Enigmatic Variations N0 1669 By Kcit
Crosswords0 min ago
Latest Lunacy From The Looney Left?
53 Answers
https:/
....words fail me, discuss.
....words fail me, discuss.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Unless I’m misunderstanding this you’re also giving it to people who don’t need it.//
This is true *initially*, but this point was addressed in, for example, the first link in my answer at 17:36. It's a lot to get through, and since it takes the form of a transcript it can be tricky to follow, but boils down to people who earn (significantly) more than the UBI rate simply having their UBI taxed right back, in effect paying it to themselves: "take $6 out of your wallet and put those $6 back in", as Widerquist has it.
Depending presumably on where this effect kicks in exactly, this lowers the cost to something like 3% of GDP for most large economies like the UK. Bearing in mind that spending on the current welfare state is around 10% of our current GDP, then even if that 3% turns out to be an underestimate it could still end up representing a net reduction in cost.
These are somewhat back-of-the-envelope figures, and I again want to stress my point from earlier, that "the exact cost depends on how you organise the scheme", which applies equally to the suggestion above that you *save* money by introducing UBI. Still, taking a given UBI rate and multiplying that by the adult population, and quoting that figure as an argument against the scheme, is completely misleading.
This is true *initially*, but this point was addressed in, for example, the first link in my answer at 17:36. It's a lot to get through, and since it takes the form of a transcript it can be tricky to follow, but boils down to people who earn (significantly) more than the UBI rate simply having their UBI taxed right back, in effect paying it to themselves: "take $6 out of your wallet and put those $6 back in", as Widerquist has it.
Depending presumably on where this effect kicks in exactly, this lowers the cost to something like 3% of GDP for most large economies like the UK. Bearing in mind that spending on the current welfare state is around 10% of our current GDP, then even if that 3% turns out to be an underestimate it could still end up representing a net reduction in cost.
These are somewhat back-of-the-envelope figures, and I again want to stress my point from earlier, that "the exact cost depends on how you organise the scheme", which applies equally to the suggestion above that you *save* money by introducing UBI. Still, taking a given UBI rate and multiplying that by the adult population, and quoting that figure as an argument against the scheme, is completely misleading.
// I find the case for a UBI persuasive in [principle] but I do worry a lot about it being inflationary... if we get runaway inflation then the money provided can quickly lose value at least in theory. //
A link I ultimately didn't share talked about this possibility, but in the end I think the jury is out. In short: not necessarily, but it depends on what else the Government does alongside introducing UBI. Plus, because of some of the points above, it wouldn't necessarily increase the amount of money in circulation if it ended up largely replacing, or even costing less than, existing welfare benefits.
// another problem i can see is that a UBI surely requires a system of ID cards ... //
Wouldn't it be enough to link it to your NI number? If so, then there'd be no need for a separate ID.
A link I ultimately didn't share talked about this possibility, but in the end I think the jury is out. In short: not necessarily, but it depends on what else the Government does alongside introducing UBI. Plus, because of some of the points above, it wouldn't necessarily increase the amount of money in circulation if it ended up largely replacing, or even costing less than, existing welfare benefits.
// another problem i can see is that a UBI surely requires a system of ID cards ... //
Wouldn't it be enough to link it to your NI number? If so, then there'd be no need for a separate ID.
“ Plus, because of some of the points above, it wouldn't necessarily increase the amount of money in circulation if it ended up largely replacing, or even costing less than, existing welfare benefits. ”
i can understand why it would cost less to enforce but i do struggle to understand how it would not significantly increase the money supply… after all one of the big arguments in favour is that it would dramatically increase basic consumer spending in the long term! i don’t see how that is possible without the risk of high inflation
the number of people who receive very large sums of money in our current system is not zero but it cannot be large enough to distort the money supply as much as paying everybody a UBI
i can understand why it would cost less to enforce but i do struggle to understand how it would not significantly increase the money supply… after all one of the big arguments in favour is that it would dramatically increase basic consumer spending in the long term! i don’t see how that is possible without the risk of high inflation
the number of people who receive very large sums of money in our current system is not zero but it cannot be large enough to distort the money supply as much as paying everybody a UBI
// i don’t see how that is possible without the risk of high inflation //
All I can do is point you to my sources: https:/
https:/
All I can do is point you to my sources: https:/
https:/
You're welcome. I confess, though, that my background in economics is not at all strong enough to judge the merits of these articles properly. Still, it's clear that a lot of economists take UBI seriously, and it's also clear that a lot of the opposition to UBI is based on misconceptions or biases rather than any sound evidence. In the long run, though, more trials are called for, to as far as possible evaluate it. Although really the only trial that will provide a full answer is a country-wide one, or at least a much larger scale than this proposed scheme. As far as I can tell, the only country that's remotely close to trialling such a scheme nationwide is Iran, and there are multiple reasons why it is difficult to translate the merits of that scheme to a country like the UK.
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
Anti -Vaxxer Named Health Secretary
News1 min ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.