Good. What else are they going to spend money on?
True and fair. I think most economic and political systems are pretty broken so fitting things like this into them isn't something that interests me much, I fall back to 'feck the system' pretty fast when it gets in the way tbh.
I tried green tea but couldn't keep it up. I tried a few fruit teas and you can feel the acid dissolving your tooth enamel at speed. I tried decaff tea, it's tasteless and doing without proper tea didn't help me sleep any better, so back to PG tips it was. One pint, every hour.
Never believed that to be the case anyway.
In Canada, too, it gets mentioned more and more. Except if it really goes wrong somewhere else or the Conservatives become dominant (they generally oppose it over here), we're likely to get some variant of it introduced or get a big-scale test over here.
My understanding is that no new money would be printed, that it is a redistribution of existing money.
The government would pay out the UBI and yes, it would need to get its money from somewhere. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of new money in it though; it depends on how it's done.
The government would pay out the UBI and yes, it would need to get its money from somewhere. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of new money in it though; it depends on how it's done.
The idea of UBI is to ensure that everyone can have at least a certain level of income. Most governments have stats indicating what an annual living wage would be in different areas of the country for different household types, so that would be a reasonable figure.
Your question, then, is about distribution. One way would be to give everyone a lump sum, which simply goes on top of your income (whatever it is, if any), and is fully taxable. That's easy to administer and means there is never a delay in receiving the UBI (e.g., if you're suddenly unemployed, you don't have to first apply and wait a while before the UBI starts coming in). However, it's a little weird, since no income is taxed at 100%, so even the rich would retain some of it. It could instead be earmarked as UBI by the state and clawed back after the year depending on your total income, but that could be hard on people that have spent it already (you can't expect everyone to plan their finances that way). Therefore, the more likely way of paying out, would be to top up existing income (if any) until the threshold.
Neither variant would particularly affect inflation though. In case of the latter approach, the government would not actually be spending all that much extra. First, UBI would come in place of existing benefits programs, so that part is simply a different name for the same money. Second, while UBI payments would most likely far exceed exisiting benefits payments, the idea is that a large part of the extra cost would be recouped through less administration (many countries have a complex network of benefits programs that could entirely be removed), lower health care costs (since poverty correlates strongly with health issues), and increased economic growth (UBI would provide the financial security that would allow people to get additional training, start a company, etc.; it's been shown that entrepreneurship is higher in countries with stronger social security nets). Whatever additional cost of UBI has not yet been covered by this point won't be sufficiently significant to affect inflation.
In the former payment scenario (everyone gets a lump sum), there would be a huge additional cost to the state in year 1, but in year 2, this would immediately drop back to similar levels as in the second scenario, as then the state would start recouping excess payments through income tax.
Along the way in all this, I'vee also touched on what I think are the supposed benefits of UBI, so I hope this helps. I'm sure some people will also jump in to add further details - and correct me.
Uhm, isn't that what @Heardy and I were talking about just above?
Ha, good timing then!
Its a valid concern imo. I really think people being bored and miserable about having nowhere to go every day will be a far more significant problem than freeloaders. Not that i think doomed or bullshit jobs are a particularly good solution to the problem.
The government would pay out the UBI and yes, it would need to get its money from somewhere. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of new money in it though; it depends on how it's done.
The idea of UBI is to ensure that everyone can have at least a certain level of income. Most governments have stats indicating what an annual living wage would be in different areas of the country for different household types, so that would be a reasonable figure.
Your question, then, is about distribution. One way would be to give everyone a lump sum, which simply goes on top of your income (whatever it is, if any), and is fully taxable. That's easy to administer and means there is never a delay in receiving the UBI (e.g., if you're suddenly unemployed, you don't have to first apply and wait a while before the UBI starts coming in). However, it's a little weird, since no income is taxed at 100%, so even the rich would retain some of it. It could instead be earmarked as UBI by the state and clawed back after the year depending on your total income, but that could be hard on people that have spent it already (you can't expect everyone to plan their finances that way). Therefore, the more likely way of paying out, would be to top up existing income (if any) until the threshold.
Neither variant would particularly affect inflation though. In case of the latter approach, the government would not actually be spending all that much extra. First, UBI would come in place of existing benefits programs, so that part is simply a different name for the same money. Second, while UBI payments would most likely far exceed exisiting benefits payments, the idea is that a large part of the extra cost would be recouped through less administration (many countries have a complex network of benefits programs that could entirely be removed), lower health care costs (since poverty correlates strongly with health issues), and increased economic growth (UBI would provide the financial security that would allow people to get additional training, start a company, etc.; it's been shown that entrepreneurship is higher in countries with stronger social security nets). Whatever additional cost of UBI has not yet been covered by this point won't be sufficiently significant to affect inflation.
In the former payment scenario (everyone gets a lump sum), there would be a huge additional cost to the state in year 1, but in year 2, this would immediately drop back to similar levels as in the second scenario, as then the state would start recouping excess payments through income tax.
Along the way in all this, I'vee also touched on what I think are the supposed benefits of UBI, so I hope this helps. I'm sure some people will also jump in to add further details - and correct me.
Not sure what the difference is? Also, how would UBI affect most people negatively?
Ah ok. I was just going through possible scenarios because of the inflation question. I agree that UBI will more likely be used like a benefit, to top up any income until a threshold. Having to pay back UBI would be a horrible idea that would definitely go wrong for individuals. But you know, governments tend to do new things half-assed, so whoever actually implements it might mess things up in all kinds of ways...
