"Whether you agree with their system or not, the simple truth that we are forced to work to live is right up in our face."
Welcome to life. There is no system where this isn't true, save maybe the ideal Utopia where robots do everything for us, which is nothing more than a fantasy.


"2. Flat rate income tax that is progressive in practice: those who only earn a little only pay a little in tax, those who earn a lot pay a lot."
It's not progressive at all, its just flat. If I earn $10,000 and pay a quarter I earn a little and pay a little, if I make $100,000 and pay $25,000 I earn a lot and pay a lot. It's a flat tax with a cutoff.


So supposing I just decide to not work and eat up my $12k a year, what happens? Supposing half the country decides to do this, and the payout becomes larger than the governments revenue because they're not collecting hardly any tax? The problem with this system is that you're collecting money that doesn't exist yet, counting your chickens before they hatch in the metaphorical sense. Supposing a tax of 25% isn't large enough to pay everyone 12k, plus fund the military and education and keep the roads in working order and all that other nonsense we take for granted. The tax would go up with no way to increase the benefits, and there will come a point where the tax and payout break even, but that point is likely prohibitively high, as in it would be more damaging than beneficial to the taxpayers. Supposing I make 60k a year and I get my 12000 bonus, putting me at 72000 total, then I pay my 25 percent tax on my 60k. 15000 - 12000 = 3000 in revenue that the government has collected, and my net income is 69000. Great, my effective tax rate is 3/60 = 5%. Unfortunately 11,131/60,000 = 18.5%, the current tax rate (2011) for that income. So assuming the government actually needs to collect 11k from a person making 60k, the tax rate would jump from 25% to 38%. 60000*.38 = 23000, minus the 12000 payout is 11k. So I'd be paying 38% of my income to taxes versus 18%, and get the same benefit. This is inherently stupid to me.

"5. Tax system and welfare departments of the government can be greatly reduced in size and cost, because the system is much simpler to administer."
Bullshit.

I dislike the system proposed because it keeps encouraging our endless abuse of ressources.

A system advocating voluntary simplicity and self-reliance (through educating its population) nearly wouldn't require people to work at all.
You'd only need people taking care of a few certain basic things that would increase significantly the comfort/well-being of the rest of the population (clothing, house construction, education, food diversity, etc.).
You thus end up with people having to work on their own small garden (which really doesn't require much attention), and being obligated to volunteer for certain productions a few hours per week.
As soon as someone has volunteered his minimal amount of hours per week, he receives his basic needs for free. People unable to volunteer will receive their basic needs freely anyhow. People not wanting to work will receive nothing.
We could also introduce a piecework environment that would somehow reward people working more than others. (This is debatable, though.)

Here we go: no more money required, no more perpetual employment required, no more resource abuses, etc.
I think it can also be adapted to any scale you want.

This idea of system probably still needs to be worked a bit, but so far, this is what I think would be the best solution.

A "progressive tax" means one where the tax as a proportion of your total income increases as your income increases. Generally this is handled by using tax brackets. Eg with tax brackets of <$50k @ 20%, and >$50k @ 30%, when you earn up to $50k your proportion of tax is simply 20% of your income. When you earn $100k, your tax is now 20% of 50k and 30% of 50k for a total rate of 25%.

That is the definition of "progressive taxation". The UBI as outlined is progressive because your effective rate of taxation as a proportion of your total income increases the more you earn on a purely graduated scale: there are no sudden jumps as you get with the tax bracket systems that most countries use.

Then you have a meagre existing scrapping by on $12k a year. Alternatively, you can now devote your "free" time to volunteer efforts or helping your family members etc.

Funnily enough, in countries such as my own which has an unemployment benefit that you can effectively take for your entire life (no time limits), it turns out people actually want to work! Why? Because when you work, you get more money and have a better quality of life.

None of this is actually my idea. Two prominent NZ economists outlined the proposal in very great detail. http://www.gmi.co.nz/bigkahuna/

You can watch a lot of presentations on it if you want, too: http://www.gmi.co.nz/news/1255/the-big-kahuna-launch.aspx

Let me explain to you why I think capitalism doesn't work and why communism works.

Capitalism works on the principle that one's life is better managed when controlled and regulated by themselves. This takes any sort of control one has over one's situation away from the government, and any detail that one deems as "unfair" or "unjust" can be blamed on anyone.

Communism works on the idea that one is responsible for one's community. You push for mutual gain in life, and if you fail, you have no one to blame except yourself.

People are naturally dissatisfied with their situation. That is not to say that you cannot be satisfied, but it is often fleeting unless you were to gain a broader, more complete, perspective on things (perhaps?). This dissatisfaction, in a capitalist society, is directed towards the government, and a negative image of the government is reinforced by any sort of bad situation, which I think eventually leads to the downfall.

Communism works because the dissatisfaction can only be redirected towards yourself.

I think that a lack of regulation of a person's life, such as this one, cannot work.

Sorry, if I can flip your argument this easily you are blowing hot air and buzzwords.

The video would've been better if it didn't ride on so many assumptions.

Upgraded to Lite Discussion by request of original poster.

>>Lite Discussion

Edit : Please remove post

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 10 2012, 10:46 pm by Tempz.

Vrael's replies to #2 and #5 were actually replying to my outline of the UBI Tempz, not the original topic.

Well I suppose considering the payout as part of the tax rate makes it "effectively" a progressive tax like you say. When you start dealing with large incomes however, it is effectively a flat tax. A millionaire might pay 24.9% and a billionaire might pay 24.999% because their incomes are so large in comparison to the 12k that its essentially flat.

When they work do they still receive the benefit though? Also consider how many people you'd have to pay that don't work now. All those bums that dont qualify for benefits, housewives who dont need it because their husbands have enough income, ect. 12,000 * 300,000,000 (rough population of U.S.) = 3,600,000,000,000. 3.6 trillion. The U.S. government revenue in 2009 was 2.7 trillion, so this plan is not sustainable in the slightest.

"That's life" is not a proper justification. What because I'm thrown into this mess I have to sit down and eat the shit it gives me? No, I'm not going to accept that.

Life is how we make it. We have it within our power to promote a life that's built on choice and personal fulfillment. We can't give up on it because it is too idealistic. I'm sure space travel or vaccinations or airplanes were fantasy at one point. They're not anymore. We progressed, achieved, and adapted.

I'm not saying we should abandon money all at once. I'm not even saying the technology exists to replace all menial jobs. I do think it is very nearly within our grasp, and more effort should be put into moving towards that.

That is in no way different to have a bracketed tax system where the top rate is 33% at $70,000 as we have in NZ. Once you earn a billion dollars you tax rate will pretty much be 32.9999%. That doesn't make it any less progressive.

40% of adults in NZ receive some form of government benefit.

1 in 6 Americans receive some form of government benefit. 1 in 7 Americans need food stamps just to live.

The cost of living in the US is less than it is in NZ, and your currency is worth more, so a figure of more like $7-9k may work better. Also if you go to the links I posted, you will see that a comprehensive capital tax and universal sales tax are included as part of the system. Finally, the US collects proportionally less tax than NZ does, so obviously if you were to implement this sort of system you'd need to collect more tax in total in order to spend it on the UBI.

The goal is a fairer and less discriminatory tax and welfare system, that is also more efficient to administer. I can't see what's so objectionable about that.

I object to the fairness and efficiency of this proposed system. I believe its based on principles which will doom it to failure, and doom its participant nations to catastrophic economical failure if implemented.

well the communist regime failed soley because of the corruption and mismanagement of resources which can easily be fixed through some checks and balances.

Or through a sexy AI distributing resources.

Yes but AI isn't random and needs to be watched after... too much power to anything including AI will end disastrously so a council of leaders will work best atleast into the foreseeable future.

Free rape?

Well that's a little ambiguous please explain more since i have no idea what you mean... Communism was free rape, maybe because of corruption, is this going to free rape? I spent 30 minutes checking the post to make sure it was as soild as possible and i think i stated that a system of checks and balances shall fix the "rape" either that or you be trolling (not a grammer error)

Sorry for double post but

@vrael
how will it doom its participants? all it promotes is taking out the cash variable which will take out the economic strain on our society which has caused nothing hoarding and warmongering... a fine example is that united states is dependent on foreign oil which is magnified through the devalued dollar causing fuel prices to skyrocket thus causing the war for oil and in this war we have lost more than we have won and this is not even including the loss of life.

Literally.

I admit, I didn't read any of your posts, the title is enough, in this case. Let's assume you get your system to work. Everything you could buy for money legally is free. What are you going to do about things you can buy for money illegally? Human organs, rare animals, drugs, slaves, weapons, women for prostitution, children for rape. If money is made worthless, all these people will need another currency, which most likely will be human-something. And what to do with luxury? Like rare paintings and gems and huge houses and shit?

I just read your post. You've just remade the existing system in different words.

I agree that i remade systems but many people have remade existing systems although the system explained is more like resource based or points based economy... there will always be corruption... you just need weed it out. With the system i purposed at least there is less corruption because with money it promotes hoarding of objects as they gain value over time and the less of it there is in circulation the less there is for everyone else thus the value rises as the resources are harvested until there is nothing left (oil is a fine example) which the proposed system doesn't do.