Scotland may be first to adopt a Universal Income, will give $200 a week to every citizen for life

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

So you Google funding the ubi and got nothing...

None that show how to pay. Point me to the one you think works best. Kinda damming that you can't cite it, IMO.

a reply to: pavil

I already have and it's a theory in economics. You can't find one your not looking.

Again how much is the cost to operate the it's and entitlements in the US?

Here is another link.
qz.com...

Literally hundreds of publications. Your looking for a soundbite I don't have it. It's economics a very complicated subject and every ubi is different.

The word ubi covers many different scenarios.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

So the irs is one institution..

Here is a test.

Total up all entitlements in Scotland including medical.

Total up all us entitlements including the irs operating cost.

On top of that the stimulus of middle class extra income.

And since you can't be bothered here are 5 professors and links to several studies.

qz.com...

Don't mean to sound picky, but is that pithy little article the best you could do on UBI. ....and it still doesn't address the funding other than one saying 10% of GDP "might" be doable. I just showed you Scotlands $10,200 is 23% of their GDP.

Doing such a Grand Experiment with faulty or non-existent numbers for funding is surely not the way to start going about UBI.

a reply to: pavil

You need to do your part and follow up on the links within that article.


I can't give you a semster of economics in a post.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: nightbringr
Just did the math.

5.3 million people current in Scotland. Let's assume only 3 million are of age to receive the cheque.

3,000,000 x 200 x 52 (weeks) = 31,200,000,000 dollars per year given out.

What's Scotland's GDP, anyways? Nevermind you don't have to answer, you're screwed.

Your percentage of people over 18 is wrong. it's over 4.2 M Link

Dear god, it's so much worse then!

a reply to: nightbringr

Is it? Even if they already pay that much in welfare?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: nightbringr

Is it? Even if they already pay that much in welfare?

Yes. Because at least where I come from, 200 a week isn't going to pay your rent, let alone feed you.

Therefore you will STILL need additional welfare to help those without income aside from your new dole. So no, it will not eliminate welfare.

a reply to: nightbringr

So you will have to get a job or roommates huh?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

I already have and it's a theory in economics. You can't find one your not looking.

Again how much is the cost to operate the it's and entitlements in the US?

Here is another link.
qz.com...

Literally hundreds of publications. Your looking for a soundbite I don't have it. It's economics a very complicated subject and every ubi is different.

The word ubi covers many different scenarios.

he budget was $3.78 trillion. 60% of that is $2.27 trillion. UBI at 10,200 a head over 18 is 2.5 Trillion. Even in an Ideal world the numbers don't work and we all know that the Government won't constrict as much as you think it would.

Link

..... now if we paid off the national debt, then did UBI.......Thats an extra 220 Billion in interest alone a year, not even taking into account how the economy would benefit from that.

I have grave doubts that our currently inefficient Government will ever be able to implement UBI in a cost effective way.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: nightbringr

So you will have to get a job or roommates huh?

Not sure why you say that.

I am the proud owner of a home and cottage. Cottage is paid, home will be in a few years.

I don't want financial handout. I firmly believe in personal financial responsibility and reduced tax load. The government shouldn't decide how I spend my money beyond the basics. Police my streets, protect my borders and provide infrastructure and basic social services for those who TRULY need them.

Socialists are lazy and believe the government knows best.

Don't get me wrong, we need a solution to when automation and robotics takes 20 to 35% of jobs away
in 1st World countries.

You don't go into UBI with rosy projections that don't materialize. I have look at UBI. They presuppose all the current assistance going into UBI. Remember current assistance doesn't go to every Citizen over 18 currently. That all other forms of assistance will just vanish is a pipe dream IMO.

If you tell me you have a full-proof system of funding UBI, I'd love to look at it.

A low income family receiving Medicaid, Section 8 and Food stamps, 100% Subsidized Day Care ect, can still easily receive over $7,000 in an income tax refund in addition to those other benefits, far exceeding $10,200 worth of benefits.

I don't think you can make the numbers work in the real world, all the studies are theoretical and I can't trust them compared to what happens in the real world. Name a government program that has ever come in at first projection with a scale as large as UBI would be, 60% of the Budget.

a reply to: pavil

Your missing the point.

You personally need to vote out the hacks who can't balance a budget.

It's time to make a new center and get rid of fake conservatives. Let the moderate liberals get rid of the confused identity politics zealots.

Simplification of any system provideo insight into where stress is in the economy. The smoke and mirrors used right now is not a good solution. A small bs change is no t the solution.

In regards to Finland they have a surplus after the ubi. A surplus.


And every person who automation is phasing out shares part of the nation's success. Not in a you get one you don't divisive strategy but as either a crutch or a spring board. It's still up to you.

I don't buy that humans are inherently lazy. Some are and always will be.

The ubi is the first "welfare" that doesn't discriminate and I haven't even gone into possible positive speculation about its influence for the achievers who were not born with silver spoons.

It's up to the actual community to fix problems. We need to bridge a way to change people from believing the government chooses how to do this. The simple money transaction takes away from broken political solutions and philosophies in social services.

It could fail because ultimately people want someone else to fix their problems.

a reply to: pavil

You can't play fast and loose with numbers vs policy.

What happens when a person on assistance get a job?

Gets job training?

Goes to college?

What would 10k do for a person making 27k in a low wage job?

Can you tax non essentails? Imports? Can you balance a budget.

Can you stop corporate welfare?

Can you tax lobbyists heavily?

How about fine financial cheaters like petty criminals.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Your missing the point.

You personally need to vote out the hacks who can't balance a budget.

It's time to make a new center and get rid of fake conservatives. Let the moderate liberals get rid of the confused identity politics zealots.

Simplification of any system provideo insight into where stress is in the economy. The smoke and mirrors used right now is not a good solution. A small bs change is no t the solution.

In regards to Finland they have a surplus after the ubi. A surplus.


And every person who automation is phasing out shares part of the nation's success. Not in a you get one you don't divisive strategy but as either a crutch or a spring board. It's still up to you.

I don't buy that humans are inherently lazy. Some are and always will be.

The ubi is the first "welfare" that doesn't discriminate and I haven't even gone into possible positive speculation about its influence for the achievers who were not born with silver spoons.

It's up to the actual community to fix problems. We need to bridge a way to change people from believing the government chooses how to do this. The simple money transaction takes away from broken political solutions and philosophies in social services.

It could fail because ultimately people want someone else to fix their problems.

The Results of Finland's UBI experiment won't be released till Dec 2018, LinkI see rosy and bad articles on it. So far all the claims of UBI are unproven to work in the real world. I understand it's a trial and error type thing, but if you pull the trigger, nationwide, you'd better be right.

I'm like Fox Mulder, I want to believe in UBI, but I fear it's just another government conspiracy/cover up.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

You can't play fast and loose with numbers vs policy.

What happens when a person on assistance get a job?

Gets job training?

Goes to college?

What would 10k do for a person making 27k in a low wage job?

Can you tax non essentails? Imports? Can you balance a budget.

Can you stop corporate welfare?

Can you tax lobbyists heavily?

How about fine financial cheaters like petty criminals.

.....and those are only some of the minor questions UBI will have to address and answer. I don't see enough answers yet.

a reply to: pavil

Well you may not know much about Finland. They don't take poo from anyone.

Yeah the US would need a radical revival and it would need to be a long term goal.

But it has to start somewhere rather than just run off the bridge until the terminator shows up and we end up in pods getting rescued by Keanu reeves.

a reply to: pavil

Well the ubi gives everyone money so it can be a program.

Well fare currently kicks you off assistance once you try and better your life usually dragging you back until you give up.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: nOraKat

Another thing it helps with it puts less pressure on both parents to work full time jobs. Which means if desired one parent could stay home or both could work part time allowing for more time with the kids and less need to pay exorbitant day care costs.

Which puts daycares (usually small family owned businesses) out of work and reduces the amount of people in the work place. Both the daycares and the stay at home parents.

Thusly, the government has less income from not being able to tax the earning of the now stay at home parents, and the incomes and business taxes for the daycares.

Explain how this is good for the economy?

Because it gives people more choice.

Some people will be able to stay at home because of the greater financial freedom.

Others will be able to take jobs they previously couldn't because the poverty trap made child care unaffordable.

More freedom until your economy tanks and painful austerity is required, I agree.

Now would you care to address my points on the economy? You do know less people in the workforce means less taxable income, correct? You do know daycares closing is also bad, correct?

I swear, people think money grows on trees.

Why would it assume that there would be less people in the workforce? Some people may leave the workforce, sone more may join it.

Daycare centres closing is neither inherently good or bad. It depends on the need for them.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Well you may not know much about Finland. They don't take poo from anyone.

Yeah the US would need a radical revival and it would need to be a long term goal.

But it has to start somewhere rather than just run off the bridge until the terminator shows up and we end up in pods getting rescued by Keanu reeves.

.

I know Finland, I've traveled extensively and am well read. The test just started in January of 2017 and they won't release any results till December of 2018 after they compare it to their control group. You can't make any assumptions one way or the other on the merits or non merits of the program right now.

The experiment pays $587 a month or 8,400 a year compared to the average salary in Finland of about $48,000. It will it will be interesting to see the results of the experiment.

a reply to: pavil

I never did.

It's economic theory.