Silver Stackers logo

Silver Stackers

Discussion forum for those
who love to stack precious metals

You are not logged in.

Announcement

This forum is archived. Please visit the new forums at www.silverstackers.com. Password reset may be required!

#26 2016-11-20 23:48:21

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

JulieW wrote:

As I understand it, the Universal Basic Income model is proposing that it replace social service benefits (and its associated industry - meaning of course more unemployment), so it encourages work, in that, what you earn working as an employee or entrepreneur is the cream on the Mare Antoinette Cake.

How does paying someone not to work encourage someone to work?


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#27 2016-11-21 02:09:24

Ouch
Member
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: 2010-11-16
Posts: 1,098
Trades :   29 

Re: Universal basic income

A child of non-working age and a retired nonagenarian would both receive a universal basic income as would an unemployed and an employed person.

Offline

#28 2016-11-21 02:38:00

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

Ouch wrote:

A child of non-working age and a retired nonagenarian would both receive a universal basic income as would an unemployed and an employed person.

Money is a medium of exchange. It's used to exchange value in order to meet future needs/demands.

In order to trade/earn money two or more parties must be willing to trade goods/services that they own or produce with another by engaging in voluntary, economic relationships. This is how individuals and societies build wealth and meet their needs/desires. The problem with giving non-productive members of society free money is that it bypasses the need for them to be productive in the first place in order to earn money and as a result, does not enhance the wealth and living standards of the rest of society. In fact in the long term it would result in those individuals who rely solely upon a universal basic income eventually being unable to meet their needs as inflation would cause price rises and as they are not providing value to anybody else, they would not have any goods/services to trade. We'd eventually be back at square one.

In your scenario there would only be one productive link in the chain, and it would be that one productive link that would be relied upon to provide enough money to be redistributed to the rest.

A child of non-working age

= non-productive recipient of OPM.

a retired nonagenarian

= non-productive recipient of OPM.

an unemployed

= non-productive recipient of OPM.

an employed person

= productive recipient of their own money.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: southerncross, Ag bullet

#29 2016-11-21 03:13:16

JulieW
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2010-10-14
Posts: 11,132

Re: Universal basic income

mmm....shiney! wrote:
JulieW wrote:

As I understand it, the Universal Basic Income model is proposing that it replace social service benefits (and its associated industry - meaning of course more unemployment), so it encourages work, in that, what you earn working as an employee or entrepreneur is the cream on the Mare Antoinette Cake.

How does paying someone not to work encourage someone to work?

I think that the ceiling on earnings for social service recipients no longer applies - that is the incentive to sit on your verandah disappears because you don't get a pay drop in your dole or whatever, when you earn, such as happens currently. ie. you can never earn more than the dole plus $100 (?) per week if you're on the dole without your rate of pay reducing.

So you sit on the veranda for $400 (?) a week and do 6 hours work to add $100 to your paycheck, or work 40 hours for $600 a week, giving up 32 hours of your time for an extra $100 in the extremely rewarding career that pays you your $15 an hour. That's a bad deal no matter how you view it.

Doesn't seem to be much incentive in that picture, but if everyone including you gets say (400) a week and you work 40 hours to get 600 you get to keep 1000, which looks more attractive from my point of view. (Unless your aim is to sit on the verandah all your life which some will do. But at least they wont have to rob and steal for food and lodging).

This is all theoretical of course, since the Protestant Work Ethic is so entrenched in Australia et al, that any politician following through on this will only last til the next election or lynch mob.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: SilverGull

#30 2016-11-21 03:19:13

Old Codger
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2011-05-13
Posts: 5,128

Re: Universal basic income

This is a GREAT idea!

Raise the Age pension to $50,000 a year,  the Dole to $40,000 and all goods and services FREE!

Vote Australian Socialist Party  komrade!

OC


"The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields."   -  ALP Constitution.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: JulieW

#31 2016-11-21 03:32:01

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

JulieW wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
JulieW wrote:

As I understand it, the Universal Basic Income model is proposing that it replace social service benefits (and its associated industry - meaning of course more unemployment), so it encourages work, in that, what you earn working as an employee or entrepreneur is the cream on the Mare Antoinette Cake.

How does paying someone not to work encourage someone to work?

I think that the ceiling on earnings for social service recipients no longer applies - that is the incentive to sit on your verandah disappears because you don't get a pay drop in your dole or whatever, when you earn, such as happens currently. ie. you can never earn more than the dole plus $100 (?) per week if you're on the dole without your rate of pay reducing.

So you sit on the veranda for $400 (?) a week and do 6 hours work to add $100 to your paycheck, or work 40 hours for $600 a week, giving up 32 hours of your time for an extra $100 in the extremely rewarding career that pays you your $15 an hour. That's a bad deal no matter how you view it.

Doesn't seem to be much incentive in that picture, but if everyone including you gets say (400) a week and you work 40 hours to get 600 you get to keep 1000, which looks more attractive from my point of view. (Unless your aim is to sit on the verandah all your life which some will do. But at least they wont have to rob and steal for food and lodging).


Marginal utility. If you've ever employed anyone you'd acknowledge that some individuals only work to earn enough to buy what they value, ie pay rent, have beer and cigarettes, nothing more, they don't value savings, investing in capital goods, medical emergencies or their future. If the universal basic income can meet their limited needs then those individuals will have no incentive to find employment.

Furthermore, if money is inflated and everyone gets an extra $400/week then in real terms no one is better off and prices for goods will reflect that.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#32 2016-11-21 03:41:45

wrcmad
Silver Stacker
From: Northern NSW
Registered: 2012-01-02
Posts: 6,109
Trades :   118 

Re: Universal basic income

JulieW wrote:

I think that the ceiling on earnings for social service recipients no longer applies - that is the incentive to sit on your verandah disappears .......

Bingo!
That is where socialists are so turtling blind.
When welfare is generous enough to be an "incentive to sit on your verandah..." then we have a major problem.


Anything is possible, but not everything is probable.  wink

Manipulation..... If you want to continually subscribe to this idea then get out of precious metals. Only a fool would play a game that is completely rigged. As you still are in the game, I would say that you are not completely convinced of the manipulation ...

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: southerncross

#33 2016-11-21 06:20:14

fiatphoney
Member
Registered: 2010-06-12
Posts: 1,135

Re: Universal basic income

I thought everyone that wants open borders would want open wallets. Same result.


And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.   Daniel 8:25

Offline

#34 2016-11-21 06:46:24

Phil_Stacker
Member
From: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered: 2016-11-05
Posts: 266
Trades :   12 

Re: Universal basic income

mmm....shiney! wrote:

If the universal basic income can meet their limited needs then those individuals will have no incentive to find employment.

I'm a fence sitter here. Firstly, I like the idea of everyone getting a base amount of money as it would mean no welfare system for anyone. The system is a massive sink-hole.

But... people like you describe wouldn't do nothing.... THEY WOULD BREED.

So the people who have the genes that drive them to achieve nothing would dominate humanity.

Then there comes the whole government control of voting and babies (i.e. only people working can vote or have babies) which is too controlling.

It all comes down to unexpected consequences.  And I'm sure there are many more unexpected consequences we don't know about!

Offline

#35 2016-11-21 06:48:01

Phil_Stacker
Member
From: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered: 2016-11-05
Posts: 266
Trades :   12 

Re: Universal basic income

Oh - and by remove welfare, I've heard that for every dollar that "churns" through the system back to you costs over $2, and that "mean" testing (I didn't spell that wrong), has cost more to implement than it saves. So removing welfare would save.... so much money it isn't funny.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Big A.D.

#36 2016-11-21 06:52:04

Ouch
Member
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: 2010-11-16
Posts: 1,098
Trades :   29 

Re: Universal basic income

mmm....shiney! wrote:
Ouch wrote:

A child of non-working age and a retired nonagenarian would both receive a universal basic income as would an unemployed and an employed person.

Money is a medium of exchange. It's used to exchange value in order to meet future needs/demands.

In order to trade/earn money two or more parties must be willing to trade goods/services that they own or produce with another by engaging in voluntary, economic relationships. This is how individuals and societies build wealth and meet their needs/desires. The problem with giving non-productive members of society free money is that it bypasses the need for them to be productive in the first place in order to earn money and as a result, does not enhance the wealth and living standards of the rest of society. In fact in the long term it would result in those individuals who rely solely upon a universal basic income eventually being unable to meet their needs as inflation would cause price rises and as they are not providing value to anybody else, they would not have any goods/services to trade. We'd eventually be back at square one.

In your scenario there would only be one productive link in the chain, and it would be that one productive link that would be relied upon to provide enough money to be redistributed to the rest.

A child of non-working age

= non-productive recipient of OPM.

a retired nonagenarian

= non-productive recipient of OPM.

an unemployed

= non-productive recipient of OPM.

an employed person

= productive recipient of their own money.

The extreme scenario is that eventually the only human aspect in the production chain will only be on the consumption end. Now you see why a universal basic income is needed even when we have not reached that extreme?

Offline

#37 2016-11-21 06:56:40

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

Ouch wrote:

The extreme scenario is that eventually the only human aspect in the production chain will only be on the consumption end. Now you see why a universal basic income is needed even when we have not reached that extreme?

No.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#38 2016-11-21 07:00:42

JulieW
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2010-10-14
Posts: 11,132

Re: Universal basic income

They're never going to turn off Social Security, so modifying the game to everyone's benefit is the only game there is.

Offline

#39 2016-11-21 07:01:45

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

Phil_Stacker wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:

If the universal basic income can meet their limited needs then those individuals will have no incentive to find employment.

I'm a fence sitter here. Firstly, I like the idea of everyone getting a base amount of money as it would mean no welfare system for anyone. The system is a massive sink-hole.

In the short time you've been a member of this forum I've been given the impression that you are a person that weighs carefully the evidence of competing ideas. I'm curious therefore to understand how you have arrived at your conclusion that giving everyone a base income is an attractive idea. Especially when read in the light of your comment about welfare. Why does a system that rewards non-productivity appeal to you?


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#40 2016-11-21 07:03:15

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

JulieW wrote:

They're never going to turn off Social Security, so modifying the game to everyone's benefit is the only game there is.

But no one benefits.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#41 2016-11-21 07:12:14

Stoic Phoenix
Silver Stacker
From: little things big things grow.
Registered: 2014-11-12
Posts: 3,024
Trades :   187 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

^ Its hard for people to see past the "free money" and most aren't interest in where this "free money" comes from.
This is akin to the first home buyers grant which in essence just raised house prices by a similiar amount.
I think this is what mmm...shiney is getting at.
So what if you get $12k if goods and services rise X%.


www.searchnstay.com    ....for all your accommodation needs worldwide

Offline

The following 3 users say thank you for this post: JulieW, mmm....shiney!, willrocks

#42 2016-11-21 07:40:32

Phil_Stacker
Member
From: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered: 2016-11-05
Posts: 266
Trades :   12 

Re: Universal basic income

mmm....shiney! wrote:

I'm curious therefore to understand how you have arrived at your conclusion that giving everyone a base income is an attractive idea. Especially when read in the light of your comment about welfare. Why does a system that rewards non-productivity appeal to you?

I work in financial systems.

I've worked on government financial systems.

I've seen the waste into the hundreds of millions of dollars.  Welfare costs too much and needs to be slashed by about 90%.  Of that, the majority is lost to the cost of managing the stupid welfare system, and the enormous wasteful beast that is government, government, government (local, state and commonwealth).  So ANY idea that reduces the size of government and cuts the waste is attractive idea to me.  This idea ticks those boxes

Don't get me wrong - TOTALLY impractical.... but government is.... TOTALLY INCOMPETENT (email accounts aren't visible here right?)  My name is "Bob Smith" if anyone is interested... and I live and work in Portland, New York 90210.

So the rightie in me wants small government - especially on welfare.  But also on middle class welfare, and then there is the doll, new start and people being paid for life choices (children).

But the leftie in me would not like to impact people who - through no fault of their own - cannot work.  And children should not be disadvantaged because of the circumstances they are born into.

And this approach sits in the middle of those two ideas.  That's where I "kinda like it" but also realise it won't work.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!

#43 2016-11-21 07:45:26

Phil_Stacker
Member
From: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered: 2016-11-05
Posts: 266
Trades :   12 

Re: Universal basic income

By the way, every bum you see on the street begging (I don't mean those nice people selling the Big Issue), get full doll so every cent you give them is money that a person spending their doll on trying to find a job won't get. DO NOT provide even more incentive for the bums by rewarding them with anything - not even your attention.

If you wan't to do something for them, do charity work (I'm currently at a care organisation). If you want to give them money, slap yourself.

Offline

#44 2016-11-21 08:59:30

radiobirdman
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2011-04-25
Posts: 2,300
Trades :   59 

Re: Universal basic income

Doll: something boys in Sweden play with

Dole: money stolen of workers to give to bludgers and young people with no money of there own

Bum: American term for a bludger

Trillions of cars: I like to exaggerate

Offline

#45 2016-11-21 09:22:37

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

Phil_Stacker wrote:

So the rightie in me wants small government - especially on welfare.  But also on middle class welfare, and then there is the doll, new start and people being paid for life choices (children).

But the leftie in me would not like to impact people who - through no fault of their own - cannot work.  And children should not be disadvantaged because of the circumstances they are born into.

And this approach sits in the middle of those two ideas.  That's where I "kinda like it" but also realise it won't work.

Except it doesn't sit in the middle. Firstly it is what you most dislike about the welfare system ie people being paid for lifestyle choices and secondly if everyone receives it then those that are disadvantaged for any reason are relatively no better off.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#46 2016-11-21 10:43:52

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,393

Re: Universal basic income

Giving people money for nothing is only ever going to end badly, and the money has to come from somewhere.
Most of the working people in Australia now collect more dollars from the Gov't then they contribute to the tax base of the country, this is a fact.

Welfare is by far the biggest burden on the overall budget of our country, halve it in just one single Gov't cycle and the budget would be back in the black in no time.

Offline

#47 2016-11-21 15:28:50

Shaddam IV
Silver Stacker
From: House Corrino
Registered: 2010-03-22
Posts: 6,278

Re: Universal basic income

If the government provided you with your living wage then the government controls you completely.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Ag bullet

#48 2016-11-21 15:29:24

Shaddam IV
Silver Stacker
From: House Corrino
Registered: 2010-03-22
Posts: 6,278

Re: Universal basic income

And look at the kinds of people who run the government.

Offline

#49 2016-11-21 15:44:23

Ag bullet
Member
From: SE QLD
Registered: 2013-12-26
Posts: 535
Trades :   10 

Re: Universal basic income

Shaddam IV wrote:

If the government provided you with your living wage then the government controls you completely.

that's what i think this is about. the government hates people who don't need them.


'let's get physical!'

Offline

#50 2016-11-21 16:05:27

Shaddam IV
Silver Stacker
From: House Corrino
Registered: 2010-03-22
Posts: 6,278

Re: Universal basic income

Best definition I have heard of communism: the people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB