Why universal basic income is gaining support, critics or The destruction of our Republic
It's back again...
"He figures the plan would cost about $1.75 trillion a year. Ending welfare programs would save about a third of that. Another third could come from ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs. The remaining third could come from new sources such as a tax on carbon emissions or financial transactions."
1/3 through "ending welfare programs" - will never happen but okay...
1/3 through "ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs" - So they are going to take my mortgage interest deduction away and give it to someone else.
1/3 through more taxes - robbing Peter to pay Paul again
Also, this is paper napkin figures, government will double the cost with half the production.
"He figures the plan would cost about $1.75 trillion a year. Ending welfare programs would save about a third of that. Another third could come from ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs. The remaining third could come from new sources such as a tax on carbon emissions or financial transactions."
1/3 through "ending welfare programs" - will never happen but okay...
1/3 through "ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest and other write-offs" - So they are going to take my mortgage interest deduction away and give it to someone else.
1/3 through more taxes - robbing Peter to pay Paul again
Also, this is paper napkin figures, government will double the cost with half the production.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
As for the government doubling the costs at half the production, even that is wildly over-optimistic! Just another "pipe dream" for the terminally stupid and/or naive!
"The only way forward is to retrain people for the maintenance, design, coding and manufacturing of the automation"
I agree completely, but when we put it like that it is sounds kind of dour. It actually means we have amazing new tools that don't require huge upfront investment to use. It's actually staggering to think of all the prosperity people will create with those tools.
"The people promoting UBI are not your friend"
Yes. No kidding. The only part I said I agreed to is to the extent it replaces programs run by bureaucrats with a simpler program that just hands people cash. I am skeptical of that, though, because it could grow and become a third rail entitlement, and there's no guarantee more gov't spending wouldn't come back.
My point is all that stuff you said is very good fodder for sophistry showing that times are so unusual that socialism is the answer. That's why I said when I'm feeling cynical I imagine a Trump supporters and Sanders supporters joining forces under the banner of that sophistry.
The only way forward is to retrain people for the maintenance, design, coding and manufacturing of the automation. Right now, I’m speaking about the digital menus used to replace the waiter, the machine in Mc Donald’s that replaces the french-fry cook or the automated car that replaces the taxi driver. This the first wave of automation already beginning. The second wave occurs when these businesses reap massive rewards for being the first and everyone else plays catchup. Before here is when the next Microsoft, IBM or Apple is born for automation by publishing API, OS and hardware for automation.
Here, where automation takes hold is where I see a massive disruption in the economy while everything readjusts. It has to, without UBI. This bullshit about machines building machines with the artificial intelligence to rival humans is way, way off…
The UBI discussion here is to use that to pay for a handout… I understand that I would be getting “some” of this back. My problem is that it’s not the governments money to give to me in the first place, it’s my own money. They take it with a tax and then “decide” if you should get more than/the same as/less then you paid in based on a merit that isn’t a merit I consider a virtue. The beginning of serfdom…
I agree with your analysis about the thirds. I would support replacing Welfare programs with some sort of direct payments if it meant the same money going to the needy but with less administrative overhead and no new spending.
The other two thirds are, as you say, veiled tax increases. I actually agree with things like mortgage interest not being a deduction. I would rather them lower the rate and eliminate deductions meant to subsidize certain spending, e.g. spending on mortgage interest. I agree with a tax on carbon emissions because the evidence shows those emissions will cost other people money in the future. They can do that in a revenue neutral way, reducing taxes on money made through work and investing, which unlike burning stuff do not threaten the environment.
I am concerned, though, that something like this will be passed. People will show some numbers about how many hours you have to work to pay for a basket of groceries 50 years ago and now. They'll show you many baskets of groceries worth of wealth you'd need to have to earn enough feed a family 50 years ago and now. It will make socialism look more appealing. 50 years is a blip of time, but it feels long compared to our lifetimes.
I can see a Trump-like figure and a Sanders-like figure joining forces in support of this. Hopefully I'm just in a cynical mood.