Why do some people object to UBI IF we cut down spending on other areas?

[BHall1991]

That's fine - but my job is shown to be net zero, in that I can deliver more savings than my salary and benefits. Also are actively looking to add employees to our location, not reduce and that resulted in two machines being replaced by human employees in the last few years. Analysis is also showing we are pretty much topped out on automation as are assembly lines move so slow, there is little to no benefit to automate.

ETA: my team isn't going to buy the machine that replaces us

The way you are thinking about automation and such is more from the 20th century. It's not going to be robots and assembly lines, generally. It's going to be AI and neural networks that will replace a lot of what humans brought to the table.

[Cleveland33]

The way you are thinking about automation and such is more from the 20th century. It's not going to be robots and assembly lines, generally. It's going to be AI and neural networks that will replace a lot of what humans brought to the table.

Oh no, I understand that.

The point being is that in five years they aren't going to have AI conducting negotiations with suppliers (it's not there yet, it won't be there in five years, and even if it is, we aren't buying the AI to replace ourselves).

Outside of my specific role, the things we have seen for others are much further down the line.

[BHall1991]

Oh no, I understand that.

The point being is that in five years they aren't going to have AI conducting negotiations with suppliers (it's not there yet, it won't be there in five years, and even if it is, we aren't buying the AI to replace ourselves).

Outside of my specific role, the things we have seen for others are much further down the line.

See they already have machines that are almost capable of doing what your team currently does. Those machines are only going to get cheaper and more efficient, eventually surpassing human performance. Yes your right they wont have AI doing that by that time frame. Theres a lot more pressing issues and more fiscally rewarding uses for it. As for not buying AI, all it takes is one or two competitors to do so before you will have to follow suit.

[Austanian]

it'll never sink in - they're too far gone into their utopian fantasy

He is against the VAT.

His mistake was accepting the premise that he would be receiving 1k per month "Extra" while ignoring that he would be paying so much more in taxes that it would be netting less.

If you notice all the PRO UBI are using the script "Everyone comes out ahead" "what would you do with an extra 1k" "Stimulate the economy"

Even with out addressing the resulting inflation it isn't 1k. Lets assume I make 50k a year. Now 62k per year. SWEET.

4708 of that 12k is gone in income taxes (Fed, State, FICA, SS). So now my 12k is $7292

My take home pay would be $45,244. Which is then used to purchase goods.

With just the 10% VAT I pay another 4,113 (Goods will increase by more than 10%)

So my 12k is really $2584 per year or 215.33 per month.

If this theoretical person made more it only gets worse. AGAIN THIS IS BEFORE WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF PRINTING THE MONEY.

[Cleveland33]

See they already have machines that are almost capable of doing what your team currently does.

No, they don't.

Those machines are only going to get cheaper and more efficient, eventually surpassing human performance. Yes your right they wont have AI doing that by that time frame. Theres a lot more pressing issues and more fiscally rewarding uses for it. As for not buying AI, all it takes is one or two competitors to do so before you will have to follow suit.

We don't have a competitor on my program, it's under contract until after I'll retire.

[BHall1991]

He is against the VAT.

His mistake was accepting the premise that he would be receiving 1k per month "Extra" while ignoring that he would be paying so much more in taxes that it would be netting less.

If you notice all the PRO UBI are using the script "Everyone comes out ahead" "what would you do with an extra 1k" "Stimulate the economy"

Even with out addressing the resulting inflation it isn't 1k. Lets assume I make 50k a year. Now 62k per year. SWEET.

4708 of that 12k is gone in income taxes (Fed, State, FICA, SS). So now my 12k is $7292

My take home pay would be $45,244. Which is then used to purchase goods.

With just the 10% VAT I pay another 4,113 (Goods will increase by more than 10%)

So my 12k is really $2584 per year or 215.33 per month.

If this theoretical person made more it only gets worse. AGAIN THIS IS BEFORE WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF PRINTING THE MONEY.

We aren't printing the money.. is that why you think this will devalue currency?

Also consumer goods will not increase by more than 10%. Consumer goods have either leveled off or are getting cheaper due to you guessed it.. automation. The only area to worry about increased cost is housing. Also UBI isnt the same as income so it will not be taxed like that.

[scheal]

Only apply to legal citizens. LOL

Our liberal overlords might have something to say about that

It would only apply to legal citizens... this would actually help reduce cost with things like illegal immigrants, prison overpopulation and unexpected medical costs that people cant pay for.

[jlick]

Nice dodge - clearly you’re ok with taxes. You pretend to have some principle behind it but really it’s just you only want taxes for things you want.

If i had to choose between the wall and no taxes, you bet your sweet ass I would choose no taxes. if there was no taxes, we wouldn't need a wall because there would be no welfare state for illegal immigrants to leech off, which means they wouldn't be crossing our boarders in hoards, and if they did, the only way they would survive is if they actually brought something to the table instead of taking.

[Shortfuze]

Because cutting down spending never happens. When you cut spending you anger people and angry people will not vote for you. And the area that needs cutting are areas that a poltiician is reluctant to touch for fear of angering voters. It's like giving me a $100 every week and instead you want to change it and give me $500 a month. Even though I'm getting more in a month than before, I'll still be angry at you touching my $100 a week and in fact I'll demand that you give me both.

[Austanian]

We aren't printing the money.. is that why you think this will devalue currency?

Also consumer goods will not increase by more than 10%. Consumer goods have either leveled off or are getting cheaper due to you guessed it.. automation. The only area to worry about increased cost is housing. Also UBI isnt the same as income so it will not be taxed like that.

You would need to print the money because this project will increase federal spending at MINIMUM 2.5 trillion. The VAT income and savings in current government program can't get anywhere close to 2.5 trillion. The only thing left to do is to is increase the Federal Deficit... Devaluing the currency.

Yes they will. So VAT tax works by taxing the VALUE added be 10% for every value added in the chain so theoretically the 10% paid by the consumer is equal to all of the value added in the chain.

However, companies don't work off raw $$$ they require operation margins for a given level of risk. This means that the operating margin required by accounting in the 10% VAT will be passed on to the next level.

This has been visible in every vat system implemented. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp You will pay 13-15% more on every good purchased.

DO NOT skip over housing. That is the biggest fuking expense for most households. Given that the 10% vat will be paid through a loan you are paying interest on your tax.

You really think that UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME will not be taxed as INCOME or at the very least fuk with the standard deductions increasing your marginal tax rate?

[Dan_S]

Because I'm not a poor peasant that needs a handout from the government. How about they take $1000 less from my paycheck?

This is a really good point about UBI that I wish more people thought about.

If you're currently a taxpayer (meaning, on your federal and state returns you don't have $0 net taxes), you're not getting UBI. Sure, you may get a check for $1000 a month, but you're paying for it. The only people who benefit from UBI are those who are already net takers.

Which is the 50% of the country that doesn't pay income tax right now. And likely, with the increased taxes and VAT required to pay for UBI, a large chunk of that 50% will likely end up worse off as well.

Edit: Looks like Austanian is schooling people on this already. Not surprising as someone also with a finance background. Even though I disagree with him on most things, he's absolutely correct.

[Cleveland33]

You would need to print the money because this project will increase federal spending at MINIMUM 2.5 trillion. The VAT income and savings in current government program can't get anywhere close to 2.5 trillion. The only thing left to do is to is increase the Federal Deficit... Devaluing the currency.

Yes they will. So VAT tax works by taxing the VALUE added be 10% for every value added in the chain so theoretically the 10% paid by the consumer is equal to all of the value added in the chain.

However, companies don't work off raw $$$ they require operation margins for a given level of risk. This means that the operating margin required by accounting in the 10% VAT will be passed on to the next level.

This has been visible in every vat system implemented. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp You will pay 13-15% more on every good purchased.

DO NOT skip over housing. That is the biggest fuking expense for most households. Given that the 10% vat will be paid through a loan you are paying interest on your tax.

You really think that UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME will not be taxed as INCOME or at the very least fuk with the standard deductions increasing your marginal tax rate?

DUDE! Yang's gonna give us $1,000/mo man, why you gotta be such a downer about it?

[Bassackwards]

can you imagine how many people would try to migrate to the U.S. because of this system. I can already see the abuse in the future and prices on everything would go up.

can you imagine how many babies will be made? vaginas will be popping out babies knowing they will get more money

[Stizzel]

DUDE! Yang's gonna give us $1,000/mo man, why you gotta be such a downer about it?

Fuk that. Make it 100k per month and we can all be driving bentleys naa mean

[Ramoneb87]

Instead of giving us money why not just cut taxes and let us keep more of our money?

[YesiEvenLiftBro]

Instead of giving us money why not just cut taxes and let us keep more of our money?

It is Yang's position that UBI is necessary to make society function for the inevitability of mass automation that he believes will remove jobs. This is a solution to prevent people from starving due to a lack of employment opportunities, he believes society will become soo efficient that the old Calvinist logic that your worth as a person is derived from your productive capacity will be turned on it's head and labor jobs will more or less cease to exist leaving the majority of the work force in a position lacking the skills to obtain or create employment. If you simply cut taxes it would not be an offered solution to this problem as that solution basically implies to just let them starve to death, via the ''let them eat cake'' solution.

It's his belief that this not only will help relieve the problem of people not being able to survive, but also enable others to create more job opportunities and new occupations as a result of having more economic freedom to do so.

[Cleveland33]

It is Yang's position that UBI is necessary to make society function for the inevitability of mass automation that he believes will remove jobs. This is a solution to prevent people from starving due to a lack of employment opportunities, he believes society will become soo efficient that the old Calvinist logic that your worth as a person is derived from your productive capacity will be turned on it's head and labor jobs will more or less cease to exist leaving the majority of the work force in a position lacking the skills to obtain or create employment. If you simply cut taxes it would not be an offered solution to this problem as that solution basically implies to just let them starve to death, via the ''let them eat cake'' solution.

It's his belief that this not only will help relieve the problem of people not being able to survive, but also enable others to create more job opportunities and new occupations as a result of having more economic freedom to do so.

And what is Yang's timeframe for this mass automation?

And if he believes labor jobs will cease to exist due to automation, he really doesn't understand the labor job market.

[YesiEvenLiftBro]

And what is Yang's timeframe for this mass automation?

And if he believes labor jobs will cease to exist due to automation, he really doesn't understand the labor job market.

I am not sure that he set one, although I believe that's his position, although I might be incorrect as I've only seen interviews from him rather than actually reading his platforms. His rhetoric seems fairly focused on truck drivers and driving jobs as well as clerical/administrative jobs, I don't remember him siting an exact time frame but that's usually where his rhetoric goes to create a sense of urgency.

[jdo1]

Instead of giving us money why not just cut taxes and let us keep more of our money?

Democrats won't do that because they know their base doesn't withhold anything from federal so really the people that benefits are people with real jobs or careers.

[Cleveland33]

I am not sure that he set one, although I believe that's his position, although I might be incorrect as I've only seen interviews from him rather than actually reading his platforms. His rhetoric seems fairly focused on truck drivers and driving jobs as well as clerical/administrative jobs, I don't remember him siting an exact time frame but that's usually where his rhetoric goes to create a sense of urgency.

So then not labor positions?

[RIKTER]

You didn't address the premise at all.. you just strawmaned.

The argument in the OP for a UBI is based on massive spending cuts. The same group big enough to pass UBI is not going to then vote for massive spending cuts, minus the military...and that opens up a whole different discussion.

[jamalfudge]

Think of what happened to servers' wages when employers were allowed to consider tips as a part of their regular wage. Then imagine something similar happening to EVERYONE.

Valid point, repped.

[Retoaded]

Instead of giving us money why not just cut taxes and let us keep more of our money?

That is what is so hilarious about all of this. We need to increase your taxes so we can give you UBI.


So, just like let us hold your money for a minute and then we'll give it back to you.

[Stizzel]

That is what is so hilarious about all of this. We need to increase your taxes so we can give you UBI.


So, just like let us hold your money for a minute and then we'll give it back to you.

The government is going to pay itself $2 for every $1 it redistributes so we can make sure our bureaucrats keep their sweet pensions

[TacticalTaco]

I'm about over trusting the federal government with my money, no thanks.

Also no thanks on the rest of Yang's communist proposals of total disarmament and stifling free speech while he and his cronies eat caviar and drink champagne.


"Lol I'll give you $1,000 a month if you vote for me plz"

[Cleveland33]

Valid point, repped.

did you just quote yourself?

[Tharsos]

UBI is effectively the same thing as a negative income tax with a little more bureaucracy. The idea that the one is socialism but the other isn't is laughable, and it's a lot easier to pass big dumb legislation with a built-in coalition like UBI than it is to try to explain NIT and deal with politicos who will tie it to Milton Friedman.

[Cleveland33]

UBI is effectively the same thing as a negative income tax with a little more bureaucracy. The idea that the one is socialism but the other isn't is laughable, and it's a lot easier to pass big dumb legislation with a built-in coalition like UBI than it is to try to explain NIT and deal with politicos who will tie it to Milton Friedman.

Am I wrong to assume that NIT is only applicable to those that don't meet a certain income threshold?

In my mind, that is a lot different than something that everyone gets.

[Tharsos]

Am I wrong to assume that NIT is only applicable to those that don't meet a certain income threshold?

In my mind, that is a lot different than something that everyone gets.

With UBI the money is clawed back with a progressive tax scheme. It's literally the difference between me giving you $1000 and taking $600 back vs giving you $400.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfa...the-same-thing
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/univ...-leaky-bucket/

[Cleveland33]

With UBI the money is clawed back with a progressive tax scheme. It's literally the difference between me giving you $1000 and taking $600 back vs giving you $400.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfa...the-same-thing
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/univ...-leaky-bucket/

That doesn't really touch on what I was talking about