Why a Universal Basic Income Would Be a Calamity

[Tehshocka]

OK, so you choose to only count federal income taxes and I'll choose to count just FICA taxes, which are completely regressive. See how stupid and childish that is? You have to count all taxes, not pretend only one counts. That's asinine.

You are the one trying to prove something, and you have basically admitted that you are using bogus numbers because they make your argument look better.

Huh?

How are they bogus numbers? I literally linked you data that shows over 80% of taxes (Federal) are paid by the top 2/5ths of Americans.

You cannot deny this. Numbers don't lie.

So exactly where am I wrong at?

My argument: Since the top 2/5th's of Americans pay 87% of federal taxes, the bottom 3/5th's should stop asking them to pay more as they pay 13% combined. Because they only pay 13% combined, it would actually seem "more fair" to ask the bottom 3/5th's to pay their fair share.

[DesMephisto]

Bill Gates has a very similar Luddite tax proposal.

I mean realistically, in a capitalistic society, your product is worthless if nobody can buy it.

[Nasuuna]

Everyone here is arguing with stats from todays world but that's pointless. As AI does more and more jobs previously done by humans unemployment will go up. In 50 years time the world will look very different. This is how I see UBI working, it will firstly be essential. So much automation is coming in the next 50 years hardly anyone will have jobs. There will ofcourse be brand new fields of employment but only a few. I think UBI will work because Government will force companies to pay more tax with all the extra money they get from not having to pay wages to AI and productivity will sky rocket, no sick pay, holiday pay, factories can produce goods 24/7 etc with much more efficiancy. Out of this the Government will be able to afford UBI.

AI can also hopefully figure out a workable UBI that won't destroy all reason for people to exist.

I'd shoot myself if I couldn't work

[NineSpine]

Huh?

How are they bogus numbers? I literally linked you data that shows over 80% of taxes (Federal) are paid by the top 2/5ths of Americans.

You cannot deny this. Numbers don't lie.

So exactly where am I wrong at?

My argument: Since the top 2/5th's of Americans pay 87% of federal taxes, the bottom 3/5th's should stop asking them to pay more as they pay 13% combined. Because they only pay 13% combined, it would actually seem "more fair" to ask the bottom 3/5th's to pay their fair share.

NO, you showed evidence that they pay that much of the federal income taxes. Federal income taxes aren't even half of FEDERAL taxes, let alone when you incorporate state taxes.

Stop lying and then lying to defend your lie for ten seconds and try to make a rational point. It is a LIE to say that they pay that much in taxes. It is also a LIE to say that they pay that in federal taxes. Your argument is "If I ignore the vast majority of taxation in the country, they pay a lot of it!" Well, who the fuck cares? That's a meaningless point. If I ignore that my uncle has balls I can call him my aunt. So what?

[cubby]

That isn't true. First of all, you are confusing innovation and automation. Second of all, you are ignoring that before the industrial revolution, every man woman and child was working hours and hours 7 days a week. There are ALREADY way less people working because of automation. They are called children, teenagers, the elderly, etc..

I'm not confusing anything. I said what I meant. And I'm not ignoring what you're claiming - but your point is one that I would fold into my argument. Automation is coming on strong, and those lost jobs will affect our society, period. And if we ignore it, mass unemployment will occur with drastic effects in our society.

What are your thoughts on how what happened with the industrial revolution and job loss will impact the automation revolution?

The Finland experiment was awful and pointless. The smaller scale studies have been much better.

I agree - train wreck from the start. What smaller studies have you seen are showing results?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean realistically, in a capitalistic society, your product is worthless if nobody can buy it.

This is a very good point.

[NineSpine]

I'm not confusing anything. I said what I meant. And I'm not ignoring what you're claiming - but your point is one that I would fold into my argument. Automation is coming on strong, and those lost jobs will affect our society, period. And if we ignore it, mass unemployment will occur with drastic effects in our society.

What are your thoughts on how what happened with the industrial revolution and job loss will impact the automation revolution?




I agree - train wreck from the start. What smaller studies have you seen are showing results?

- - - Updated - - -



This is a very good point.

The Canadian Mincome project from the 70s never issued a final result, but the data was released and subsequent studies have been done on that. The rest of my points weren't directed at you.

[Vyxn]

It found evidence that if a person claimed disability, their child is also likely to claim disability. Given the prevalence of genetic disorders, that isn't exactly a shocking find, and it does nothing to prove that people getting welfare don't work or don't want to work.

- - - Updated - - -

.

please point out in the study that they make that correlation? because I don't see it

this is what I found

What drives the observed intergenerational patterns? It is unlikely to be information about how to apply for the program or appeal an unfavorable decision, since all parents in the sample have been through these processes, the researchers point out. What may change as a result of a parent being allowed disability insurance are their children’s beliefs about the efficacy of trying to get onto the Disability Insurance program. Suggestive evidence for this comes from an analysis showing children whose parents got a lenient judge are not only more likely to apply for disability insurance but also are more inclined to report the same type of medical disorder.
https://news.uchicago.edu/article/20...en-study-finds

what they are referring to is parents that game the system their kids are more likely to game the system
you really need to read the full article on the study

[NineSpine]

please point out in the study that they make that correlation? because I don't see it

this is what I found

What drives the observed intergenerational patterns? It is unlikely to be information about how to apply for the program or appeal an unfavorable decision, since all parents in the sample have been through these processes, the researchers point out. What may change as a result of a parent being allowed disability insurance are their children’s beliefs about the efficacy of trying to get onto the Disability Insurance program. Suggestive evidence for this comes from an analysis showing children whose parents got a lenient judge are not only more likely to apply for disability insurance but also are more inclined to report the same type of medical disorder.
https://news.uchicago.edu/article/20...en-study-finds

what they are referring to is parents that game the system their kids are more likely to game the system
you really need to read the full article on the study

No, what that says is that parents who are more likely to win a disability benefit court case are more likely to have children who claim disability benefits as well. No shit. If someone is more likely to win the case, they are more likely to be disabled, which means their kids are more likely to be disabled.

[Vyxn]

That isn't true. First of all, you are confusing innovation and automation. Second of all, you are ignoring that before the industrial revolution, every man woman and child was working hours and hours 7 days a week. There are ALREADY way less people working because of automation. They are called children, teenagers, the elderly, etc..

it take innovation to create automation and automation that happens in manufacturing will eventually end up at home in the house opening the market createing more jobs
and I'm not ignoring the "every man woman and child was working hours and hours 7 days a week" that ended because of unions and federal law not because of new innovation now new innovation followed to keep up with demand with a smaller work force and less hours worked

[NineSpine]

it take innovation to create automation and automation that happens in manufacturing will eventually end up at home in the house opening the market createing more jobs
and I'm not ignoring the "every man woman and child was working hours and hours 7 days a week" that ended because of unions and federal law not because of new innovation now new innovation followed to keep up with demand with a small work force and less hours worked

Unions and federal law didn't magically wish into existence enough productivity to move people past subsistence level lifestyles. They simply made it so that productivity gains would be enjoyed by the masses instead of by the few, which is exactly what UBI does as well.

[cubby]

The Canadian Mincome project from the 70s never issued a final result, but the data was released and subsequent studies have been done on that. The rest of my points weren't directed at you.

Shit, my bad. WTF was I thinking, lol.

I'll look at that study, thanks for the info.

[Vyxn]

No, what that says is that parents who are more likely to win a disability benefit court case are more likely to have children who claim disability benefits as well. No shit. If someone is more likely to win the case, they are more likely to be disabled, which means their kids are more likely to be disabled.

your conflating with having a real disability and claiming to have one to game the system which is what they are referring to and if you read the full article you would have understood that but you refuse so no use to continue with the discussion on that study

[NineSpine]

your conflating with having a real disability and claiming to have one to game the system which is what they are referring to and if you read the full article you would have understood that but you refuse so no use to continue with the discussion on that study

That study in no way, shape, or form addresses whether the claims are valid or if fraud is a factor. That isn't addressed by the study AT ALL. You are just making that up.

[Vyxn]

Unions and federal law didn't magically wish into existence enough productivity to move people past subsistence level lifestyles. They simply made it so that productivity gains would be enjoyed by the masses instead of by the few, which is exactly what UBI does as well.

what? not sue what are you saying
did innovation make industries not employ men women and child working 60 hour more a week or was it unions and federal law that stopped that practice?

[NineSpine]

what? not sue what are you saying
did innovation make industries not employ men women and child working 60 hour more a week or was it unions and federal law that stopped that practice?

It's not one or the other. It was both. Unions and the federal government could not have stopped child labor if child labor was still required to keep the economy floating. For example, most child labor laws excluded farm labor, because it was still needed to keep that industry working.

[PC2]

And that would be a really great insight if the population was flat across that time.

It's an important insight regardless of population change, total jobs and GDP give you the macro direction of the country.

[Tehshocka]

NO, you showed evidence that they pay that much of the federal income taxes. Federal income taxes aren't even half of FEDERAL taxes, let alone when you incorporate state taxes.

Stop lying and then lying to defend your lie for ten seconds and try to make a rational point. It is a LIE to say that they pay that much in taxes. It is also a LIE to say that they pay that in federal taxes. Your argument is "If I ignore the vast majority of taxation in the country, they pay a lot of it!" Well, who the fuck cares? That's a meaningless point. If I ignore that my uncle has balls I can call him my aunt. So what?

Your rant makes zero sense.

I'll play your game.



Here is the 2010 breakdown of Federal Taxes collected.

41% Is individual Federal Income Tax
40% Is payroll taxes (15.3% in which half your employer pays and the other is shown as FICA on your check)
9% Is corporate income taxes
6% Is other
3% Is excise taxes
1% Is estate/gift

Using the citations I gave you already lets agree/disagree on a few things:

1) Corporations technically are not people but for some reason are treated as such, at least for some issues.
2) Everyone pays on FICA up to 127.2k AGI currently. This point is moot.
3) The 4th and 5th 20% of the US population actually has a net negative tax return (they receive a return)
4) It is more likely than not these same individuals will not have to worry about any estate or gift taxes.


If we reduce the rant of yours to the 41% slice and pretend that some of these individuals don't own said corporations or pay any estate taxes than my argument diminishes into the top 2/5th's of US Taxpayers pay 35.67% of the total FEDERAL taxes, while the bottom 3/5th's pay 5.33%.

It's still lopsided and repugnant to ask them to pay more.

[Theodarzna]

Bill Gates has a very similar Luddite tax proposal.

How is it Luddite? It is asking one pay the cost of their actions.

[Bullettime]

no need to because there really isn't a need
innovation that leads to job lose in one sector creates jobs in another
what we need to do is make sure we provide the training so the ones that lost their jobs in one sector of the job market can fill the jobs created in the other
that is all we need to do

take the automobile for example yes it took away many jobs from the carriage and saddle makers to many blacksmith that made horse shoes and nailed them to the horse
but just think of all the jobs that the automobile created over the years and I'm not just referring to just making them I'm referring to car washes to car audio equipment and we wont even get into the jobs created in oil companies that pumps and creates the gas to run those cars

The people who are displaced aren't the same ones working the few new jobs created.

Someone who works in say an Amazon facility as a picker isn't suddenly going to be repairing the drones that are set to replace them in the next 10 years.

[NineSpine]

It's an important insight regardless of population change, total jobs and total GDP give you the macro direction of the country.

No, they don't. If you experienced a population boom 18 years earlier, BOTH of those numbers are going to inflate purely as a function of population.

- - - Updated - - -

Your rant makes zero sense.

I'll play your game.



Here is the 2010 breakdown of Federal Taxes collected.

41% Is individual Federal Income Tax
40% Is payroll taxes (15.3% in which half your employer pays and the other is shown as FICA on your check)
9% Is corporate income taxes
6% Is other
3% Is excise taxes
1% Is estate/gift

Using the citations I gave you already lets agree/disagree on a few things:

1) Corporations technically are not people but for some reason are treated as such, at least for some issues.
2) Everyone pays on FICA up to 127.2k AGI currently. This point is moot.
3) The 4th and 5th 20% of the US population actually has a net negative tax return (they receive a return)
4) It is more likely than not these same individuals will not have to worry about any estate or gift taxes.


If we reduce the rant of yours to the 41% slice and pretend that some of these individuals don't own said corporations or pay any estate taxes than my argument diminishes into the top 2/5th's of US Taxpayers pay 35.67% of the total FEDERAL taxes, while the bottom 3/5th's pay 5.33%.

It's still lopsided and repugnant to ask them to pay more.

According to your "math", the total amount of taxes collected is only about 40% of all taxes collected. How can you possibly believe that makes sense? How can a total pizza be 40% of the total pizza?