The Emperors New UBI?

Author: ethang5
UBI
Universal Basic Income

Posts

Total: 73
#31
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@ethang5
@WaterPhoenix
Sure, I guess we can argue it here. However it might get a little messy and hard to keep track of who's talking. Regardless, you guys start (and remember to tag me in the question so I get notified).

Why do you guys think a UBI is a bad idea?
#32
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
It's a complete waste of the government's money and will not improve the economy like you say. Firstly, it's giving the impoverished more money to do nothing so they don't actually need to work which will not improve the economy and will make the middle and rich class do all the work. It's just another socialist policy rewarding the people who do absolutely nothing.
Topic's author
#33
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@DynamicSquid
UBI is a fantastically bad idea for the same reason perpetual motion machines are a bad idea.

There is no way to get more energy (in this case represented by money) out of a process than is put in.

It isn't that UBI is expensive, the UBI is impossible! Whether people deserve it is immaterial. It is not possible.

For those who will point to small scale UBI programs, most failed, and even ponzi schemes work for a while.

UBI is pushed by people who haven't a clue how money and economics work.
#34
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@ethang5
@WaterPhoenix
Phoenix

waste of the government's money
Nope. The costs will be mostly covered by a VAT, reduced healthcare exegeses (people can car for themselves), and other forms of saved money.

more money to do nothing so they don't actually need to work
Would you quit your job for $12,000 a year? Many studies found that a UBI will actually increase productivity. People will now work not to live, but work to gain benefits (like vacations). People could also pursue their passions, which was previously unreachable due to debt for example.

Ethang

There is no way to get more energy (in this case represented by money) out of a process than is put in.
Nice comparison, but that's not how the economy works. True, were not just going to be printing money, but the money gets cycled, and in each cycle, there's a benefit (say new infrastructure). And it's not all about money. People could now focus more on their families and passions. We're going to see an increase in non-profit activities, and more!

UBI programs, most failed
More explanation is needed. Link me some data.

UBI is pushed by people who haven't a clue how money and economics work.
Well, Andrew Yang supports UBI, and he's an economist. His support also include Elon Musk. Who doesn't love Elon Musk? Martin Luther King is also another name in favour of UBI.
#35
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
Nope. The costs will be mostly covered by a VAT, reduced healthcare exegeses (people can car for themselves), and other forms of saved money.
Yes, and I'm sure these reduced healthcare expenses are for the middle and rich class, we gotta treat the poor people like kings and queens.

Would you quit your job for $12,000 a year? Many studies found that a UBI will actually increase productivity. People will now work not to live, but work to gain benefits (like vacations). People could also pursue their passions, which was previously unreachable due to debt for example.
No, cause I'm middle class. And wtf is the point of passions if they're not gonna work. The simple truth is, poor people don't need to work with ubi do you think they're gonna want to do extra work for what, vacations? 


#36
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
Well, Andrew Yang supports UBI, and he's an economist. His support also include Elon Musk. Who doesn't love Elon Musk? Martin Luther King is also another name in favour of UBI.
I know that that's ethang's part but oml, he's a politician who will do anything to farm votes. Elon Musk probably got endorsed, and if he didn't he doesn't actually have a clue about economics either. And isn't mlk ya know dead? 

#37
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Let's make this our mission. We're not going to stop unless one of us agrees with the other side.


are for the middle and rich class
Actually no. A good UBI plan (like Yang's plan) does not discriminate against any economic class.

No, cause I'm middle class
And neither would poor or rich people, thus proving my point exactly. In addition, studies have found that the people that do quit their jobs are so that they could stay home and take care of their family and loved ones, and to go back to school to get a higher education.

wtf is the point of passions if they're not gonna work
My point is that people could now be more economically free. They could now spend their free time not worrying about debt, or work misconduct, but instead spend their time doing more productive things. They could even find a new job, a better job more suitable for them.

poor people don't need to work with ubi
If I get $12,000 a year, I'm not quieting my job. I'm finding a new and better one. Like stated earlier, instead of being confined in a box, a UBI could open a new door for your future.

Elon Musk probably got endorsed
Let's not go off-topic here. But....

You're saying that a $25 billion man is getting endorsed by Yang, who in turn is getting endorsed by Musk?

Also yes, Luther is dead, but it's the idea that counts.


Anything else that this website doesn't cover?
Topic's author
#38
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@DynamicSquid
Sorry man, but you have been taken in by an old fashion ponzi scheme. I don't care who tells me he can get more money out than is put in. I'll call him a loon or a crook.

Look at my links below. All economic heavyweights.

Canadian Experiment Quickly Shows Failures of Universal Basic Income ...

8 Aug 2018 · Last week the government of Ontario, Canada, announced it was ending a pilot program to guarantee residents a universal basic income (UBI). ... For the Ontario pilot, only low-income folks participated, and their benefits replaced unemployment insurance, the state pension and ...

Universal Basic Income: An Idea That's Already Been Tried And Failed Miserably

20 Dec 2018 · In other words, a program that provides free money. ... In Canada, Ontario's government decided to launch a UBI  ...

Why Universal Basic Income is a bad idea 

Though UBI makes for a good slogan, it is a poorly designed policy. Basic economic theory implies that taxes on income are distortionary inasmuch as they discourage work and investment. ... One should always be wary of simple solutions to complex problems, and universal basic income is no exception. Jun 19, 2019

Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, ...

Universal Basic Income: A Thoroughly Wrongheaded Idea

15 Jan 2019 · Though the idea of a universal basic income for all (UBI) has gained ... land, however, this source of revenue would dwindle and fail to support what the ...

The failure of Finland’s Universal Basic Income experiment

…thinkers have mooted Universal Basic Income (UBI), where all citizens get paid a basic wage whether or not they are employed, as the answer to this. Many UBI proponents, including tech entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and even Richard Branson of the Virgin conglomerate, have said that they see UBI as the only solution to the problem of mass unemployment caused by advances in IT.

The basic premise behind UBI is not unlike the premise behind universal healthcare and other universal coverage systems. The Scandinavian welfare states have grappled with such issues for decades. They have outrageously high rates of taxation, but, relative to other nations at least, a semi-efficient way to plow these taxes back into welfare schemes for their citizens.

So, it was not surprising that Finland, also a welfare state, was the first to begin experimenting with the concept of UBI in January 2017. The programme allowed 2,000 unemployed Finns to receive a UBI dole, even when they tried out casual employment at odd jobs. These 2,000 were to be compared against a control group of 137,000 employed Finns.

A spokesperson for Kela, the Finnish governmental agency responsible for welfare programmes said at the time: “Incidental earnings do not reduce the basic income, so working and … self-employment are worthwhile no matter what." I had written in this column earlier that this statement is only partially true since there are two problems with every dole. One: it must be paid for by all citizens, which means higher taxes, and two: doles act as a disincentive for recipients who would otherwise be forced to go out and find paying work.

The Finnish government had said that if the trial was successful, the programme could be extended to include all adult Finns. The premise was that this programme could end up saving more money for Finland in the long run—as it was supposedly less expensive than maintaining current social welfare services for the unemployed.

However, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an influential think tank, said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland’s poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%.

And now, Finland’s government has announced that the two-year pilot scheme which started in January 2017 will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.

This seems to me to be conclusive evidence that UBI programmes such as the one Finland has, or the one we have experimented with here in India, are simply not workable as an alternative to boost people’s income in return for job losses caused by automation, whether this automation comes through the simple mechanization of agricultural labour caused by using farm automation tools, or through advances in IT.

Apologists for the programme, including the New York Times, have claimed that it is not UBI that has failed Finland, but rather the reverse — that Finland failed UBI. The claim that the pilot programme was too limited in scope to produce meaningful results and that it should have been extended to a much larger population.

Essentially, this means several millions more need to be spent on a programme that has already seen trouble before we actually pull the plug on it. This logic is befuddling.

We would be better served spending the money to re-skill displaced labour to take on other types of employment. Mankind’s history ever since the invention of the wheel has been filled with continuous mechanization and automation, and we have adjusted to every new development by finding new ways to be productive
--------------------------------------------
UBI makes no sense.


#39
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@ethang5
Oh wow! That's a long response. Let's dive in.

I like how you provided all these links as support for your arguments, but you have to take a deeper look.

Also I must say, that's a very interesting format to cite articles. I like it! Would you mind if I use that format in perhaps on of my upcoming debates?

1st LINK
Why did Canada's UBI fail?

Canada did not try the UBI plan on a large enough scale, earning little to no revenue. Only a few people were impacted, and even if they tried, a few people could not change the economy. This lead to economic and social problems, contributing to the ultimate shut down of the program.

Andrew Yang - let's talk about his plan - will implement a UBI on a large scale (the entire country).

2nd LINK
Discounted. First sentence mentions politics. Critical signs of bias.

3rd LINK
Discounted. Says I have to "subscribe" to read more. Bullshit.

However, I did catch a glimpse of one of their statements. They mentioned how it would cost $4 tril a year (US population multiplied by 12 grand). But not if it's Andrew Yang's plan! Yang's plan would only cost half of that due to age requirements.

If an article thinks giving money to new born babies is what a UBI is, then that's a sign that there might be some exaggerated numbers down the line.

4th LINK
That sites lists two major downsides of a UBI.

1) Expensive
2) Political barriers

The article fails to recognize the potential ways that a UBI could be paid for. It only looks at it from one perspective. And the article fails to give an accurate measurement of the cost of a UBI (see above response).

Just to be clear here, the cost of a UBI is around 2.3 tril. And we can pay for that (check out my debate with Swagnarok for more info).

Also, we're only talking about UBI here, not all that political realism and stuff.

5th LINK
Talks about cost. Doesn't look at any proper solutions.

6th LINK
Relating back to Maple Syrup's UBI, we have to talk a look at why it failed.

Here's why.

  • Change in social attitude made people treat UBI as a joke (they didn't like being "experimented" on)
  • Government held back on fund
  • Rushed planning without proper though
Andrew Yang - or a good UBI plan - would be vastly different because of reasons.

income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income
Aha! Not true! With taxes half of that of the European level (that would be only 10%), we could pay for a significant portion of the UBI. Also, taxes won't be the only reason (I said this before but definitely check out my debate with Swagnarok on an in depth to how to pay for it).

I don't care who tells me he [or she] can get more money out than is put in. I'll call him a loon or a crook.
What if Santa Claus all of a sudden comes down here and tells you that you can make money out of thin air? Would you change your mind?

I know I wouldn't. I would just be confused. But how about you?























Phew! That was a long but good one. Please read this site and let me know why Yang is wrong.
Topic's author
#40
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@DynamicSquid
I read your link, and I'm sorry, but Yang is a politician making promises he knows he cannot fulfill.

At the question of how he will we pay for this UBI ,(he calls it the Freedom Dividend) It says..

Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent.
Think clearly now. The working citizen is going to lose his social benefits, AND get his taxes increased!

You cry, "no", his social benefits are just replaced with the UBI. Even if that were true, and it isn't, the citizen would simply be taxed 10% more than he is being taxed now. That's all. And the extra tax must be larger than his UBI!

So the government will tax everyone working, and then gave the same people back a portion of what they took.

Basically, every working person will be making less than they were before UBI. Yet Yang says, "putting money in the hands of consumers stimulates the economy."

But he isn't putting money in the hands of consumers. He's taking money away from consumers!. Its a shell game!

He answers every question in this oily politician way. When asked if his UBI plan would increase immigration to the US, he answers that America is already the preferred destination of immigrants!

Yeah! That's exactly why the question was asked in the first place! And then to show how dumb he thinks his supporters are, he says only citizens would receive the UBI anyway. Never disclosing that he is FOR open borders and granting citizenship to all immigrants!

How sleazy!

All we need to know is basic math. UBI schemes have failed the world over. It is simply socialism by a catchy name. And socialism fails because it destroys incentive in the population.

Here are economic facts we cannot escape.
1. An increase in taxes will depreciate economic growth. Econ 101.
2. A UBI will increase the amount of unemployed people in a society.
3. A UBI requires the wealth to be  generated.  But only some of the people will be wealth generators. That means the wealth generated by each working citizen will have to be more than his UBI!

Why would citizens support Yang when right now, they can keep all the extra wealth they generate?

And what is the incentive to generate more than your UBI when you won't get it anyway? That is exactly why socialism loses and collapses every time.

Please, look up ponzi schemes and educate yourself. I know you mean well, but the experts at economic science agree that the UBI is nonsense.

Now, the ratio of working to not working will make a huge difference. So let's put some actual numbers in. Yang has proposed a $1,000 dollars a month, and a 10% vat tax.

1. Do you know how much will be generated per person by this vat tax a year? It will have to be much more than $12,000 dollars a year per person!

Can most people making less than 30,000 to $50,000 a year afford afford a $20,000 tax bite? And most people do make less than $50,000 a year.

2. Do you know what the minimum ratio of working to not working must be for UBI to work? What is the unemployment rate in the US right now?

We can fill in some numbers and Yang's illogic will immediately be apparent.

One last thing. The excuse that the samples in Finland and Canada were too small, is dishonest. In each of those countries, the number of people receiving doles was limited, while the number of working people generating the wealth was not.

The plan did not fail because it ran out of money, it failed because both countries found that the UBI increased joblessness among the recipients, made periods of joblessness longer, and decreased the amount of tax gathered by the government from the generators of wealth.

The governments plainly saw that if the entire working class could not sustain the few they had on the plan within their economic constraints, a larger sample of recipients would make it even worse.

You tax a wealth generator, and he reduces his expenditures. This reduces VAT collected. Each month, the amount gathered to cover the unemployed becomes smaller.

The government will be forced to either increase taxes, which will further decrease vat gathered, or reduce the UBI, which will contradict the purpose of the UBI.

This is what economists in Canada and Finland saw, and it caused those governments to scrap the programs.

When politicians start using catchy slogans for their shell games, watch out! It isn't a dividend if it's coming out of your pocket.
#41
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
Actually no. A good UBI plan (like Yang's plan) does not discriminate against any economic class.
Dude, it's a vote farm for the impoverished.
And neither would poor or rich people, thus proving my point exactly. In addition, studies have found that the people that do quit their jobs are so that they could stay home and take care of their family and loved ones, and to go back to school to get a higher education.
You don't seem to understand the concept of poor people not having to work. Why would someone do additional work if they don't have to? 


You're saying that a $25 billion man is getting endorsed by Yang, who in turn is getting endorsed by Musk?
Fine, sure, but Elon Musk makes cars and rocket ships, he doesn't analyze the economy.

Also yes, Luther is dead, but it's the idea that counts.
Uhm, no because he's dead.

And that website is Yang's campaign page, the sole purpose of everything on there is to make you vote for him.


#42
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
No, cause I'm middle class.

Quick correction on this point, the real reason you would not quit your job for 12k a year of UBI is because you would want to avoid literal homelessness and actual hunger. I highly doubt you have ever experienced either of these things or ever had an income level where either was a real possibility. Once you have experienced such an income level you may be permitted to authoritatively speak on the subject of what others in that income bracket would or would not do in the event that a UBI program was implemented. Until then you are just pulling things out of your ass.
#43
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ok, I'm sorry you were poor and am not trying to make a personal attack on you. But, with food stamps and obamacare that's not how it works anymore. 
#44
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
@DynamicSquid
UBI is a fantastically bad idea for the same reason perpetual motion machines are a bad idea.

There is no way to get more energy (in this case represented by money) out of a process than is put in.
<br>

Right. UBI implementation is possible only under three scenarios.

Scenario one: Increase money supply proportional to total UBI amount.

Result: Rapidly increased inflation.

Scenario two: increase taxes proportional to total UBI amount enough to keep inflation consistent.

Result: UBI irrelevant, all gets taxed away and ends in simply increasing unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy.

Scenario three: Same as scenario two but implement taxation in such a way that the burden of tax is carried by profit-driven organizations such as corporations and small businesses rather than by citizens, thus successfully avoiding the inflation problem and the obvious problems with scenario two. (This would align with DynamicSquids proposal)

Result: Said profit-driven organizations simply increase price of goods and services to compensate, thus passing on the cost to the consumer proportional to total UBI amount. Because this increased cost is not a result of inflation this scenario also has the side effect of decreasing the nation's competitiveness on the global market.
#45
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
i am not trying to make a personal attack on you.

No shit. I never said you were making a personal attack on me and I never thought you were eitherl. Al I said is that your post was logically invalid, which is a polite way of saying it was retarded.
#46
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Until then you are just pulling things out of your ass.
Just saying it sounded like you were a bit angry


#47
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I was not trying to sound angry. I was trying to give an accurate account of the situation, and I did. You really truly were pulling things out of your ass (metaphorically speaking anyway) to support your narrative.
#48
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That's not the definition of a narrative but okay then.

#49
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@ethang5
@Discipulus_Didicit
@WaterPhoenix
Guys, guys, guys...


This is getting way to messy to read. Perhaps we should start a debate on this. I don't want to continue writing in this format.
#50
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
You want a 3v1 team debate?
#51
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,294
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
??
<br>
Exactly, your clueless to morals spirituality of ..' do onto others as you would have them do onto you '.....

Universal Basic Income is about economics, not spirituality or morality ergo evidence of your clueless-ness.

Universal Standard of Living is about morality, spirituality and is irrelevant to economics i.e. you clueless is no surprise in these regards.
#52
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@ebuc
Dude, they're question marks.
#53
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@Barney
@WaterPhoenix
Uhh...

I was thinking more of three separate debates.

Although, Ragnar, would it be possible to do a 3v1 debate in any way?
#54
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,945
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
 would it be possible to do a 3v1 debate in any way?
Easily.
  1. The description will clearly state the users involved on each side.
  2. One user will have to be selected to take point, ideally whomever you know will have time, not get banned, and decent or good at formatting.  (or otherwise ask for special permission for a team account to be made...)
  3. The team coordinates on a shared document, and the point-man posts it when ready (ideally at least 12 hours early, due to the homework deadline dilemma).
#55
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
3v1 would be really fun, for the 3 people at least. But I'll settle with either one, even if the 3v1 would be way cooler.
#56
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@ethang5
@Barney
@Discipulus_Didicit
@WaterPhoenix
Sound great!

Are you three up to the challenge?

#57
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
Get set to get decked.

/in
#58
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I'll DM the other two and you guys can start planning. Let me know when you three are ready :)
#59
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,945
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
I suggest using a Google Doc, and of course some good advice for both sides can be found within: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt Actually, a copy of that might be a decent place to start building your arguments

Having done a group debate, I'll suggest any sources be done as [http://whatever] wherever appropriate inside the argument, and only when you get to the proof reading stage do you convert them to a numbered list at the end.
#60
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Sound great!

Are you three up to the challenge?

As mentioned previously anything before the new year is not going to work for me. Sorry.