Society/Culture Universal Basic Income

[Taylor]

but the gap between poor and rich is only getting bigger.

If the overall general standard of living is increasing, is this really a problem? Most people are born not rich, there are far more people who are not rich, hence more people are stacking up the not rich side.

But life is so much better now than it was even just twenty years ago, in Australia at least.

 

[iBeng]

If the overall general standard of living is increasing, is this really a problem? Most people are born not rich, there are far more people who are not rich, hence more people are stacking up the not rich side.

But life is so much better now than it was even just twenty years ago, in Australia at least.

Its improving because if sort of has to, improvements are difficult to keep suppressed, especially when they can earn money. Its why we have the problem with the price of medicine. People are living longer, but you have to PAY for that privilege. Wouldnt it be great if someone cured a disease or found a solution to a medical problem and released that free on the market? It rarely if ever happens because its a good way to make money, and if the creator doesnt do that someone else quickly will.

So yes, life is better now than 20 years ago, but thats inevitable, change happens, nothing stagnates unless its left to, and even then it changes because the level below that is nothingness. Its why the poor die in countries where they cant support themselves.

Think of this example: Everyone always says about the African countries where its a struggle to live: Why dont they just stop having kids! Problem solved! But its not. They dont have kids because they WANT to. They have them because they NEED to. They need WORKERS. The cheapest worker? A family member. They have kids to work the meager farms they have so they can eat and earn whatever they can to try and survive. There is also other social issues, such as lack of access to contraception, cultural beliefs etc, but at the end of the day they NEED to survive in a society where money is the be all and end all.

 

[iBeng]

Take Seatbelts as another example. Seatbelts were invented in 1959. Cars themselves? 1885. They didnt become compulsory until around 1965 for the front, and that was just fitted, and 1975 they were compulsory to wear them. 1979 required them to be both front and back.

Now this was a safety improvement. This was something that at the time was shown to help prevent catastrophic injury. Why didnt they get mandated straight away? Money. It was going to cost money to make them, install them, they probably needed a new stage in the construction of the cars, design changes, a whole host of things. The Government had to be petition and convinced to make it a LAW to have them. All delayed because of money.

So now, its safer to drive than it was 50 years ago because people tend to USE seatbelts. Why? The fear of being fined if they dont. Not because it'll make them safe. Some people still dont, because they just dont care. But 90% of us do because we dont want to get a fine, and we dont want to get injured. Because if we get injured that could impact our ability to...earn money.

 

[Taylor]

but you have to PAY for that privilege

..because people are working to provide that for you.

I agree that it would be a lot cheaper to live if nobody had to be paid for anything, but in that world what is driving someone to risk their future by putting their money into hoping to develop a new solution?

That is the risk of regulating a single payer healthcare system. The government can say that Service A is worth $100, that is all they will pay and nobody can work outside of that system so nobody ever has to pay more than $100 for Service A. Cost of healthcare just got better.

But now medical professionals no longer offer Service A because it costs more to provide that than they are able to be paid for the work. Quality of care drops. Availability of care drops.

 

[iBeng]

There will still be people who WANT to help people, who do the job for the LOVE of the job, NOT the money of the job.

I have met people who are teachers because they LOVE to teach kids. I rarely meet ones that say "Oh, I LOVE the bank in this job, so much money!"

Ill use myself as an example. I paint roads. Not glamorous, hardly fun, pay is crap. But I get a sense of accomplishment and pride in my work knowing if I didnt paint those lines, those words, then the road is literally just a 6m wide stretch of tar. And Im usually proud of what I paint.

Would the cure for cancer come out, is it fair that those who AFFORD it get it over those who DONT? Who is to say a 30 year old single mother of 2 deserves the cure less than a 30 year old single mother of 2 who happens to be significantly better off financial because of the cards life have dealt her?

We are told empathy is one of our core human traits, but we'll happily dispose of it to prevent any inconvenience to ourselves financially. Cant afford the cure? Oh well. Cant afford the ongoing costs of having a disability? Tough break. Oh? You have how much money? Come on in! We can help you! Sign here.

We always talk about the root of all evil and we created it ourselves. We created our own crutch, our own collars out of the need to measure ourselves against each other. And we couldnt do that with what we get by genetics, we had to have something that changes, can be gained and lost. And money was that one thing.

But we'll never be rid of it. So we need to manipulate and change how society sees it and uses it if we ever want to advance as a society.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Here's an idea out of left field, I haven't really thought through all the details yet.

Instead of making it universal, let's design an opt in or opt out system. You opt in or out through the tax system. Those that opt in pay higher taxes, but they get a government card that includes Medicare, dental, education discounts, social security, child care and so on - all the leftie dream world stuff, but they get fewer tax concessions and rebates too, no access to family trusts. Or you can choose to opt out and pay less tax, but you get only the basics under Medicare, reliant upon your own resources or insurance if you get sick.

Could such a system be designed that works? Obviously it will be an administrative cost to employers to deduct the correct rate of tax from the correct employee.

I guess the default option will be opt in.

There would need to be some fee to opt back in once you have made the decision to opt out.

 

[Taylor]

And perhaps a waiting period but I think the Medicare system will cover that already

 

[iBeng]

Interesting video I found recently:

 

[Seeds]

Here's an idea out of left field, I haven't really thought through all the details yet.

Instead of making it universal, let's design an opt in or opt out system. You opt in or out through the tax system. Those that opt in pay higher taxes, but they get a government card that includes Medicare, dental, education discounts, social security, child care and so on - all the leftie dream world stuff, but they get fewer tax concessions and rebates too, no access to family trusts. Or you can choose to opt out and pay less tax, but you get only the basics under Medicare, reliant upon your own resources or insurance if you get sick.

Could such a system be designed that works? Obviously it will be an administrative cost to employers to deduct the correct rate of tax from the correct employee.

I guess the default option will be opt in.

There would need to be some fee to opt back in once you have made the decision to opt out.

But wouldnt non workers opt in whilst 30-55 year olds opt out. Resulting in no tax base.

Or would you have to make the decision at 18 for life?

 

[Admiral Byng]

But wouldnt non workers opt in whilst 30-55 year olds opt out. Resulting in no tax base.

Or would you have to make the decision at 18 for life?

I've gone off the idea a bit, for exactly that reason.

In fact I've gone off the whole UBI concept too.

 

[ShanDog]

I'm a big fan of the idea, but I really don't know how it can be implemented. There's myriad ways it can work (and with organs like the dole, we already have it as a half measure), but the problem is, until someone picks a particular "brand" of UBI and tries it for a reasonable period of time, we won't truly know what the consequences and outcomes will be. Perhaps until it's done over more than a couple of generations, really.

Academics can speculate forever about what will happen economically and socially, but it's impossible to predict something so complex with accuracy, let alone foresee all possible outcomes.