Mciahel Goodman
Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 30,004
@Mciahel Goodman, the right-wing reference is a good one. In fact, in Canada, the main proponent of UBI has long been a conservative senator who primarily saw it as an efficient tool to reduce government bureaucracy, due to UBI's potential to replace a complex patchwork of benefits.
Ultimately though, whom it appeals most to depends on perspective and implementation. For me, for example, it's obvious that a UBI would have to be accompanied by minimum wage laws that guarantee that people on full-time employment earn as least as much as their UBI would give them. Otherwise, as you say, you can end up with a situation like now, where Walmart in the US pays some people so poorly, that they are eligible for government food stamps. (That they spend at Walmart!)
Another thing to add here is that UBI doesn't have to be seen as a purely financial phenomenon. Having this sort of social security allows people to have greater confidence in their financial situation. For example, they are more likely to take time away from work to pursue further education or retool - as I think the Manitoba pilot showed. It might also augment entrepreneurship, as e.g. Sweden has higher levels of that than the US (yeah, virtually zero of the US's national myths are actually true), precisely because people know that it won't wreck them for life if their project goes wrong.
I guess these last two again economic examples, but just to say that the ramifications of UBI can be quite widespread (and positive).
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. UBI anyway has some complications, as what constitutes a liveable income can vary considerably in different regions of a country. So there would have to be some kind of evergreen table indicating what money buys you in different areas, with top-ups related to children, disability, and possibly other things.
That's not so complicated though. Statistics Canada is already working on something like that, for example (not in a UBI context).
Sorry, I'm not sure what this responds to. I said that I think that UBI should be a priority for every government, and I'm well aware that there don't seem to be a lot of governments agrees with me.
https://taxfoundation.org/short-history-government-taxing-and-spending-united-states
Government spending relative to GDP (as a percentage of GDP) rose, across the board, throughout the neoliberal period. And yet, throughout this same period, public programs were defunded and regulations were largely abandoned (financial regulations, that is). In what universe, then, do Friedman and his followers sanely exist whereby their intervention was successful in limiting the scope of the state (of ending “big government”)? Bluntly, there are two states: one which we all participate in and the other which exists quite apart from this one. The giant corporations are not truly beholden to the first state, in fact, it is merely an instrument which they seek to control to their own benefit (public spending rising is a “good” thing when that money is going to said corporations). And that is the entire point of neoliberalism which is often glossed over: big government is fine if it means socialized risk-taking on the part of the billionaire class, which is what we have today.
“For US multinationals, corporate profit shifting into tax havens has risen from an estimated 5 percent to 10 percent of gross profits in the 1990s to about 25 to 30 percent today (Cobham and Janský 2017)” (IMF). 30-50 trillion exists in offshore tax havens.
And the above is your “fluid” second state. Governments spend money in the private sector (if we are not talking about welfare payments and costs of maintaining a nationalised service) so that public money is outsourced to private firms and maximizes private profit with the most concentrated wealth band availing of this process the most, which is unsurprising. The scandal in England during Covid is a scandal precisely because it lays bare exactly this distinction. Indeed, it has lain it so bare that there is now no pretending the emperor has any clothes. Shell companies created by well-placed individuals to avail of public money. In many cases, these “companies” never dealt within the economic area they were now supposed to deliver.
So, whatever version of UBI does come forward, my primary requirement would be that it is funded by the 0.001% of the shareholding/speculative class. They must take a loss rather than somehow tot it up to public debt (a public which they are distinctly not a part of).