Conquer Club

UBI = universal basic income, ie. a set sum of money that everyone gets by default, simply by existing.

Discuss

Yes, $0.

is that even a thing?

It depends on the income allotted and the deadweight losses which ensue, Loot.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It depends on the income allotted and the deadweight losses which ensue, Loot.

You voted yes?????


What the hell's the matter with you?????


Fever?

I need more information regarding how much loot we're talking about. Are we talking about basic costs being covered (and by basic, I mean food, clothing, and housing)?

No, I think the state should provide minimum requirements to live and make opportunities available for a living wage beyond that.

To take care of their basic needs through cash profitizes them and provides an incentive to encourage the promulgation of the issues rather than try to solve them.

I would also ask that the minimum requirements be made available, rather than given freely. What I mean by this: 1 acre can house and feed at least four people, but the setting up the system requires labour, as does maintaining it. The method and material can be provided by the government, but the labour would be required out of the inhabitants.

Currently in Canada, we spend $7b annually on homelessness. We have 30,000 revolving homeless people. Or, we spend more than $233,000 per homeless person per year.

Currently, TDA (tire derived aggregate) is being pushed into nonsensical uses. It's value is marginal in most uses, but in housing, it could be quite useful. We have roughly 50,000 acres of hemp stalk which is wasted, literally. This is enough material to produce 50,000 houses.

The government should invest a few million into producing useful designs/maintenance systems/equipment that can then be passed on to those in need/volunteers and make some resources available to people in need, such as a few of the billion available acres of land we have.

An Earthship currently can be built with 50 volunteers in a month and house four. If this can be reduced through equipment and design development to 1/3 the volunteers and 1/6 can be moved to developing a food forest, then within the six working months of winter, a group of 25 could build and prepare agriculture for 36 people. This would cover all their basic needs except cloths...forever.

The government could have a one off $7b expense and never spend another cent on homelessness. But...they won't, because of the economy, capitalism, free rides, punitive fear mongering.

It would also significantly reduce GHGs, which are my primary concern(ha).

notyou2 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:It depends on the income allotted and the deadweight losses which ensue, Loot.

You voted yes?????


What the hell's the matter with you?????


Fever?

Generally speaking most libertarians are in support of it as it is more efficient than means tested or means assessed welfare.

Obviously you would not have both forms of welfare.

I like it but would suggest it be coupled with a much more heavily graduated tax system.

For example instead of an UBI of 30k/year you'd have a UBI of 15k/year and income tax of 0% up to X where X equates to 15k more money in low income earners back pocket per year compared to existing tax system.

thegreekdog wrote:I need more information regarding how much loot we're talking about. Are we talking about basic costs being covered (and by basic, I mean food, clothing, and housing)?

I don't know. Lets start with $30k (~$10T/year USD for the US) and work from there.

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I need more information regarding how much loot we're talking about. Are we talking about basic costs being covered (and by basic, I mean food, clothing, and housing)?

I don't know. Lets start with $30k (~$10T/year USD for the US) and work from there.

You give to any Mexican and he will basically not work the rest of his life.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It depends on the income allotted and the deadweight losses which ensue, Loot.

As above.

Regarding deadweight losses we can't really have a discussion on them unless we also include discussion on where the funding for the UBI is sourced. But on the demand side I would assert that there's little to no distortion away from pareto efficiency.

nietzsche wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I need more information regarding how much loot we're talking about. Are we talking about basic costs being covered (and by basic, I mean food, clothing, and housing)?

I don't know. Lets start with $30k (~$10T/year USD for the US) and work from there.

You give to any Mexican and he will basically not work the rest of his life.

I would link the $ value to tax revenue. If everyone decides to simply live off the UBI then tax revenue will drop to zero and so will the UBI.

DOes a UBI require only one wordlwide government?

If so there will be migration issues, much worse than now.

If there's a worldwide government, won't there be inefficiencies due to the centralization?

nietzsche wrote:DOes a UBI require only one wordlwide government?

If so there will be migration issues, much worse than now.

If there's a worldwide government, won't there be inefficiencies due to the centralization?

No the universal bit only applies to the jurisdiction to which its applied, ie. everyone within that jurisdiction is universally able to get the UBI.

Lootifer wrote:

nietzsche wrote:DOes a UBI require only one wordlwide government?

If so there will be migration issues, much worse than now.

If there's a worldwide government, won't there be inefficiencies due to the centralization?

No the universal bit only applies to the jurisdiction to which its applied, ie. everyone within that jurisdiction is universally able to get the UBI.

If people migrates to the US for a job, imagine the migration for 30k check.

I support the idea in the sense that everybody should have a place, food and clothes but it seems difficult to apply.

It's kind of harsh that you are born and everything is taken.

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I need more information regarding how much loot we're talking about. Are we talking about basic costs being covered (and by basic, I mean food, clothing, and housing)?

I don't know. Lets start with $30k (~$10T/year USD for the US) and work from there.

I'm good.

I would like them to do some work instead of getting it just by existing.

What if everyone got a lump sum payment on their 25th birthday, financed by a 100% estate tax?

For instance, in a country of 1,000 people where 10 people died every year leaving behind estates valued at $3.5 million, and 30 people turned 25, everyone would get $116,000 when they turned 25?

(Obviously it's not possible to collect a 100% estate tax, this is just a thought experiment.)

Estates should be taxed at 0%. They already rob enough money off you while you're alive, stealing your assets when you die is just obscene.

Estates should be taxed at 100%, you have no need for the money after you're dead.

Army of GOD wrote:I would like them to do some work instead of getting it just by existing.

Them? You get it too bucko.

Metsfanmax wrote:Estates should be taxed at 100%, you have no need for the money after you're dead.

Maybe I worked hard to provide for my children's future security. I don't see what right you have to help yourself to that.

Estate tax is a difficult one. I hate giving the government money, n the other hand, a society which rests on its accomplishments isn't going to go very far.

I think dollar bills should have an expiry date on them rather than have an estate tax.

My family made millions when millions were the goal. We, in the Chinese sense where a family is a cohesive unit, did quite well while managing or planning to manage our own affairs. And then in one generation of wantonness, the family was dissipated. There was no unity between my parents generation, and the one before them. While my great uncle (who is my adoptive father) and grandma sat in mansions, their kids made their own way.

I blame King Lear.

I saw what happened to my grandma's generation with a lot of my classmates in HK. Their parents were so busy making money, that all they had to give was money. This corrupted their kids and made their kids isolated and selfish, even to their kids when they had them.

Money should be engaged, and a smart family will engage it's members productively with the money, and if not, the family will probably be better off without the money.