PDA

View Full Version : Universal Basic Income Projects


er340790
25th Apr 2018, 14:24
I do wonder if the insane are finally running the asylum.

In Ontario 4,000 people have now been selected to each receive $17,000 (single) or $24,000 (couple) for three years to study the effect on labour markets etc. The study is being administered by multiple professors and tenured university faculty staff with far too much time on their hands.

I suspect I can already predict their findings: there will be a net increase of 3,000 unemployable persons who spend the next three years sitting on their decks drinking themselves to death, offset by the 1,000 who actually do drink themselves to death on their decks during the course of the study. Give or take 1,000 either way.

Having spent the last 30 years paying 50%+ marginal tax rates to the crazies in government in order to spent whatever time I have left sitting on my own deck by the lake, I now realise that I could have saved myself a lot of time and trouble.

Perhaps someone with a more highly developed Social Conscience than mine can point out where I've gone wrong in life...

Over.

Highway1
25th Apr 2018, 14:26
LOL - so Canada introducing a UBI trial just as Finland scrap theirs..

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/finland-set-to-scrap-free-money-experiment-after-two-year-trial.html

Nemrytter
25th Apr 2018, 14:28
Perhaps someone with a more highly developed Social Conscience than mine can point out where I've gone wrong in life...Not everyone is as lazy as you. Plenty would be happy to work even if a basic income was guaranteed. Still, I'm sure you know better than the experts.

Andy_S
25th Apr 2018, 15:08
Plenty would be happy to work even if a basic income was guaranteed.There’s been a lot of interest in these schemes in the last few years. I think the logic is that once you’re in guaranteed receipt of an income that secures the most fundamental requirements – food, accommodation, clothing etc – you might feel that luxuries that were previously out of the question are within your reach with a bit more money, ergo you are actually motivated to get up off your backside and get a job. And the payment will replace all other benefits, so the system is simplified and less open to fraud. And everyone would get the payment, not just benefit recipients. The flipside is that it would be hugely expensive and would require enormous re-distribution of wealth.

Personally I’m not convinced. The whole idea relies on a very generous view of human nature. And those who would end up losing the most are the very people best able to hide their loot. Or maybe they’ll decide it’s not worth becoming wealthy in the first place.

meadowrun
25th Apr 2018, 15:19
I just dunno yet. Providing a security net for the truly of-no-fault-of-their-own needy is a good thing.
However there is that great pile already entrenched in lazy life on welfare with the attitude of gimmee, gimmee, gimmee, who will embrace it and go after more.

Andy_S
25th Apr 2018, 15:28
However there is that great pile already entrenched in lazy life on welfare with the attitude of gimmee, gimmee, gimmee, who will embrace it and go after more.And politicians would pander to those instincts. “Your guaranteed basic income is far too low; vote for us and we’ll increase it by 20%, and it will be funded by the very rich.” And all sorts of people would feel that they have a right to additional supplements. “I’m a mother of five, I need more than the mother of two living next door”.

The idea has merits, but would quickly become corrupted.

Hussar 54
25th Apr 2018, 15:50
I just dunno yet. Providing a security net for the truly of-no-fault-of-their-own needy is a good thing.
However there is that great pile already entrenched in lazy life on welfare with the attitude of gimmee, gimmee, gimmee, who will embrace it and go after more.

Never yet met a street beggar who got up off the pavement and went home after he / she had got € 50 in their begging bowl. Or € 75 or even € 100 for that matter.....

Rwy in Sight
25th Apr 2018, 15:59
What is needed is to make the lower salary attractive - maybe by providing some form of tax-breaks. A friend of mine stopped working (as an agent in a call center - and she was good at it- because the money is not worth it - she prefer to get the alimony for her two kids (if this is the right term) and the allowance rather than work in a very tiring but low paying job.

bafanguy
25th Apr 2018, 16:12
I do wonder if the insane are finally running the asylum.
In Ontario 4,000 people have now been selected to each receive $17,000 (single) or $24,000 (couple) for three years to study the effect on labour markets etc.

Well, don't screw it up cuz Crazy Bernie is countin' on ya :

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/24/sen-bernie-sanders-to-introduce-guaranteed-jobs-program-report/

Krautwald
25th Apr 2018, 16:15
Really indifferent on this one.

1. We need to answer to the future of work and living - considering various issues ranging from automation to degrowth and just the general question why technical progress shouldnt relieve us from work.

2. Still, everybody I know who would like the UBI somehow seems to be a net taker in such a scenario, while the sceptics I know would be net contributors. Food for thought ...

3. If you look at the UBI as adding a slice to the big cake, then how do we prevent it from being eaten by the usual suspects? We have wealth distribution issues already, so what is going to stop the UBI from becoming a labor cost subsidy, an inflator of housing prices etc? Who says the nurse and the bricklayer and the single mom are going too keep it instead of ending up working for less and depending on government UBI money for the rest?

4. UBI in relation to citizenship and open borders? Nuff said.

I dont see us being ready to get this right.

MG23
25th Apr 2018, 16:37
We need to answer to the future of work and living - considering various issues ranging from automation to degrowth and just the general question why technical progress shouldnt relieve us from work.

The future is minimal government, and having a 3D printer in your basement that can make anything you want. Along with a much smaller population now we no longer need millions of people to go and work in factories every day.

UBI is a last, desperate attempt to make socialism seem viable in a post-industrial world.

Still, everybody I know who would like the UBI somehow seems to be a net taker in such a scenario, while the sceptics I know would be net contributors. Food for thought ...

FREE STUFF! FREE STUFF! FREE STUFF! VOTE FOR ME AND GET FREE STUFF!

The only reason UBI exists is to buy votes from the takers.

But I think you'll be surprised by the number of sceptics who'd quit work and become takers if UBI actually happened. Why work if the government is just going to take a large fraction of your income and give it to people who don't, and never will?

At one point the Ontario government were talking about paying $1500 a month to everyone. If that happened, we could sell the house, move in with my girlfriend's parents, collect $6k a month between us, and have a million bucks in the bank. Why go to work?

Or, at the other end of the spectrum, half a dozen kids could move into a rented house, collect $9k a month and party.

What was left of the economy would simply collapse if this ever happened.

And all these 'studies' are a complete load of bollocks, because there's a vast difference between someone giving a few people a few thousand dollars a year that they know will go away after a few years, and giving everyone free money for life. Few people will quit their jobs if the government promises to give them $17k a year for three years. Many will if the government promises to give them that money forever.

Ogre
25th Apr 2018, 22:16
The basis of the "everyone should get a basic wage" is a good one but it's an ideal that, like many ideals, doesn't hold up as soon as it is tried in real life. Like the unemployment benefit or what ever it is called locally, it was intended to be a safety net in the days when people who put out of work. However, in those days there was a social stigma in being out of work, and therefore people would use the benefit for the minimum amount of time until they got another job.

Society has changed. Nowadays being unemployed is in some strata of society almost seen as being the ideal, because then you have no responsibility, no worries, no need to get up and go to the place of employment, and more leisure time.

I can't help but compare the basic minimum wage with the scheme that gave first time house buyers a grant towards getting a new house from a builder. The grant was X, and shortly after the grant was implemented the new house prices mysteriously went up by a value of approximately X.

In an ideal society there would be no greed, however this society embraces all the vices of humanity.

ethicalconundrum
25th Apr 2018, 22:40
What troubles me with the concept is that there is no concomitant 'universal basic labor'(or labour to be UK compliant). If those who are advocating that simply having a pulse, and ability to breath are qualification to an income, I say - 'what is your ultimate goal for humanity at work'? Are we collectively striving for a least case outcome? A society of mouth-breathing, drones, staggering from one gobbet of Soylent pill to the next? Are we marginalizing the advancement of the species, because we have become entirely and completely as advanced as possible? Is the basic income offered as an incentive? If so - what kind of incentivization is it? In every society on Earth we can see the striving of people to advancement of power, riches, fame, and personal glory. What does giving a UBI do to advocate for this global advancement of Man?

Philosophy aside, and the big picture not taken, suppose we take up what would be equitable. Proposing that if everyone must have a UBI to survive in a monetized economic system, shouldn't it be equated to a UBWP(Universal Basic Work Product)? If the UBI is qualified to only provide subsistence living, then should there also be a UBC(Univ Basic Cost) for the taking up of required food, clothing, shelter, heat, waste removal from the UBI economic society? One would think, in this equitable utopia, that a net, net, net of income, cost, and work product would be only -- fair? No minimal(Universal)work required, no minimal cost for being alive in the economic system, but income from the rest of those who do MORE than the basic?

I have a few pronouns I'd like to share; parasite, bacterium, dregs, leech, mooch, freeloader. (sarcasm - on)Yeah - by all means, lets advance that as a gainful way to organize ourselves.

G-CPTN
25th Apr 2018, 22:47
What is the comparison between 'unemployment benefit' (and all the associated benefits such as housing benefit) and the proposed universal basic income?

On first glance it seems unreasonable to give everyone a basic income regardless of their circumstances, but when you consider unemployment benefit it then doesn't seem so strange.
Of course all these benefits have to be paid for (through taxation) so some people will have to pay 'more' in tax - the money has to come from somewhere.
If everyone received the universal basic income - even if working - then the tax would have to recover this in addition to whatever tax they would otherwise pay.
How would this work?

MG23
25th Apr 2018, 23:04
If everyone received the universal basic income - even if working - then the tax would have to recover this in addition to whatever tax they would otherwise pay.
How would this work?

Ah, but you see, the lefties have solved this one. Everyone will get a Universal Basic Income, but taxes will increase so you'll pay it all back in tax by the time you hit any reasonable salary (I've seen numbers like $60k tossed around).

So the people who still work will be encouraged to work harder by the knowledge that they're paying an extra $17k in tax that will be given to someone who doesn't.

tartare
25th Apr 2018, 23:09
Nearly all of the popular media reporting on this paints an incorrect picture.
While they are not expanding the UBI trial - they are in fact moving towards a universal credit system.

https://futurism.com/finland-basic-income-trial/

G-CPTN
25th Apr 2018, 23:16
The taxation system in Denmark (in the 1980s) was such that everyone ended up with roughly the same net amount (higher earners paid swingeing levels of tax - unless they indulged in tax reduction schemes).
I won't go into details, other than interest on loans was deductible from your top rate of tax so many people borrowed to finance their living (house, car, boat, clothing etc) and invested (using borrowed money) in tax-free schemes such as utility companies.

abgd
26th Apr 2018, 01:33
When the robots take over, who will buy the stuff they make?

At risk of being called a luddite, we are losing good jobs faster than they are being replaced. In the new winner-takes-all economy, we risk the likes of Amazon taking over from nearly every hard-working small business-owner. How many video shops do you see around these days? How many big companies are there that stream videos online? How many photo processing shops? How many online firms that will send you prints by post - if you don't prefer to put them on 'flickr'. How many taxi drivers will there be in 20 years? In the past, technology has always created new jobs. A machine of the 19th century might make cloth or nails, but it couldn't go down to the shop to get milk. People were always useful in some capacity. In the future all our physical needs may be met by a few huge companies with very few, highly skilled employees. They may not be particularly well paid - there will be too much competition for the few jobs left. The challenge of the 21st century won't be redistributing wealth from the middle classes to the feckless poor. It'll be about redistributing wealth from the 0.0001% to the middle-classes. Look around you: I had a colleague who was a doctor married to a lawyer and they couldn't afford a house. In a world of global corporations, how can any nation retain jobs whilst taxing the corporations enough to provide basic services?

The problem with unemployment benefit in the UK is that you can be better off on benefits than if you have a crappy job or can only do a few hours a week on a zero hours contract. In this situation, if you have a basic income you are likely to benefit much more from getting a job than you would if you were on unemployment benefits, so conceivably an universal basic income might reduce long-term unemployment. I do worry though that work keeps people honest, and if we end up in a situation where lots of people don't need to work, what will they do instead? I believe it was Bill Gates who said that we tend to overestimate the influence of technology in the short term, but overestimate it in the long term. I think that within my lifetime an universal basic income may be a necessity so it's not too early to start thinking about how it might work in practice.

tartare
26th Apr 2018, 03:07
I could not agree more.
In my view, we suffer the curse of living in interesting times.
Neo-liberalism is clearly in the throes of a multi-decade slow death - but no-one's been able to articulate what should come next.
A UBI, or something like it seems to offer an alternative - but how to pay for it?
Either that - or a literal class-war, famine - because clearly there'll be too many people, especially ones with grey hair and big health bills - and not enough work, or tax payers...

MG23
26th Apr 2018, 04:16
When the robots take over, who will buy the stuff they make?

You miss the point.

If robots can do all the work, there's no need to waste them making stuff to sell. You can skip the whole trade business and just have your robots make the things you want instead.

Want a superyacht? You no longer have to build a factory to make widgets to sell to millions of people to bring in enough money to buy one. You just program your robots to build it, and move in when it's done.

The usual UBI argument I see on the Internet is 'but when robots do all the jobs I won't be able to afford to buy stuff so the 1% will give me free money so I can buy stuff from them.' But that's ludicrous. No fat-cat is going to give us money to give back to them to buy the stuff they make, because they'll rapidly drive themselves into bankruptcy.

In the future all our physical needs may be met by a few huge companies with very few, highly skilled employees.

No, they won't. Because those companies won't be making things to sell to people who have no money. It's a pretty poor business model.

The challenge of the 21st century won't be redistributing wealth from the middle classes to the feckless poor. It'll be about redistributing wealth from the 0.0001% to the middle-classes.

The 0.0001% will have vast armies of robots. How do you plan to steal their stuff?

MG23
26th Apr 2018, 04:21
Either that - or a literal class-war, famine - because clearly there'll be too many people, especially ones with grey hair and big health bills - and not enough work, or tax payers...

The Industrial Revolution was the first time the rich had to care about the poor, because they needed the poor to work in their factories to make money for them.

But that was just a fleeting instant in the history of the human race.

There's a reason many of them are talking about 'population control', and building bunkers in New Zealand. They simply have no need of the vast majority of us any more, and sure as heck don't have any plans to give us free stuff forever, just for existing.

sitigeltfel
26th Apr 2018, 05:31
The Industrial Revolution was the first time the rich had to care about the poor, because they needed the poor to work in their factories to make money for them.

But that was just a fleeting instant in the history of the human race.

There's a reason many of them are talking about 'population control', and building bunkers in New Zealand. They simply have no need of the vast majority of us any more, and sure as heck don't have any plans to give us free stuff forever, just for existing.
The Black Death was the trigger for the decline of feudalism. So many people died and the subsequent shortage of labour gave the peasantry an advantage. They could now force the nobility etc. to compete for their services with better wages and conditions. That so many of the overlords had also been wiped out, it freed the serfs to take their labour where they chose and set their own wages and conditions. It wasn't the end of serfdom, but a kickstarter for improvements in peoples lives.

tartare
26th Apr 2018, 09:21
I believe this will be the issue that defines politics over the next 10-20 years.
A few nights ago, 16 year old young Tartare (firmly resolved to fly the RAAF F-35, and resigned to the fact that he will face Lieutenant Wang of the PLAAF in a BVR standoff somewhere over the Coral Sea in about a decade- and hopefully splash one) said to me:
"Dad - why did I have to grow up in such a shit time?"
Now personally, I think that's terrible.
The kid is becoming a young man in an era when large businesses are so confident of their ability to dominate and control labour markets (and demand for labour) that they can suppress wage growth, simply by just refusing to give anyone a pay rise.
Regardless of one's political colours, have they even considered that if by doing so, discretionary spending power declines, and increasingly there will be no-one left to buy their `stuff'.
What happens to revenue then, you rocket scientists?
Complete sh!t for brains...

ehwatezedoing
26th Apr 2018, 10:52
No, they won't. Because those companies won't be making things to sell to people who have no money. It's a pretty poor business model.
They will make what then!? If nobody can’t buy anything?

Tankertrashnav
26th Apr 2018, 11:03
I have a few pronouns I'd like to share; parasite, bacterium, dregs, leech, mooch, freeloader. (sarcasm - on)

Actually ethicalconundrum these are all nouns, not pronouns. Were you thinking of synonyms?

Still, I agree with the rest of your post, and thanks for the UK compliant "labour"!

MG23
26th Apr 2018, 14:57
They will make what then!? If nobody can’t buy anything?

They will make the things they want.

What's so hard to understand about this? If you had a thousand robots that could make anything you want, why would you use them to make stuff to sell to other people?

Trade does not exist for its own sake. Trade exists to provide money to buy the things you want. But if you can make everything you want yourself, there's no need for trade.

ethicalconundrum
26th Apr 2018, 15:00
Actually ethicalconundrum these are all nouns, not pronouns. Were you thinking of synonyms?

Still, I agree with the rest of your post, and thanks for the UK compliant "labour"!

Yes, apologies, and don't know why I was thinking pronouns as I listed them?

As for the fruits of labor, I have a clashing difference of example than most others here. I raised up three kids in this self-same economy, and all three are gainfully employed, well paid, and respected in their field. One is a chem engineer for a major producer of industrial and comm chemicals, the other is a HS/college teacher of math, and music, and the third is a sales agent for trucking and transportation of durable goods. They all worked hard since their early teens, got good degrees, and are upstanding and hard working people. They own homes, and boats, and go on vacations, and have nice dinners out. Maybe it should be noted that all are living in very conservative, or economically capitalist locations.

If there is to be a universal wage, once again I think it's a reasonable requirement that there be a universal work product. It's rather frightening that the forces of socialism that purportedly want to see a unified economic field are instead surely propagating a means of class structure, even stigma. Those in UK, and some of the rest of the EU know far more well than us in the colonies about class warfare, and struggle. Also, if the U in universal is to mean anything, then every warm body in the economic system(including the wealthy) must be getting the dole, right? This is ludicrous! Why would a society pay Sir Paul, or that Branson chap money out of the coffers(I don't know any wealthy Canadians) when they have piles of it already? Or - does 'universal' not mean the same when it comes to paying people from the treasury?

The whole concept of giving income to everyone just because they are breathing is insane. How the lefties can make this sound remotely plausible is a remarkable job of salesmanship. Hope it never comes to the US.

abgd
26th Apr 2018, 21:41
I raised up three kids in this self-same economy,

No you didn't. If your kids have jobs and houses, you raised 3 kids in the economy of at least 20-30 years ago. The current generation of teenagers will graduate from high school or university into a very different world.

I do agree with you regarding the concept of an universal work product though. It has often seemed to me that people being given unemployment benefit should at least work on municipal projects. There's plenty that needs to be done, and I do worry about how people react to unemployment: it clearly doesn't do anybody any good.

What's so hard to understand about this? If you had a thousand robots that could make anything you want, why would you use them to make stuff to sell to other people?

To get money to buy feedstock? Or to buy robots? If robots could build robots, some generous people would start to give them away and sooner or later everybody would have one. Investment would be letting your robots make more robots. People who were greedy and wanted too much stuff would end up with fewer robots than average and in the long-term we'd all end up roughly equally wealthy. If one's going to be silly, it's worth taking it to its logical conclusion. Perhaps we'll colonise the universe and life lives cosseted by robots, each owning an equal part.

Who owns the feedstock? I can see a strong argument that people who work harder should be rewarded more, but do people who own more but don't work harder deserve a better life than those who own less?

Why would a society pay Sir Paul, or that Branson chap money out of the coffers(I don't know any wealthy Canadians) when they have piles of it already? Or - does 'universal' not mean the same when it comes to paying people from the treasury?

Sir Paul and Sir Branson won't notice, but then there are so few Sir Pauls and Sir Bransons that neither will the taxpayer. It's the people in the middle who will notice. An example would be child benefit: If you earn over £50,000 in the UK, the government starts to claw it back - £1000 for the first child, tax-free, £700 each thereafter. Arguably this is akin to an extra tax on the middle class. I'd rather everybody was paid child benefit and the higher rate of tax went up a bit. If nothing else it would be simpler to administer - and simplicity is valuable.

MG23
26th Apr 2018, 22:29
To get money to buy feedstock? Or to buy robots?

Your giant mining robots will dig up the feedstock. And your robot-making robots will make more robots.

The whole point of UBI is that we're moving into a future where machines will, at some point in the next few decades, be able to do literally anything a human can do, and do it better and for less money. The left freak out about 'OMG! All the jobs are going!' because their ideology is based around industrial labour, and they simply cannot conceive of a world where people don't have to work for other people. So the only solution they can suggest is to steal money from the few productive people that will remain, in order to give it to everyone else who only consume.

As I mentioned before, it's pure twaddle, because you can't steal the wealth of a man with an army of a million robots, unless you have an army of ten million robots.

Perhaps we'll colonise the universe and life lives cosseted by robots, each owning an equal part.

Exactly. Though it won't be anything like equal, and there'll be a heck of a lot less of us than there are today.

I used to think the human population in the 22nd century would be measured in millions instead of billions, but I'm starting to wonder whether it might be thousands. One person with a huge robot army could collect enough resources that there simply won't be enough for many of us to live in this solar system.

ethicalconundrum
26th Apr 2018, 22:31
No you didn't. If your kids have jobs and houses, you raised 3 kids in the economy of at least 20-30 years ago. The current generation of teenagers will graduate from high school or university into a very different world.

Yes, I did.
First son and daughter graduated college in 2014, last son graduated in 2016. First son just bought his second house, and is renting his first one. He works 50-70 hours per week, incl private music lessons. He had his 26th birthday a few months ago. Hard work pays off. If I mention something like UBI to him or her, they would go ballistic.

In Canada, there are plenty of millionaires. Each of them gets a UBI stipend? It's not the billionaires that don't make sense to give money, it's those who are comfortable, like us - but Canadians - eh?

Private jet
26th Apr 2018, 23:31
Everyone can talk as much as they like about the pro's and cons of UBI, socialism, capitalism etc etc etc. but the bottom line is that when the disparity between the "have's" & "have nots" becomes too polarized then wealth will be taken, by force if necessary regardless of debate or argument. The interesting thing is that it will be a 3 way fight between the "0.01%", the so called feckless poor and the middle class. In this globalized era the ultra rich can easily hide title of much their assets (although they will inevitably lose something under a new philosophy) and the "feckless poor" have nothing to lose. The middle class, especially the upper middle class will get hammered if things continue going the way they are going. I'm no bleeding heart leftie, but it must be obvious to all that if there is not a gentle correction in society there will be a sudden one.

MG23
27th Apr 2018, 05:43
Everyone can talk as much as they like about the pro's and cons of UBI, socialism, capitalism etc etc etc. but the bottom line is that when the disparity between the "have's" & "have nots" becomes too polarized then wealth will be taken, by force if necessary regardless of debate or argument.

Again, how are you planning to 'take the wealth' of a man with an army of millions of robots?

'Give us free stuff or we kill you and steal it' may be the left's motto, but it only works when you massively outnumber the productive.

And there's another thing. Here in the West, we're not even allowed to talk about how IQ is almost entirely genetic and there's little you can do to increase it after you're born. The Chinese, on the other hand, have a huge number of scientists hunting down the genetic causes of intelligence, so they can genetically-engineer super-smart kids. So it's not just likely to be a man with an army of millions of robots, but a 300+ IQ Chinese guy with an army of millions of robots.

abgd
28th Apr 2018, 10:38
I wonder what the purpose of a high IQ will be, if true artificial intelligence is ever created? As a monist (one who believes that minds are made out of matter) I see no fundamental reason why this should not be possible. A decade ago I would nonetheless have been very sceptical of seeing artificial intelligence 'solved' within my lifetime. Now, I'm not so sure.

Assuming artificial intelligence and robots become tools for humans rather than autonomous entities with their own ambitions, then I think there will still be a need for more than a few thousand people. People are acquisitive, yes, but they also crave power and admiration from other people. A thousand followers on Twitter just isn't gonna be enough.

I too fear that something's going to snap sooner or later. In a way, I hope it does: we now have the possibility of instituting surveillance states the likes of which even George Orwell could never have dreamed of. But what I would prefer is that people see the writing on the wall and can institute change peacefully. A violent revolution is in nobody's interests: even those living in bunkers in New Zealand.

pax britanica
28th Apr 2018, 11:05
History teaches us that si the middle class not the poor who start revelutions but is one on the wat/

Too many poor and unemployed whose lives are propped up by tax -ie the middle class because far too many rich people dont pay tax or do not pay their fair share of it. A good example of this is UK council tax, local tax or property tax for those outside UK. It is set ina number of bands which sounds fair . I am one band from the top , another bedroom and i would probably have to pay another £600 or so and be in the top band. However the Ruler of Dubai who lives -well owns a house - in the same Council district me also pays this top band on his £30M property -ie one valued at £29.2M more than me. Living in Surrey England there are operties many many exceeding £5M in value and yet they pay virtually no council tax as a proportion of their income and assets and as a result the council is close to bankruptcy, cannot mend the roads and is is cutting back social care for the elderly .

The fact if that today their are too many ultra rich people and the world can no longer afford them -these are not hard working execs on say 500K pa or people who run business worth 10-15M but people who are richer than countries evade tax on mammoth scales and isolate themselves from real life, walled communities, security, private jets, islands, numerous properties etc etc and they just don't pay their way.

So sooner or later people are going to wake up to this ad no amount of robots, drones , security systems are going to help them because people in history like them had all the same equivalent advantages, including things like castles, private armies, draconian laws and it still didnt help them when the chips were down. AI isnt going to help because smart , and often idealistic kids in all sorts of unlikely places will outsmart their security bots and surveillance drones because thats what kids do .

Their needs to be a radical shift in income distribution to protect poor people and make sure it isnt the middle class who pay for it, and start becoming poor themselves -that is whats happens over time. While universal payments are probably not quite the right idea (oh and who si going to fiance that-not rich people thats for sure but many of us on here ) but it is sad to see so many posters on here immediately writing off any one who gets any form of social security payment as feckless layabouts with no morals and too many children who are druggies, alcoholics or criminals -ever heard of the phrase 'their but for fortune....'

ShotOne
28th Apr 2018, 14:54
"There needs to be a radical shift in income distribution..." Unfortunately this sounds perilously close to the fantasy being peddled by Jeremy Corbyn that you can spend what you want and "The Rich" will pay for everything. The reality is that every government who says that just cranks up taxes, again and again, on the middle classes.

Highway1
28th Apr 2018, 15:04
Their needs to be a radical shift in income distribution to protect poor people and make sure it isnt the middle class who pay for it, and start becoming poor themselves -that is whats happens over time. While universal payments are probably not quite the right idea (oh and who si going to fiance that-not rich people thats for sure but many of us on here ) but it is sad to see so many posters on here immediately writing off any one who gets any form of social security payment as feckless layabouts with no morals and too many children who are druggies, alcoholics or criminals -ever heard of the phrase 'their but for fortune....'


Well over the last 20 years it is the poorer and middle classes who have seen the biggest increases in income growth. Surely something we want to continue?

https://milescorak.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/branko-milanovice-global-inequality-elephant-curve.png?w=497&h=375

Tankertrashnav
28th Apr 2018, 16:47
If you earn over £50,000 in the UK, the government starts to claw it back - £1000 for the first child, tax-free, £700 each thereafter. Arguably this is akin to an extra tax on the middle class.

Bit of thread drift but I do wish that somebody would think of a new descriptor for people in that sort of salary bracket. I am irrevocably middle class (prep school, grammar school, RAF officer and subsequently self employed in the antiques trade, read a "broadsheet, go to opera and classical concerts etc) and yet other than my time in the RAF I have never achieved what is now thought to be a middle class income. I'm certainly not "working class" so if my low income precludes me from being middle class, what am I?

Poor class?

ShotOne
28th Apr 2018, 17:03
If your job involve any degree of responsibility or required qualification or training you are “The Rich” as defined by supporters of “redistribution”. I’d call it “Milk-Cow” Class

abgd
28th Apr 2018, 17:25
You could look up NRS social groups. Then there are Cambridge Analytica classification which is umptidimensional and classifies you by your opinions on kitkats and funny cat videos, as well as your probable income.

ShotOne
29th Apr 2018, 06:43
"Surely something we want to continue.."? Look again at your graph; it clearly shows the 65-90 percentile representing better-off middle class (like, say, pilots) has taken a massive drop. Precisely the group that socialists want to give the biggest kicking to.

abgd
29th Apr 2018, 07:56
I would disagree with that - I'm on the left side of the political spectrum, but am in the middle income range. Traditionally it's generally been the uber rich that the left have aimed at, at least here. For example in the UK there were mansion taxes on the aristocracy that meant that many stately homes fell into ruin.

The problems are that 1) it's hard to tax the uber-rich because they can move to different tax regimes and have ways and means of avoiding taxes. 2) It's often the very rich who end up in government, and they don't want to tax themselves.

You can't tax people on the poverty line, so that just leaves the middle class. So as governments need money, both the right and the left wing claw as much money as they can from us.

Don't get me wrong: entrepreneurial people should benefit from their endeavors, but at the moment the winner-takes-all economy is too geared up to supporting a few vastly wealthy people.

Highway1
29th Apr 2018, 12:42
"Surely something we want to continue.."? Look again at your graph; it clearly shows the 65-90 percentile representing better-off middle class (like, say, pilots) has taken a massive drop. Precisely the group that socialists want to give the biggest kicking to.

Its a graph pf growth - the only percentile that hasn't seen growth is around 80-85. All others have seen their income grow by varying amounts, especially the poor and lower middle class.

As for pilots being hit - remember that in the UK you only need to earn £75k to be in the top 5% of earners - are there many pilots who dont earn that?

cavortingcheetah
29th Apr 2018, 14:39
Did anyone mention that last week Finland ended its two year universal income trial project? Finland seems as though it would be a country where such an experiment was carried out with the full intention of making it work. It hasn't though and one suspects that political correctness prevents a full and freely accessed report as to why it didn't work. Maybe the trick is all in that last word of course/

Effluent Man
30th Apr 2018, 17:27
I believe this will be the issue that defines politics over the next 10-20 years.
A few nights ago, 16 year old young Tartare (firmly resolved to fly the RAAF F-35, and resigned to the fact that he will face Lieutenant Wang of the PLAAF in a BVR standoff somewhere over the Coral Sea in about a decade- and hopefully splash one) said to me:
"Dad - why did I have to grow up in such a shit time?"
Now personally, I think that's terrible.
The kid is becoming a young man in an era when large businesses are so confident of their ability to dominate and control labour markets (and demand for labour) that they can suppress wage growth, simply by just refusing to give anyone a pay rise.
Regardless of one's political colours, have they even considered that if by doing so, discretionary spending power declines, and increasingly there will be no-one left to buy their `stuff'.
What happens to revenue then, you rocket scientists?
Complete sh!t for brains...
That to me us a pretty much spot on analysis of the situation that globalisation has got us into. My generation stood a pretty good chance, given a fair wind and tide, of living our lives in a manner which we chose. For anyone under forty that opportunity has gone and they are forced to accept whatever crumbs the multi nationals decide are making their tables look scabby.

Mr Optimistic
30th Apr 2018, 17:40
There seems to be a sense of a lingering crisis of confidence about money, like we are not sure of the foundations anymore. Whereas once the system went unchallenged, now the consequences of past mistakes can't be tolerated so we experiment with the structure. Negative interest rates, helicopter money and quantitative easing. One way or another a lot of wealth may need to be destroyed through inflation and default.