I think "Like £10,000 a year." You then respond, "Individual poverty threshold in the UK is around £15,000 a year."
That's not really an argument against UBI.
You essentially said that if someone wants to live above poverty, they would need to make £5,000 a year.
That's $7000, roughly. 2000 working hours in a year. So call it $3.50 an hour. Not really sure exactly when and how taxes come in, but you get the rough idea.
Seems entirely do-able to me. Everything above $3.50 an hour is increasing their luxury out of the poverty threshold.
Do I need to follow the rest of your flow-chart, or have I gone far enough?
Im thinking this might be an elaborate troll. I was surprised it didnt just have a rick roll instead of the phrase "your version of ubi is dumb". However its likely our fault for taking a document seriously that has the word "dumb" in the title.
I'm okay with people saying something is "dumb," I just request they have a well-reasoned argument for that position, and that they defend their position vigorously if it's important to them.
Ya well there is no attempt at a defense yet.
What im curious about is if this really just boils down to opposition to any and all forms of redistribution regardless of feasibility computations.
Thanks for forwarding that. In case you're curious how I'd respond to them...
Let's see roughly how much I made, for every year of my life:
45 to 30 years ago: $0 (well, maybe some allowance)
25 years ago: $5,000 in a year
20 years ago: $25,000 a year
15 years ago: $50,000 a year
10 years ago: $100,000 a year
5 years ago: $150,000 a year
last year: $250,000 a year
Okay, now, if you ask me when I'd like to have paid less taxes - or received some UBI... And when I'd be willing to pay taxes, and when I'd be willing to pay it forward, the answer is very clear to me:
UBI + Free Education + Free Healthcare + Progressive Taxes
I think trying to turn someone who ends up making $40,000 a year into someone who ends up making $70,000 a year is worth investing in them, early on in their career.
I'm also willing to give up several things:
Minimum Wage, Union Protections, government mandates on "if you work X hours a week, and the business has Y employees, the business needs to offer you Z benefit"
I believe in education like Sam Seaborn [1]. I believe that automation is really on the verge of granting us essentially infinite Supply of very many goods and services. I believe that UBI + Progressive Taxes are the right way to distribute the benefits of automation as fairly as possible, while still benefiting from the advantages of a capitalistic market.
Ya thats pretty much my stand. And its pretty much the stand of Canada. (though things might be changing)
I make just south of 150k (CAN) but could certainly afford to pay 10k more in taxes. I think automation and various forms of AI (not really hard AI) will make huge swaths of the public as obsolete as horses. Of course investments in education could then possibly make some of these people productive again.
Comments
I think "Like £10,000 a year." You then respond, "Individual poverty threshold in the UK is around £15,000 a year."
That's not really an argument against UBI.
You essentially said that if someone wants to live above poverty, they would need to make £5,000 a year.
That's $7000, roughly. 2000 working hours in a year. So call it $3.50 an hour. Not really sure exactly when and how taxes come in, but you get the rough idea.
Seems entirely do-able to me. Everything above $3.50 an hour is increasing their luxury out of the poverty threshold.
Do I need to follow the rest of your flow-chart, or have I gone far enough?
Im thinking this might be an elaborate troll. I was surprised it didnt just have a rick roll instead of the phrase "your version of ubi is dumb". However its likely our fault for taking a document seriously that has the word "dumb" in the title.
I'm okay with people saying something is "dumb," I just request they have a well-reasoned argument for that position, and that they defend their position vigorously if it's important to them.
Ya well there is no attempt at a defense yet. What im curious about is if this really just boils down to opposition to any and all forms of redistribution regardless of feasibility computations.
I think I found the answer on another thread. ----------------------- dandare 8 days ago [-]
Becuase you first have to take the money from those who earned it.
Thanks for forwarding that. In case you're curious how I'd respond to them...
Let's see roughly how much I made, for every year of my life:
45 to 30 years ago: $0 (well, maybe some allowance) 25 years ago: $5,000 in a year 20 years ago: $25,000 a year 15 years ago: $50,000 a year 10 years ago: $100,000 a year 5 years ago: $150,000 a year last year: $250,000 a year
Okay, now, if you ask me when I'd like to have paid less taxes - or received some UBI... And when I'd be willing to pay taxes, and when I'd be willing to pay it forward, the answer is very clear to me:
UBI + Free Education + Free Healthcare + Progressive Taxes
I think trying to turn someone who ends up making $40,000 a year into someone who ends up making $70,000 a year is worth investing in them, early on in their career.
I'm also willing to give up several things:
Minimum Wage, Union Protections, government mandates on "if you work X hours a week, and the business has Y employees, the business needs to offer you Z benefit"
I believe in education like Sam Seaborn [1]. I believe that automation is really on the verge of granting us essentially infinite Supply of very many goods and services. I believe that UBI + Progressive Taxes are the right way to distribute the benefits of automation as fairly as possible, while still benefiting from the advantages of a capitalistic market.
That's my stand.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlyBfInS7ec
Ya thats pretty much my stand. And its pretty much the stand of Canada. (though things might be changing)
I make just south of 150k (CAN) but could certainly afford to pay 10k more in taxes. I think automation and various forms of AI (not really hard AI) will make huge swaths of the public as obsolete as horses. Of course investments in education could then possibly make some of these people productive again.