The graphic is my attempt to illustrate why government handouts don't fix anyone's economic condition. Not in the long run.
I've tried to explain it several times in words but decided to give an illustration the chance.
It would be nice if this were wrong, I suppose. But that's not the world we live in, even if people with fake economic credentials believe it is. Government can't create real wealth (or even real money) out of fantasy and wishful thinking. Believing it can only leads to more problems in the long run.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
*Find me on Patreon
This graph is completely wrong.
There! Isn't that splendid?
The UBI doesn't just move the line up to the UBI level, it actually takes a chunk out of the Wealth.
And yes, we have been doing this hugely since Carter. And so, we have almost no Wealth left. I think most working class people have a couple hundred dollars a month. That is all that is left.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, you are right about that. Like I said about the "stimulus"; it is stealing from future-me, and I don't know that future-me will be able to afford it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi! Did you know that steemit.com is now censoring users and posts based on their opinions?
All the posts of these users are gone!
https://github.com/steemit/condenser/commit/3394af78127bdd8d037c2d49983b7b9491397296
Here's a list of some banned users:
'roelandp', 'blocktrades', 'anyx', 'ausbitbank', 'gtg', 'themarkymark', 'lukestokes.mhth', 'netuoso', 'innerhive'See anyone you recognize? There could be more, they also have a remote IP ban list.
Will you be censored next?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
During the period we are going through, a UBI would be a temporary measure to help people buy food. During the Great Depression, the greatest problem was that people did not have money to buy things. The same thing is happening now because our credit system is collapsing. One of my uncles (now dead) was a young adult during the depression. He worked for room and board and $0.25 per month. He distrusted credit and whenever he bought a vehicle or property, he paid in cash.
Ultimately a UBI is just the tax money given back to the people it was originally taken from. In Canada there is a body which takes the money gathered in the pension plan which gives a very good return:
Source: CPP Investments
The maximum contribution currently is $2,898.00 (5.25%) Source. While it is a "pension", it is just another form of a UBI. The projections of this fund are sustainable probably for at least 75 years (assuming we do not have an influx of immigrants who will not contribute their share of the fund):
Source: CPP Investments
My suggestion which change the nature of the UBI system would be that dividends from the fund would be partially paid out each month. For instance if the contribution was $2400 (actual is $2,898.00), the 10 percent return would be $240. One half of that ($120) would be paid out as a monthly dividend of $10.00. Upon the 2nd year, this would double to $20.00 per month etc. In order to make this more realistic, I would divert funds currently being paid as the child benefit (baby bonus) here in Canada to be applied to the child's UBI. During the current crisis, the are paying $300 extra per child (the usual benefit is about $500 per month). By the time a child is 18, they would also be receiving $180 per month as a dividend.
How does this vary from what people can do now? Nothing. Anyone could have been doing this for themselves. Most people do not have the ability to find investments which are guaranteed to give them a 10 percent return. The earnings from this could be have special tax protection. The residual of the pensions could be added to survivors' UBI.
While you are correct in the sense that pricing curves will shift (rents increase etc.) as people will all have more money to buy stuff with, inflation is based on limited goods. Too much money going after too few goods. Until a few weeks ago, I was confident we wouldn't see hyperinflation because we had an almost infinite amount of goods for a number of years. No matter how much we could spend, China could out supply the demand. What you fail to account for is that there is an increase in more than just extrinsic rewards whenever pilot studies have been run in the past. For instance, there were two groups of people who stopped working in the Mincome Study (Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment 1973). One group was pregnant women who remained at home longer to care for their babies after birthing. The other group were high school dropouts. They stayed in school. This finding is almost universal in every study ... better family health and educational outcomes. The recent pilot in Ontario had anecdotal reports of how people were able to better themselves. In addition to being able to continue their education, people were able to invest in things to better themselves. In one instance a person was able to buy a car, allowing them to be able to travel to get a job. This is especially important for people in rural areas, without access to public transportation nor jobs within walking distance.
Another aspect of your model is that it doesn't take into account that currently we have a negative wealth position. If you stay in a home you pay property taxes, if you rent - it is a component of your payment. If you buy food, you pay taxes at least indirectly. The UBI isn't meant to make people rich. It is to assure that everyone can at least cover their basic costs.
My biggest argument for having a UBI is that the people who work for Social Services in the government hate the idea. They would become redundant if the welfare system was eliminated. They wouldn't need the counsellors to work with welfare beneficiaries, nor the enforcement officers needed to track down the cheaters. When the Income Tax was first introduced in Canada the population was 8 million people and they had 100 people to administer the tax collection in the government 100 years ago. Today Canada has less than 5 times the people 37 million but a little more than 5 times (about 5000 times more) the number of people in the civil service.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well.... no. Because it is going to be a tax on future-you, not past-you. The past "taxation" is gone. It has been spent. It isn't there to give back. Anything government "gives" you it has to either steal from someone else today or counterfeit through the Federal Reserve (or the equivalent).
"Taxation" is theft. Nothing can change that. Yes, theft can benefit some people at the expense of others. Some thieves even put the stolen money to good use-- benefitting widows and orphans. It is still wrong to take property which was honestly gained through work or trade, which the rightful owner would rather not lose. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you justify it. Or how you spend it.
I guarantee you they'd find another tax-junkie position. People who go into government "jobs" are rarely fit for anything honest or productive.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit