Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs?

ludin said:

Do you not understand that other jobs come online?
Unless you live in Amish country we don't have a need for wagon repair.

The economy is always changing and people adapt.

Way to straw man. Don't put yourself in the same catagory as Lafayette.
You can either address what people actually say or your can't.

You don't get to make up arguments that don't exist.

Click to expand...

Of course other jobs come on line. But they are not like the old jobs. The problem as i pointed out is that now the work force must skill up continuously. Rather than just learn one job and stick with it for life.

Yes, we adapt by making changes in the way we do things such as considering the use of a ubi.

Next time you throw a fallacy complaint at me make sure you actually explain how it works with what i have said because i get really annoyed at people who use it as an excuse as you are doing now. Because you do not get to dismiss by making false claims.

No one here has yet to say how they are going to pay for all this so called free stuff.

Click to expand...

Your kidding! You cannot even figure out how the american economy work, what a joke.
America prints its own money.

soylentgreen said:

Of course other jobs come on line. But they are not like the old jobs. The problem as i pointed out is that now the work force must skill up continuously. Rather than just learn one job and stick with it for life.

Yes, we adapt by making changes in the way we do things such as considering the use of a ubi.

Next time you throw a fallacy complaint at me make sure you actually explain how it works with what i have said because i get really annoyed at people who use it as an excuse as you are doing now. Because you do not get to dismiss by making false claims.


Your kidding! You cannot even figure out how the american economy work, what a joke.
America prints its own money.

Click to expand...

Another mmt'er that doesn't understand why we don't just print trillions of dollars.

Who says they have to be like old jobs. Yes you have to constant adapt to the market and what the market demands.
NO we don't adjust by doing ubi we can't afford it.

I will throw a fallacy when it is warranted. Nothing you posted addressed what I said. Then you need to get annoyed at yourself.
You can either address what is said or you can't. Nothing I said was false.

Now I will ask you the same question that I ask every other mmter and they always dodge.

If we can print trillions of dollars with no consequences why do we even have a national debt?
We should just print what 16 trillion and pay it off.

Heck no one has to be poor we can just print 1 zillion dollars and give it to everyone.
So why don't we do that since we can just print money.

ludin said:

Again you are still short.
What part of that don't you understand?

You are falling into Lafayette territory by not actually addressing the argument.

If the government pays everyone 12k a year the cost is 3 trillion dollars.
The federal government spends 600b in welfare payments. I will even say 800b due to overhead.
You are still short 2.2 trillion dollars.

How do you pay for it.

The savings do not cover the costs.
Please answer the question if you can't that is fine.
Just admit you don't know how to pay for it.

This is based on current Federal US budgets.

Click to expand...

What part, do _you_ not understand?

I gave you the breakdown explicitly, black and white. I don't know how to make it more clear to you.

Again you have a top line of $3.015 trillion (250000000*12060).

Per my proposal, the top 5% by income do not get the MI benefit, and it is phased out in a linear fashion starting at the top 20%, reducing the topline to $2.638 trillion. (3.015e+12*(.15/2+.05))

Furthermore, as the average tax rate is about 31.5%, the topline is futher reduced via MI benefits clawed back via taxes to approximately $1.807 trillion (3.015e+12*.875*.685)

We are then consolidating all of Social Security, ($972.6 billion per the 2017 budget),
Medicare ($527.4 billion per the 2017 budget) and
all other Welfare spending ($392.1 billion per the 2017 budget); we are getting rid of these; these are being replaced wholesale by the MI.

The total of this is 1.9697e+12 or $1.9697 trillion (9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11).

subtracting this from the remaining total, we get an outcome of -1.62584375e+11 or a net reduction in the deficit of $162.58 billion dollars: (250000000*12060*.685*.875)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11)

There is no way this can be more plain or evident.

ludin said:

Another mmt'er that doesn't understand why we don't just print trillions of dollars.
You do actually print your own money how do you think obama sorted out your last financial crisis with the permission of the senate.
Who says they have to be like old jobs.

Click to expand...

Don't ask me as i am the one pointing out that the job market is changing. Are you not following the conversation?

Yes you have to constant adapt to the market and what the market demands.
NO we don't adjust by doing ubi we can't afford it.

Click to expand...

Of course you can afford it, you print your own money your government is not and has never been dependent on the taxes american do pay or in the case of the rich don't pay.

I will throw a fallacy when it is warranted.

Click to expand...

And it was not so do not do it again unless you can actually copy and paste my exact words that make it a fallacy. Otherwise it simply nothing more than a dishonest debate trick an attempt to make you look good by pretending i am bad.

Nothing you posted addressed what I said. Then you need to get annoyed at yourself.
You can either address what is said or you can't. Nothing I said was false.

Now I will ask you the same question that I ask every other mmter and they always dodge.

If we can print trillions of dollars with no consequences why do we even have a national debt?
We should just print what 16 trillion and pay it off.

Heck no one has to be poor we can just print 1 zillion dollars and give it to everyone.
So why don't we do that since we can just print money.

Click to expand...

You really do not have a clue about your own economy do you.
Obama Avoids Debt Default as Senate Approves Two-Year Budget Deal

Obama will sign the bill into law as soon as he receives it, the White House said in a statement.

Without action by Congress, the Treasury Department would have exhausted the last of its borrowing capacity on Nov. 3, according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and risked default on U.S. obligations within days that would roil global financial markets.

The two-year budget provision provides new top-line spending levels for Congress for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 and the one starting Oct. 1, 2016.

It loosens budget caps, allowing an additional $80 billion in spending on military and domestic programs over the two years.

Click to expand...

Surrealistik said:

250,000,000 adults
Each receiving $12,060 for a total of $3,015,000,000,000
Subtract Social Security's $972.6 billion (2017 budget)
Medicare: $605 billion
Welfare: $392.1 billion

Sourced from: Government Spending Details in $ billion: Federal State Local for 2017 - Charts

Net Increase after deductions/consolidations: $1,045,900,000,000

Amount rebated back to government in taxes: (31.5% 2015 average tax rate): $3,015,000,000,000 * .315 = $949,725,000,000

Net Increase in deficit after deductions and taxes: $95,575,000,000 (250000000*12060*.685)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11)


That said, I fully agree that MI makes no sense to pay out to the very wealthiest. Personally I'd exclude the top 5% by income, with a linear phase out from 20% to 5%; this works out to roughly 87.5% of the full top line cost as above 100-((15/2)+5) = 87.5%.

This would roughly work out to a net decrease in spending of $162,584,375,000 (250000000*12060*.685*.875)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11).

Though this would no doubt incur some small increment of administrative cost and inefficiency due to there being basic means testing and scaling, a 250 billion dollar difference between MI with it, and MI without as above will easily more than cover that, including increment of the MI benefit to those covered, and the overall administrative costs of the MI; all without increasing the deficit.

Click to expand...

Whoa...why are you deducting Medicaid?
I applaud your breakdown figures.
But the average Medicaid payout is $8,500 per year, per person. If you are eliminating Medicaid and forcing these people to fend for themselves for healthcare, that leaves them only $3,500 per year each...that is WAY below the poverty line.
If you are going to eliminate Medicaid (and Medicare), than you are going to have to add $8,500 per person at least (probably more as seniors cost FAR more for healthcare). So let's say $9,000 per person just so they can reach the minimum income, per person, poverty line level.
Times 250 million adults, that's an additional $2.25 trillion to your total government payout for a total of $5.25 TRILLION with $2 trillion saved. That means adding $3.25 TRILLION dollars to the budget every year (at least). So now we are talking about an annual budget of $6.95 Trillion!!! Minus $3.25 trillion in revenue and that means an annual budget deficit of about $3.7 trillion per year. And it will be much worse than that because if you are eliminating Social Security, than you are eliminating the payroll tax...which provides the government over $1 trillion in taxes (which I forgot in my above figures...which means my totals are actually overly optimistic by over a Trillion dollars).
I think you better keep Medicaid and SS/Medicare going (which takes off about $1.5 trillion from the government saved money from the program implementation).

And your added tax figures are absolute best case scenario. Lots of people - especially young, single people - will just sit on their butts since they will be getting over $21,000 to do so...after taxes (on your program above).
And you cannot tax people who receive no other income because than they will be back below the poverty line.
So, lots of people will undoubtedly take part time, under the counter jobs, pay no taxes and take home probably over $2 grand a month AFTER TAXES. Not a bad life for say, 10 hours per week of under-the-counter work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni...edia/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png

Lafayette said:

From the Guardian: Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?

Excerpt:

Not to mention the fact that it just might prevent crime often prompted by extended unemployment.

This idea will never take root in a Replicant administration as exists today. It nonetheless responds to a Real Need (and not only in the Europe).

It could have happened under a Hillary (PotUS) and Bernie (Secretary of Labor) AND a Dem-Congress.

(Gimme a break! I can dream, can't I? ;^)

Click to expand...

There is neither a funding source, nor will there be one anytime in the foreseeable future, so this is more of the rhetorical question variety.....

Hawkeye10 said:

There is neither a funding source, nor will there be one anytime in the foreseeable future, so this is more of the rhetorical question variety.....

Click to expand...

Said from your "throne", was it.

Wakey, wakey - you are ignorant of the Real Pain being felt in the world around you. And that Real Pain could come raining down upon you.

It happened once to a British King in the latter half of the 18th century when he too was ripping-off the plentiful assets of "his colonies". Seems like this simple but historic message did not get through to History-Ignorant Rightists in America ...

Lafayette said:

Said from your "throne", was it.

Wakey, wakey - you are ignorant of the Real Pain being felt in the world around you. And that Real Pain could come raining down upon you.

It happened once to a British King in the latter half of the 18th century when he too was ripping-off the plentiful assets of "his colonies". Seems like this simple but historic message did not get through to History-Ignorant Rightists in America ...

Click to expand...

Save the attitude for someone who will be impressed. Governments cant raise enough money to pay bills now, there is no way they are going to add this till something drastic changes, like maybe a global government.

DA60 said:

Whoa...why are you deducting Medicaid?
I applaud your breakdown figures...

And your added tax figures are absolute best case scenario. Lots of people - especially young, single people - will just sit on their butts since they will be getting over $21,000 to do so...after taxes (on your program above).
And you cannot tax people who receive no other income because than they will be back below the poverty line.
So, lots of people will undoubtedly take part time, under the counter jobs, pay no taxes and take home probably over $2 grand a month AFTER TAXES. Not a bad life for say, 10 hours per week of under-the-counter work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni...edia/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png

Click to expand...

31.5% figure is the average among all tax payers as of 2015 (which of course includes those that don't pay), so while perhaps not perfectly accurate, it's close enough: Average US worker pays 31.5 percent tax rate | TheHill

My numbers may be optimistic, but not by much.

Also, I agree that something probably would have to pick up the slack in terms of Medicare spending; this is more of a thought experiment were MI to replace all welfare other than Medicaid. I do think that in the end supplemental spending would have to be necessary for the best possible outcome, hence my prior mention that free college and skilled trade training in needed areas/fields is desirable above and beyond an MI; so too is this true of healthcare. Were we to keep Medicare in place, assuming my second version with the 5% top rate cut off and top 20% phase out, the deficit would increase by under half a trillion: (-1.62584375e11+6.05e11) = $442,415,625,000.


If we also have fully subsidized state college tuition/skilled trade training, assuming that 76.30% of 17.3 million total students / YR enroll in public colleges, that average fees and tuition are $9,650 for 4 year in-state colleges (61% of students enrolling) and $3520 for 2 years (39% of students enrolling)

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

https://trends.collegeboard.org/col...ublished-undergraduate-charges-sector-2016-17

4 Year: 9650 (tuition and fees for in-state) * 17300000 (total number of students)* .763 (% of public vs private students) *.61 (% of public students enrolled in program type) = $77,701,211,350

2 Year: 3520 * 17300000 * .763 *.39 = $18,120,822,720

Total: $95,822,034,070

That said, keep in mind that I fully support A: mandated repayment of tuition subsidy for failure to complete and graduate (any additional time required beyond the standard 2 or 4 year course of study must be paid out of pocket) and B: government subsidy only for those degrees and trades considered economically beneficial.

With those qualifiers in mind the net cost is reduced significantly.


So, the grand total for all of the above works out to just over half a trillion conservatively, discounting any savings cost on selective post-secondary subsidization: $4.42415625e+11+$95822034070: $538,237,659,100

In exchange you've got fully covered post-secondary public education, intact Medicare (though I think the healthcare system as it exists is presently disastrous; tackling that deserves no less than its own thread), and an MI which directly stimulates economic growth and activity by creating aggregate demand via giving those who spend the most back into the economy money, ensures a minimum quality of life, and allows people to spend more time bettering and educating themselves to gain the skills and found the businesses of the future. Worth it IMO; an investment in the American people that is likely to pay off, and is certainly better than dumping it overseas in the form of bombs, mercenaries, casualties and bloated defense contracts.

I do believe that cutting and taxing will probably be necessary to support this in the long term; this will probably mean, as mentioned previously, some combination of military cuts, more progressive taxation, and most desirably, termination of egregious taxation loopholes.


Again, where tried, MI projects have not been proven to substantially lower workhours or productivity, and any reduction in work hours is generally correlated with an increase in time spent on education and self-improvement.

Hawkeye10 said:

Save the attitude for someone who will be impressed. Governments cant raise enough money to pay bills now, there is no way they are going to add this till something drastic changes, like maybe a global government.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is all a question of what a government does with its Discretionary Income - and this pie-chart shows what ours today:


Fifty-four percent of the Discretionary Budget goes to the DoD in a country not even at war!

Some call that mostly wasted-money, when so much more can be done for bettering our way-of-living. Like this:
*A National Health Care system that tackles the acute problem of illnesses bread by obesity across the nation, and
*Free PostSecondary Educational funding so that our children learn the skills/competencies for which our industries and commerces are clamoring.

Nope, can't have none of that - can we ... ?

Lafayette said:

Nonsense. It is all a question of what a government does with its Discretionary Income - and this pie-chart shows what ours today:
?

Click to expand...

I say there is not enough government earning potential to even cover current bills, much less a WHOPPER of an new one, and your response is to show me how the money gets spent?

As if that is responsive to my point?

Hawkeye10 said:

There is neither a funding source, nor will there be one anytime in the foreseeable future, so this is more of the rhetorical question variety.....

Click to expand...

You hope, evidently.

Then know that all those recurrent deaths resulting from gun-related crime is the highest of any modern nation - they are on your shoulders!

Food for thought, huh ... ?

PS: For your edification - U.S. gun violence: The story in charts and graphs.

And just one infographic:

Lafayette said:

You hope, evidently.

Then know that all those recurrent deaths resulting from gun-related crime is the highest of any modern nation - they are on your shoulders!

Food for thought, huh ... ?

PS: For your edification - U.S. gun violence: The story in charts and graphs.

And just one infographic:

Click to expand...

Non responsive again.

Hawkeye10 said:

Non responsive again.

Click to expand...

Don't know how to read a chart?

A shame, that - really a shame ...

Hawkeye10 said:

I say there is not enough government earning potential to even cover current bills, much less a WHOPPER of an new one, and your response is to show me how the money gets spent?

As if that is responsive to my point?

Click to expand...

You are DEAD wrong on this one. Give it up.

The problem is not enough money in the government-expenditure but errors in its distribution.

We had a chance to fundamentally change matters in terms of the National Budget; but, no, we voted Donald Dork (who lost the Popular Vote) as PotUS.

So expect nothing to change in the DoD-budget over the next four years - except for it to increase. He has debts to people who run companies providing products/services to the DoD ...

ludin said:

which has yet to be addressed. the cost would be 2.8 trillion dollars.
who is going to pay that?

on top of the free healthcare which is another 4 trillion dollars or so
on top of the free college which more trillions of dollars.

WHO pays for any of this stuff?

people are free everything thinking money just grows on tree's.

Click to expand...

Put down the Peace Pipe.

America has, per person, the most expensive Healthcare system in the world.

Even switzerland which has a higher per capita than us AND PRIVATE MANDATED INSURANCE pays less.

Universal Healthcare is the spawn of the best Healthcare system in the world, France's.

I can show you links that say there's annual savings of 320-530 billion dollars a year. If we have that to every new born we could give every child and their family 80,000$ when they're borne.

BUT HEALTHCARE SOCIALIST AND I CANTZ EVEN SPELLZ PREVENTATAR CAREEEEE, YEEEE HAWWWW

This isn't an NRA barbecue. Bring some facts or get the F out.

Lafayette said:

You hope, evidently.

Then know that all those recurrent deaths resulting from gun-related crime is the highest of any modern nation - they are on your shoulders!

Food for thought, huh ... ?

PS: For your edification - U.S. gun violence: The story in charts and graphs.

And just one infographic:

Click to expand...

As a Gun Lover:

Most deaths by fire arm occur via Suicide. I am very pro choice in life and death. (I believe 60%+? Someone please correct me, I believe it's around there)

Then we have police shootings.

More likely to shoot black people? Good, they disproportionately commit more violent crimes. I like my rapists with lead, regardless of skin color.

Third, most shooting fatalies are in Urban areas, many of the largest death counts are in cities with very strict gun laws.

This is not the thread for arguing over Firearms.

FYI, I'm against a negative income tax because, given the proposed structure, it would disincentivize work compared to a Basic income Guarantee

Hawkeye10 said:

I say there is not enough government earning potential to even cover current bills, much less a WHOPPER of an new one, and your response is to show me how the money gets spent?

As if that is responsive to my point?

Click to expand...

You vs. the Worlds smartest and most active money investors?

I pick the Investors. GG

If you think about it, the 50% higher likelihood to move could be construed as INCREASED GEOGRAPHIC LABOR FLEXIBILITY. An extremely serious problem we have. It would give people a much easier financial time of moving to where the jobs are, versus the stickiness we currently have.

Chinandenga said:

Put down the Peace Pipe.
America has, per person, the most expensive Healthcare system in the world.

Click to expand...

We also have the best doctors b st medical equipment and best medical procedures in the world.
Here are reasons that people come to the US for medical treatment. They can't get it in their country.

It is too expensive or they can't perform the surgery needed. That costs a lot of money.

Even switzerland which has a higher per capita than us AND PRIVATE MANDATED INSURANCE pays less.

Click to expand...

They also have massive taxes as well.

Universal Healthcare is the spawn of the best Healthcare system in the world, France's.

Click to expand...

You mean the system that is has been running in the red for years and years?
Where not only do people pay massive taxes but still have to pay private insurance and copays etc ...

I can show you links that say there's annual savings of 320-530 billion dollars a year. If we have that to every new born we could give every child and their family 80,000$ when they're borne.

Click to expand...

I can show you their systemis going broke and they can't afford it.
This was 4 years ago and he outlook was bad.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-03/frances-health-care-system-is-going-broke

BUT HEALTHCARE SOCIALIST AND I CANTZ EVEN SPELLZ PREVENTATAR CAREEEEE, YEEEE HAWWWW

This isn't an NRA barbecue. Bring some facts or get the F out.

Click to expand...

Yes please bring some facts. The government has proven itself 100% inept at handling healthcare.
The va and Medicaid comes to mind.

Canadians can wait up to a year or more to see a doctor that is why private doctors are thriving.
People are willing to pay to get in to see a doctor.

That is why they come to thE US as well.

Chinandenga said:

As a Gun Lover: Most deaths by fire arm occur via Suicide.

Click to expand...

I could give a damn!

I aint about to commit suicide, but the likelihood that I could get shot and killed whilst visiting the US is ten times that of the same happening to me in France. (Because in France, one can only possess a hunting rifle.)

Lafayette said:

Why do you think people must be "induced" to work?

Click to expand...

Watching them and empirical. There are jobs that people will want to do no matter how wealthy they are. There are jobs, where the supply function is right on mark. You have to be paid to do it or you won't.

soylentgreen said:

Don't ask me as i am the one pointing out that the job market is changing. Are you not following the conversation?

Click to expand...

yes I have pointed out that job markets change and people have to adapt.

Of course you can afford it, you print your own money your government is not and has never been dependent on the taxes american do pay or in the case of the rich don't pay.

Click to expand...

Your right the US can't afford it glad you agree.
No it has to borrow all that money which has to be paid back.

And it was not so do not do it again unless you can actually copy and paste my exact words that make it a fallacy. Otherwise it simply nothing more than a dishonest debate trick an attempt to make you look good by pretending i am bad.

Click to expand...

I don't have to copy and paste anything that was already written. you want off on something to do with someone's fathers job and his father's job which had nothing to do with what I was talking about at all.

You really do not have a clue about your own economy do you.
Obama Avoids Debt Default as Senate Approves Two-Year Budget Deal

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

We know that mmter's don't know much about the economy. as said you didn't address what I said that is a dodge.
so why don't we print the trillions of dollars to just pay off the national debt.

why don't we just print 1 zillion dollars and just give it to everyone and then no one is poor.

if the government can just print money to print money?

why can't you be honest and answer the question?

the budget deal what not the government just printing money. the money was borrowed it has to be paid back.
heck why are we even borrowing money if we can just print it.

there is no reason to even have a national debt, but yet we don't just print money.
now you can neither address the argument or you can't. which is it going to be
I am only going to give you 1 opportunity.

DA60 said:

Whoa...why are you deducting Medicaid?
I applaud your breakdown figures.
But the average Medicaid payout is $8,500 per year, per person. If you are eliminating Medicaid and forcing these people to fend for themselves for healthcare, that leaves them only $3,500 per year each...that is WAY below the poverty line.
If you are going to eliminate Medicaid (and Medicare), than you are going to have to add $8,500 per person at least (probably more as seniors cost FAR more for healthcare). So let's say $9,000 per person just so they can reach the minimum income, per person, poverty line level.
Times 250 million adults, that's an additional $2.25 trillion to your total government payout for a total of $5.25 TRILLION with $2 trillion saved. That means adding $3.25 TRILLION dollars to the budget every year (at least). So now we are talking about an annual budget of $6.95 Trillion!!! Minus $3.25 trillion in revenue and that means an annual budget deficit of about $3.7 trillion per year. And it will be much worse than that because if you are eliminating Social Security, than you are eliminating the payroll tax...which provides the government over $1 trillion in taxes (which I forgot in my above figures...which means my totals are actually overly optimistic by over a Trillion dollars).
I think you better keep Medicaid and SS/Medicare going (which takes off about $1.5 trillion from the government saved money from the program implementation).

And your added tax figures are absolute best case scenario. Lots of people - especially young, single people - will just sit on their butts since they will be getting over $21,000 to do so...after taxes (on your program above).
And you cannot tax people who receive no other income because than they will be back below the poverty line.
So, lots of people will undoubtedly take part time, under the counter jobs, pay no taxes and take home probably over $2 grand a month AFTER TAXES. Not a bad life for say, 10 hours per week of under-the-counter work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni...edia/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png

Click to expand...

I told him his numbers didn't add up. he went on the same argument as before.
there are people on SS that get more than just 1,000 a month.
what about them? if anything this NMI would be in addition to what they are already getting.

all other source agree with you. the cost is 3 trillion with about a 600b savings in the long run.
that will add about 2.5trillion to the deficit.

ludin said:

I told him his numbers didn't add up. he went on the same argument as before.
there are people on SS that get more than just 1,000 a month.
what about them? if anything this NMI would be in addition to what they are already getting.

all other source agree with you. the cost is 3 trillion with about a 600b savings in the long run.
that will add about 2.5trillion to the deficit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the guaranteed income idea is a nice thought. But the added costs would be astronomical. And considering most Americans do not even need the money, it's a gigantic increase just for a 'piece of mind'.