Are you prepared for UBI?

Who gets to define what "basic" is?

GreeBo wrote: »

Who gets to define what "basic" is?

A good question.



Note that I do not endorse the following, just providing info:

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/type/basic-income

Eligibility and Structure

Social Justice Ireland has costed many versions of a Universal Basic Income over the past 25 years. For example, in our 2016 conference paper entitled Costing a Basic Income for Ireland, we proposed a partial Universal Basic Income starting at €150 per week, that was fair, efficient and sustainable. This paper was an exercise in showing how a UBI could be paid for in Ireland within current structures. It was not a paper advocating at what rate a UBI should be set, however the following are some of the basic eligibility conditions and details of that version of a partial UBI, which may be instructive in any debate on its introduction:

• Payment would be conditional on residency within Ireland. In line with current welfare requirements, non-citizens must have lived here for a number of years before becoming entitled to a UBI.
• The level of the payment would be age-dependent.
• Payment would be constant and does not change upon the taking up of employment or the acquiring of other income.
• All income, aside from the UBI payment, would be subject to tax at one single rate of 40 per cent. All other income tax rates, as well as Employee PRSI and Universal Social Charge, are abolished. The rationale for using a tax rate of 40 per cent was to show what could be achieved in the prevailing context in 2016. Raising the necessary funds on the basis of a more progressive taxation model would be preferable.
• The Employer PRSI rate would increase to 13 per cent.
• There would be no tax credits or tax reliefs.
• The UBI would replace almost all core welfare payments, payments in respect of disability, illness and other additional needs would be retained.

We essentially have UBI already (between tax credits and social welfare)

I am all for UBI to remove the massive admin of said systems and together with a simplification of the taxation system (removal of tax credits)

Bear in mind that UBI proposal is from SJI, so it is to expected that they would not have citizenship restrictions.

So for the local hippies it means to move around the country and never having to work for money.
For EU nationals it means moving to Ireland after a while being set for life.
For non-EU nationals it's an incredible incentive to get to EU/Ireland.

And Irish workers are supposed to pick up the tab. I'd rather not.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Me bollocks! Wealthy people aren't better than none wealthy, there's a lot of luck with it, and many are born into wealth.

Luck?
There's a nature vs nurture argument here, but not much.
Clever people are more genetically likely to have clever children.
Clever people are more likely to nurture their children to learn, work and create.

On the other side of the coin, an unemployed slob with issues or a bad attribute is likely to pass on their "values" or culture to their children.

So the element of luck involved is more to do with who your parents are.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

many none wealthy are intelligent, have incredible work ethic, people skills and are very creative.

Who? What skills?
A lot of people overestimate their intelligence.
People skills can be confused with some mindless common banter with no empathy for other people.

Most people just want a risk-free existence, including myself... living as an employee. Clock-in/clock-out and relax.
So people have to be shown the route to set up their own business, have good presentation skills, communication skills and to sell themselves. Even then, a lot of entrepreneurs have to work serious hours to get their business off the ground.

People can work hard physically, but that doesn't generate as much money, nor should it. Just because someone kills themselves digging up a garden all day, doesn't mean they should get six figure salaries.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Jesus, what planet do some be living on!

Ehh... the real world, the working world.
Your style of writing, typos and grammar tell me you're the one who is on the outside looking in not me.

Ubbquittious wrote: »

UBI and AI can fcuk right off

Whatever about UBI, AI will not be ****ing off anytime soon.

Here to stay and it's eyeing potentially your job.

completedit wrote: »

can't be wasting 40 hours a week in an office or in a shop or whatever else.

Except for the ones doing that to fund UBI through their tax?

FVP3 wrote: »

Thats what he said. He said, grab all property and let people start off from the same level. Didnt say they would end up equal

And what's fair about that ?

People who are better, who work harder, who work smarter, who are more intelligent should be rewarded.

On the other side of the coin... in the future, if wealthy people are able to artificially implant or enhance their children that's not a level playing field.

But right now in history, there's the jealousy of the losers... the people with little or no skills outside of simple manual labour who for some reason are attacking the ultra rich but really they're always going to be below average in a normal population anyway.

corsav6 wrote: »

Considering we're the most intelligent species on the planet it's a major Fu*k up on our part that we have to slave away for 40/60 hours per week just to survive, all while destroying the planet.
If any other species had this intelligence they'd have made a far better job of things.

How can you possibly know that?

completedit wrote: »

Also, brilliant, we can look forward to even more growing inequality as all these magical jobs turn up.

Because the reality is since the 80's, inequality has soared(which I'm sure you know) Real incomes have fallen(Ireland is an exception in the OECD but will surely buck the trend in the years ahead) so these jobs that have come about are not doing much.

You can go further back than the 80’s if you like, social inequality has always existed, because it is the basis of social progress. If everyone were equal, society would remain stagnant and there would be no such thing as economic growth and development. The role I do now for instance didn’t exist 20 years ago, and likely won’t exist in 20 years time, but other roles will exist which present opportunities for employment. The products I buy now didn’t exist 20 years ago, and likely won’t exist in 20 years time either.

UBI has always been something of an ideological pipe dream, and will still be an ideological pipe dream when the vast majority of people are more interested in providing a better quality of life for themselves and their families, than caring about people who want everyone to be equally impoverished in the pursuit of a more equal society.

FVP3 wrote: »

I agree that AI is over estimated in its potential, but human level intelligence would of course replace humans were it possible. And if human level intelligence were possible, why stop there? Super human would be trivial if we ever got to human.

Not necessarily. In many circumstances it will always be more viable to employ humans than it would be to replace them with machines, cheaper too. That’s why AI while it’s an interesting concept, it’s not going to be displacing anyone in employment, it will just create more employment opportunities.

Governments need as many people in an economy employed, so they can avoid ideas like UBI, because UBI has to be paid for somehow, by someone, and people aren’t willing to pay for it. They might support the idea in theory, because y’know, poor people, and something about nobody having to work because automation takes care of everyone’s needs now, but it’s not a reality like the OP describes, simply because people want to work, because they don’t want a basic quality of life. That’s what drives most people in society - the idea of achieving and sustaining social mobility.

FVP3 wrote: »

UBI isn't about equality at all, people can earn what they want after they get the payments. You may be mistaking it for communism, a common theme on boards if some mentions anything to the left of Ayn Rand.

Seems to be what the OP thinks it’s about? They don’t like the idea of anyone becoming too wealthy, but their idea of wealth redistribution relies on handing out free money to everyone regardless of their income (I haven’t quite figured out will billionaires qualify for this Government payment/subsidy), but no, I’m not mistaking it for communism or anything else. That would imply the idea is in any way coherent. I do wonder though, if the payment is made to everyone in society, then what’s it supposed to achieve? UBI seems to me like giving a man a fish, whereas the current economic model means in order for people to sustain themselves, they must learn to fish.

I know which one leads to innovation, greater social mobility, more opportunities and social and economic progress and development. It isn’t UBI, that just creates and fosters dependency.