a bitey spider
The problem with speaking of UBI as a concept is that it's really easy to forget that there are costs as well as benefits, and the cost is enormous. The brick wall is between the people talking about all the benefits and the people talking about all the costs. Actual numbers matter a lot. If it is as I say and UBI will be the largest government program period and almost as large as all other government programs put together, then many of the discussions are nonsensical, such as discussion of whether the administrative costs of a small scale means tested welfare program going away would support the cost of a society-wide benefit.
Remember that this is at its core a discussion about actual implementation details, which is why it's referring to research. I've been talking about the big problems with the experiments based on the real facts about how UBI would need to be implemented.
I do understand you aren't necessarily advocating for UBI, but that doesn't change the fundamental problems with the concept. It's adherents are using studies that don't take into account the overwhelming damage the largest social program in world history would create. They just hand free money that came from magic to people and see if their lives get better. As I said, the other side of the equation is the massive harm to working people who have to pay for it, and the broader economy as a whole caused by knock-on effects.
Edit:
I'm just thinking of it, imagine if someone goes "if poor people are hungry they should just buy a farm!" -- and they produce all kinds of studies showing that owning a farm eliminates food insecurity for the owners. It's great that owning a farm is so great, but where did the money to buy this farm come from? I'm sure a lot of poor people would love owning a farm but it just isn't in the cards because it's not something they could afford to do.
Remember that this is at its core a discussion about actual implementation details, which is why it's referring to research. I've been talking about the big problems with the experiments based on the real facts about how UBI would need to be implemented.
I do understand you aren't necessarily advocating for UBI, but that doesn't change the fundamental problems with the concept. It's adherents are using studies that don't take into account the overwhelming damage the largest social program in world history would create. They just hand free money that came from magic to people and see if their lives get better. As I said, the other side of the equation is the massive harm to working people who have to pay for it, and the broader economy as a whole caused by knock-on effects.
Edit:
I'm just thinking of it, imagine if someone goes "if poor people are hungry they should just buy a farm!" -- and they produce all kinds of studies showing that owning a farm eliminates food insecurity for the owners. It's great that owning a farm is so great, but where did the money to buy this farm come from? I'm sure a lot of poor people would love owning a farm but it just isn't in the cards because it's not something they could afford to do.
There are 45 million canadians, I'm picking 30 million Canadians as the Canadian citizens over the age of 18 which would make them eligible for UBI -- it isn't likely to be given to children or non-citizens, so there would be an eligibility critera. From that point it's an extremely simple calculation, 30 million times 12,000 dollars equals about 360 billion dollars. Since that's almost as much as total federal outlays in 2023, you'd need to effectively double federal taxes to match, and I'd expect that would double the top marginal rate assuming incorrectly that the same amount of money comes in.
If we give $12,000 to each person each year, that's what it would cost, disregarding administration costs.
Presently, even under the massive taxation up here, most individuals don't pay $12,000 in income tax. Only those making 60,000 or more pay at least that much(with much more taxes elsewhere including sales tax, local tax, sin taxes and the list goes on), so it would effectively mean a small minority of taxpayers would be on the hook for paying for everything. That would put a disproportionate burden on a small number of earners such as those trying to support a family on one income by working a dangerous, dirty, or uncomfortable job. Lots of guys in the oil sands working 6 weeks of 12 hour days would see their wages hit hard. They aren't up there for the love of oil, they're up there to make money and if you jack up taxes like you'd have to on them the companies won't be able to pay enough money to keep them at work because so much is being sucked away.
Under CPP (Canada's version of social security), someone could be eligible for up to 15,672 per year, but only 3% actually get that amount. The actual amount you get is proportional to the amount you paid in, so some people will make the full amount but many people will make nearly nothing. These limitations are why CPP contributions are 5.25% on income below $60,000 and yet according to the program administrators CPP is solvent for the next 75 years. The average CPP recipient gets about $840/mo. People can start to receive CPP at age 60 for a large penalty(36% reduction in monthly payments), or 65 for the base amount, or 70 for a slight bonus. The administration of this may cost a bit more money per capita, but nowhere near as much as opening the spigots to millions of additional recipients. The numbers simply don't add up. Moreover, you'd have to politically get people to give up a program they "paid into" all their lives, and that'll be difficult. As well, programs like old age security are going to be similarly difficult to get rid of since lots of people over 70 rely on it for a chunk of their living expenses.
If we give $12,000 to each person each year, that's what it would cost, disregarding administration costs.
Presently, even under the massive taxation up here, most individuals don't pay $12,000 in income tax. Only those making 60,000 or more pay at least that much(with much more taxes elsewhere including sales tax, local tax, sin taxes and the list goes on), so it would effectively mean a small minority of taxpayers would be on the hook for paying for everything. That would put a disproportionate burden on a small number of earners such as those trying to support a family on one income by working a dangerous, dirty, or uncomfortable job. Lots of guys in the oil sands working 6 weeks of 12 hour days would see their wages hit hard. They aren't up there for the love of oil, they're up there to make money and if you jack up taxes like you'd have to on them the companies won't be able to pay enough money to keep them at work because so much is being sucked away.
Under CPP (Canada's version of social security), someone could be eligible for up to 15,672 per year, but only 3% actually get that amount. The actual amount you get is proportional to the amount you paid in, so some people will make the full amount but many people will make nearly nothing. These limitations are why CPP contributions are 5.25% on income below $60,000 and yet according to the program administrators CPP is solvent for the next 75 years. The average CPP recipient gets about $840/mo. People can start to receive CPP at age 60 for a large penalty(36% reduction in monthly payments), or 65 for the base amount, or 70 for a slight bonus. The administration of this may cost a bit more money per capita, but nowhere near as much as opening the spigots to millions of additional recipients. The numbers simply don't add up. Moreover, you'd have to politically get people to give up a program they "paid into" all their lives, and that'll be difficult. As well, programs like old age security are going to be similarly difficult to get rid of since lots of people over 70 rely on it for a chunk of their living expenses.
Up where I live, something like 45% of of each dollar I earn already goes to government. With UBI, I expect that number would reach closer to 90%. I'd lose tens of thousands of dollars for ten thousand dollars in benefits.
Implement UBI, and there will be no livable wage. If they implement it here, my choices will be to flee the country and renounce my citizenship, or die in destitution with my entire family. I won't be able to afford to work. It will mean that the government has effectively confiscated everything I own because for example if I had 100,000 in retirement savings I'd only get 10,000 after tax.
I don't think in your calculation you realized just how bad the world looks with UBI.
The entire Canadian federal budget in 2023 was about $500 billion dollars and that's a number putting the country deeply into debt. Canada has 45 million people. If we assume only 30 million are eligible for UBI, we're looking at 360 billion dollars. There is no cheat code here, the money has to come from working people. The only way to do it would be to make that 45% more like 75% (I'll tell you right now I'd have to quit my job because I couldn't afford to keep it), but that confiscatory level of taxation would definitely drive down productivity so for anyone dumb enough to keep working it would likely be much much higher.
Implement UBI, and there will be no livable wage. If they implement it here, my choices will be to flee the country and renounce my citizenship, or die in destitution with my entire family. I won't be able to afford to work. It will mean that the government has effectively confiscated everything I own because for example if I had 100,000 in retirement savings I'd only get 10,000 after tax.
I don't think in your calculation you realized just how bad the world looks with UBI.
The entire Canadian federal budget in 2023 was about $500 billion dollars and that's a number putting the country deeply into debt. Canada has 45 million people. If we assume only 30 million are eligible for UBI, we're looking at 360 billion dollars. There is no cheat code here, the money has to come from working people. The only way to do it would be to make that 45% more like 75% (I'll tell you right now I'd have to quit my job because I couldn't afford to keep it), but that confiscatory level of taxation would definitely drive down productivity so for anyone dumb enough to keep working it would likely be much much higher.
Equilibrium doesn't mean you won't see stratification. Imagine a container with water, crude oil, and kerosene. If you shake it up, it mixes up, but it finds an equilibrium whereupon the kerosene is on top, the crude oil is in the middle, and the water is on the bottom. This occurred because gravity exerts the greatest force on the water, a lesser force on the crude oil, and the least amount of force on the kerosene, and so the crude oil naturally floats on the water, and the kerosene naturally floats on the crude oil. In equilibrium, and perfectly stratified.
The taxes required to maintain universal basic income are one force of gravity that will pull everyone down, but of course the poor won't pay tax, and even if the ultra-rich do pay tax, who cares? It goes to UBI so the money ends up right back in their pockets anyway. Meanwhile the working class and middle class fully feel the pull of that gravity. A second force of gravity will be the effect on asset prices, since many people will (like they did during COVID) take their free money and throw it into the markets. It's important to realize that if you implement UBI you can't get blood from a stone and it's likely that you will pull more money from the middle class workers than you give them because the money needs to come from somewhere and the middle class is where all the money is.
Arguably, we're in such a situation right now. The west is in a time with a fairly poor Gini coefficient, and some of the worst social mobility ever. The rich stay rich, the middle class might stay middle class (but many are not), and the poor stay poor. That's in spite of (but really because of) the government being 50% of GDP. Meanwhile housing, food, energy becomes unaffordable for anyone and everyone's quality of life is suffering.
To propose a sort of welfare program for citizens is to forget history. We had examples of societies that had lots of immigrants and then the state made citizenship a means to have the means to survive in the Greeks and the Romans. In both civilizations, there were many slaves imported to do work without pay, and as a result there was no opportunities for the working and middle classes, so as a result there were powerful social programs implemented. This whole scheme ultimately ended with those civilizations ending. It didn't help because money isn't wealth. You want your best and brightest in the working and middle class trying their best because they're going to come up with new and better ways of doing things and better ways of building wealth in terms of the stuff we need. Otherwise you end up slowly getting bogged down in a quagmire of the increasing effort needed to maintain the status quo while the wealth slowly leaks away into nothing or aggregates in the super powerful and wealthy.
The taxes required to maintain universal basic income are one force of gravity that will pull everyone down, but of course the poor won't pay tax, and even if the ultra-rich do pay tax, who cares? It goes to UBI so the money ends up right back in their pockets anyway. Meanwhile the working class and middle class fully feel the pull of that gravity. A second force of gravity will be the effect on asset prices, since many people will (like they did during COVID) take their free money and throw it into the markets. It's important to realize that if you implement UBI you can't get blood from a stone and it's likely that you will pull more money from the middle class workers than you give them because the money needs to come from somewhere and the middle class is where all the money is.
Arguably, we're in such a situation right now. The west is in a time with a fairly poor Gini coefficient, and some of the worst social mobility ever. The rich stay rich, the middle class might stay middle class (but many are not), and the poor stay poor. That's in spite of (but really because of) the government being 50% of GDP. Meanwhile housing, food, energy becomes unaffordable for anyone and everyone's quality of life is suffering.
To propose a sort of welfare program for citizens is to forget history. We had examples of societies that had lots of immigrants and then the state made citizenship a means to have the means to survive in the Greeks and the Romans. In both civilizations, there were many slaves imported to do work without pay, and as a result there was no opportunities for the working and middle classes, so as a result there were powerful social programs implemented. This whole scheme ultimately ended with those civilizations ending. It didn't help because money isn't wealth. You want your best and brightest in the working and middle class trying their best because they're going to come up with new and better ways of doing things and better ways of building wealth in terms of the stuff we need. Otherwise you end up slowly getting bogged down in a quagmire of the increasing effort needed to maintain the status quo while the wealth slowly leaks away into nothing or aggregates in the super powerful and wealthy.