Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
11-02-2019, 09:58   #391
Ush1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeytheparrot View Post
There is also a HUGE cost saving to the state because they could massively cut the number of Social Welfare civil servants and sell off most of the social welfare offices in the country.


UBI is a silly concept and trying to force it on some macro scale doesn't really prove anything.

Automation and loss of jobs is a separate issue, one that is very open to debate.
Ush1 is offline  
Advertisement
11-02-2019, 10:10   #392
Arthur Daley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accumulator View Post
Corp tax, and upper earnings. Closing loopholes and evasion, which is commonplace.
Yes the Corporates benefit from significant cost savings from automation and AI, so they need to be taxed more as a result to fund the UBI. The biggest taxpayer group should shift from labour to wealth/capital, as the labour taxes will certainly be eroded. Existing levels of Corporate welfare will also need to end as big government will simply not have the resources to prop up various 'industries' anymore. We will have to cut our cloth.
Arthur Daley is offline  
Thanks from:
11-02-2019, 10:30   #393
Water John
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 11,587
'UBI is a silly concept' Quote.
That really added to my knowledge on the subject. I am leaning towards it but open to persuasion on various points.
There are different models. That is what we are doing, teasing it out, hoping to add to our understanding of the positives and negatives.
Water John is offline  
11-02-2019, 10:36   #394
conorhal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,293
Well the Finn's have concluded their experiment and the results are in, showing that UBI had no impact on the employment rate of the recipients. It simply didn't encourage any higher participation in the workforce by those given a basic income and told any work they took wouldn't impact their benefits, so the theory that it would seems not to be true.
conorhal is offline  
11-02-2019, 10:39   #395
klaaaz
Registered User
 
klaaaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by conorhal View Post
Well the Finn's have concluded their study and the results are in, showing that UBI had no impact on the employment rate of the recipients. It simply didn't encourage any higher participation in the workforce so the theory that it would seems not to be true.
It's not as simple as that. Factors like lack of employment opportunity, the geography on the availability of jobs and the level of pay in those jobs as well as ageism in the hiring process affect Finland just as it affects here.
klaaaz is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
11-02-2019, 10:43   #396
Water John
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 11,587
Any new concept, or agency, from my experience needs about 3 years up and running for it to catch with the public. I think any trial would have to run for 3/5 years, without political interference.
Water John is offline  
11-02-2019, 10:44   #397
conorhal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by klaaaz View Post
It's not as simple as that. Factors like lack of employment opportunity, the geography on the availability of jobs and the level of pay in those jobs as well as ageism in the hiring process affect Finland just as it affects here.

Those factors also effect the unemployed that were not part of the experiment, it STILL had no impact on employment rates, and that's about what you'd expect.

What's your motive to take a bad, lowpaying, back-breaking job to top up your earnings if you don't have to?
conorhal is offline  
(2) thanks from:
11-02-2019, 10:53   #398
Ush1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by conorhal View Post
Those factors also effect the unemployed that were not part of the experiment, it STILL had no impact on employment rates, and that's about what you'd expect.

What's your motive to take a bad, lowpaying, back-breaking job to top up your earnings if you don't have to?
Not to mention doing it at such a small scale would not have the very real problem of hyper inflation was it to be applied "universally".
Ush1 is offline  
11-02-2019, 11:11   #399
Dohnjoe
Registered User
 
Dohnjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accumulator View Post
Costs would be roughly the same, some folks with a dozen kids who get large welfare payments now, would be much worse off. National productivity would be vastly improved, thus +GDP.
This is not correct

Current cost, including pensions for social is 20 billion

For UBI in Ireland of 800 EUR per month for all over 18's would be approx 34 billion, excluding pensions and administration

Quote:
Corp tax, and upper earnings. Closing loopholes and evasion, which is commonplace.
Possibly, but with no figures it's vague/random speculation. Where do they get the extra 15 to 20 billion from? With figures


Quote:
Leave the country for 3/12mths and your payments cease.
Can easily live in Eastern Europe and fly back every 3 months to "sign on". The administration required to check everyone would be astronomical

Quote:
Small sample group, maybe they were in locations where enterprise/work was limited no matter the resources. Maybe they knew it was a time-limited trial and didn't want to jump on the work-train knowing they'd loose benefits when the temporary track ended.
Perhaps, but these are the tangible results we have. They are real vs your guesswork/speculation

Quote:
The thing is more and more countries realise it's on the way, hence the preperations and trails increase.
It's your personal opinion. In reality however countries/parties may reject the notion (as too costly/economically risky) Switzerland has rejected it in a direct vote.

I have come across a lot of wishful thinking/speculation but little in the way of solid economic reasoning for such a project
Dohnjoe is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
11-02-2019, 11:26   #400
klaaaz
Registered User
 
klaaaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by conorhal View Post
Those factors also effect the unemployed that were not part of the experiment, it STILL had no impact on employment rates, and that's about what you'd expect.

What's your motive to take a bad, lowpaying, back-breaking job to top up your earnings if you don't have to?
That's not the fault of the unemployed, that's the employers taking advantage of the subsidy(the UBI enrolled)and generally not paying good enough wages for the non-UBI enrolled.
klaaaz is offline  
11-02-2019, 11:39   #401
conorhal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by klaaaz View Post
That's not the fault of the unemployed, that's the employers taking advantage of the subsidy(the UBI enrolled)and generally not paying good enough wages for the non-UBI enrolled.

Not true, those taking part could take some part time work, get a bit of extra spending money, ease their way back into the jobs market without risking a shortfall in income by doing and yet they chose not to at any greater rate then other non participants.
If those on UBI are disinclined to take a low paid job to suplement their income or work their way up the ladder, your suggesting seems to be, well then those employers need to hike up wages to make those jobs more attractive. As has been pointed out, that would lead to massive inflation as burger flippers suddenly need to be paid 20 euro an hour instead of 10, well that cost will get passed on to the customer and suddenly your UBI payment can't meet basic living costs.
conorhal is offline  
11-02-2019, 11:51   #402
klaaaz
Registered User
 
klaaaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by conorhal View Post
Not true, those taking part could take some part time work, get a bit of extra spending money, ease their way back into the jobs market without risking a shortfall in income by doing and yet they chose not to at any greater rate then other non participants.
If those on UBI are disinclined to take a low paid job to suplement their income or work their way up the ladder, your suggesting seems to be, well then those employers need to hike up wages to make those jobs more attractive. As has been pointed out, that would lead to massive inflation as burger flippers suddenly need to be paid 20 euro an hour instead of 10, well that cost will get passed on to the customer and suddenly your UBI payment can't meet basic living costs.
The UBI ran for a very short period of time, that part time job would have been useless when the UBI trial ended. I don't know of many people who can "work their way up the ladder" in a burger joint, that is just stereotyping just like saying "it's their choice not to work"

And it is also stereotyping that workers would be seeking double pay to just flip a burger, they like many low pay workers realise it's low pay and just want to be paid a living wage just like Lidl and Aldi have implemented here. Both discount stores have not seen a huge rise in consumer prices just to pay their staff a living wage. By the way Lidl have a minor presence in Finland(unlike here), Aldi do not exist there at all.
klaaaz is offline  
(2) thanks from:
11-02-2019, 12:17   #403
Dohnjoe
Registered User
 
Dohnjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by klaaaz View Post
The UBI ran for a very short period of time, that part time job would have been useless when the UBI trial ended. I don't know of many people who can "work their way up the ladder" in a burger joint, that is just stereotyping just like saying "it's their choice not to work"

And it is also stereotyping that workers would be seeking double pay to just flip a burger, they like many low pay workers realise it's low pay and just want to be paid a living wage just like Lidl and Aldi have implemented here. Both discount stores have not seen a huge rise in consumer prices just to pay their staff a living wage. By the way Lidl have a minor presence in Finland(unlike here), Aldi do not exist there at all.
The UBI trial ran for 2 years. More than enough time for the "gig" economy and temp working. Even part time work (I've known several on 6 month to 1 year contracts)
Dohnjoe is offline  
11-02-2019, 13:20   #404
Geuze
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dohnjoe View Post
1. Cost of UBI in Ireland. With rough calculations, it would work out at about 34 bn a year excluding administration and pensions, something the country can't afford - or would have to make dramatic cuts to health/schools/justice/transport/other

3. Which taxes and how? ("tax the rich" is not an answer). There would have to be a very significant rise in taxes to cover the astronomical cost of such a program

4. Only residents get it, so what's stopping Irish people claiming it and going abroad and living comfortably? an army of administrative people to make sure that doesn't happen? (800 euros of guaranteed free cash per month is significantly higher than the average wage in many countries)

5. UBI clearly doesn't encourage people to take up unemployment (Finnish findings)

I've dipped into a few of these UBI threads and they always seem to be high on speculation and very low on actual details/maths/economics
1. 2015 SJI study, cost = 31.3bn.

2. Yes, SJI study means all tax credits and SRCOP abolished, replaced with a single 40% income tax rate. Also er PRSI increased.


5. Yes, the Finnish result isn't supportive of the employment take-up aspect.
Geuze is offline  
11-02-2019, 13:21   #405
Geuze
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,137
Key Figures (€m)

https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/d...ionrevised.pdf


SJI figures

Total cost of UBI payments 31,298
Cost of welfare payments maintained under UBI, and Administration 3,843
Total cost of UBI 35,141

Total savings under UBI in other Departments 729
Net cost of UBI 34,412

Total expenditure of Department of Social Protection in 2015 19,893
Current funding from Income Tax, PRSI, USC etc. in 2015 26,763
Surplus of Income Tax over DSP expenditure 6,870

Funding requirement: Net cost of UBI + surplus of existing system 41,281
Employer PRSI 7,704

Yield required from a single rate of income tax on all personal income 33,577
Rate of Income Tax required on all personal income 40%
Geuze is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet