Replacing social welfare with a basic income

troll_a_roll

It does seem like a universal income, or a massive war, famine or disease, is the only way forward. Those are the only things that can help with over-population and with artificial intelligence and automation.

There are problems though.

The over population in the world is largely in countries which won't be able to afford to pay a universal income. People from these countries want to migrate to rich countries.

The process of migration is already underway and we in the west have proven ourselves incapable of dealing with it.

Wanting to control migration is incorrectly described as racism and this is paralysing our societies. This leads to polarisation, and polarisation could easily destroy Europe.

If we want a society that works in Ireland we need a universal income. But then we also need closed borders. If we cannot close our borders then we cannot secure our society, or provide for our own people as we need to.



This bout of automation is new and isn't the same as previous industrial revolutions.
This time, it is intelligence itself which has been automated. Humans have always been the most intelligent things on the planet. We are now going to lose that title to machines of our own making.

That's new. Humans who have access to artifical super intelligent machines will have a huge advantage over those humans who do not have such access. There will be winners and losers.

Humans have no way to control the machines. This is like Skynet, but for real. It's extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to construct these machines so that we remain in full control of them.

I find it impossible to predict what the world will be like in 2100. It could be a post apocalyptic mess or it could be a futuristic wonderland.

Water John

Hope this is not dumping a link but this article is quite good at easing out various pro and anti reasons.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/19/basic-income-finland-low-wages-fewer-jobs

Unions in one country against it. Unions in UK very much in favour and possibly seeing it as the big thing for the Labour Party. A sort of 2nd gen welfare state movement.
The info that some workers in the UK are getting about half the min wage is disturbing.
That door to employer abuse should be firmly shut. Serious fines and possible jail should be applied vigourously.

Bob24

Water John wrote: »

Unions in UK very much in favour and possibly seeing it as the big thing for the Labour Party.

It is quite telling about the confusion our world is in if unions (who's mission statement is to defend workers rights) and a party called labour are in favour of a measure which is largely seen as a patch for reduced employment opportunities for the masses going forward, i.e. a gradual disappearance of workers and labour.

Loafing Oaf

Bob24 wrote: »

It is quite telling about the confusion our world is in if unions (who's mission statement is to defend workers rights) and a party called labour are in favour of a measure which is largely seen as a patch for reduced employment opportunities for the masses going forward, i.e. a gradual disappearance of workers and labour.

Maybe they recognise traditional left-wing policies can do little about technology destroying jobs and UBI is the least worst way of tackling the resulting mass un- and under-employment...

Bob24

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Maybe they recognise traditional left-wing policies can do little about technology destroying jobs and UBI is the least worst way of tackling the resulting mass un- and under-employment...

You are saying they recognise they will be irrelevant going forward? (no workers = no unions)

Mind you, I am not a hardcore socialist. But I find it quite strange that organisations which where built for the sole purpose of defending workers rights follow a path of accepting that work or full time work are disappearing and just look for a social patch to the disappearance of the class of people they were built to protect.

Water John

Not sure anyone is saying there wont be any workers.
But more people doing part time rather than less doing full time is actually good forward thinking by a Union. Unemployed are not paying members of a Union.

Loafing Oaf

Bob24 wrote: »

You are saying they recognise they will be irrelevant going forward? (no workers = no unions)

Mind you, I am not a hardcore socialist. But I find it quite strange that organisations which where built for the sole purpose of defending workers rights follow a path of accepting that work or full time work are disappearing and just look for a social patch to the disappearance of the class of people they were built to protect.

Not no workers obviously, some professions like nurses are going to carry on much as they've always done. But if/when automated vehicles come in and taxi drivers, truckers etc. are rendered obsolete, what can any union or socialist party do about that? If ensuring these guys have a basic wage is all the traditional left can do for these guys, well that's better than doing nothing.

Bob24

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not no workers obviously, some professions like nurses are going to carry on much as they've always done. But if/when automated vehicles come in and taxi drivers, truckers etc. are rendered obsolete, what can any union or socialist party do about that? If ensuring these guys have a basic wage is all the traditional left can do for these guys, well that's better than doing nothing.

Not sure about nurses, I'd imagine soon enough there will be automated devices which monitor patient's vital signs and can provide some basic treatment or administer drugs ... with a fraction of the number of nurses we currently require who will just monitor the system remotely and go to the patient when there is an issue which can't be dealt with by the machine.

But the fact that jobs we know today will obviously disappear doesn't mean others won't be created or that UBI is the best answer. At the very least worker's unions should think carefully about the future of work (which requires a mix of philosophical, sociological, economic, and technological knowledge) and see if the picture of what we think it will look like in the coming decades seems acceptable, or could be politically influenced. Just pushing for UBI which really is an imperfect patch for what some think will happen seems a bit weak (I have an open mind about this and don't make any assumption either way, but I haven't seen anyone explain why this industrial revolution will be different from the previous ones which destroyed some jobs but also created others in similar quantities).

Water John

Another good article to add to the knowledge of the feasiblity and potential of UBI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income

This is especially good on how poverty limits people.
It also shows, as in Dauphin, people don't stop working. It improves learning and society.

Loafing Oaf

Water John wrote: »

Another good article to add to the knowledge of the feasiblity and potential of UBI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income

This is especially good on how poverty limits people.
It also shows, as in Dauphin, people don't stop working. It improves learning and society.

Puts the case well. What's needed now are successful large-scale contemporary trials

professore

Water John wrote: »

I think the 'moral hazard' lights are being flashed here.

We did not apply it to the banks, but we sure as hell applied it to their unfortunate customers.

When we had the 'celtic tiger' we effectively achieved full employment.
People choose to work at that time over unemployment.
There is always a residual 3/4%.

Perhaps one should look at positive aspects of what BI might trigger.
A lot of artistic and creative people might use the opportunity of having a BI, to develop their talents.
A lot of people may become more involved in voluntary activity.

You are missing the biggest advantage IMO . A lot of people would start businesses that otherwise wouldn't.

Suryavarman

Water John wrote: »

Another good article to add to the knowledge of the feasiblity and potential of UBI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income

This is especially good on how poverty limits people.
It also shows, as in Dauphin, people don't stop working. It improves learning and society.

Poverty limits people so you propose reducing the incomes of the poorest in society?

professore wrote: »

You are missing the biggest advantage IMO . A lot of people would start businesses that otherwise wouldn't.

Can you back that up with evidence and can you also show that a UBI would be more cost effective than other more common programmes?

Water John

This trial is evidence.
Who would have assured, with evidence, that the NHS, would be a success in 1948?

On your basis, no progress would ever happen.

Suryavarman

Water John wrote: »

This trial is evidence.
Who would have assured, with evidence, that the NHS, would be a success in 1948?

On your basis, no progress would ever happen.

What trial?

The NHS hasn't been a success. It's the only healthcare system in Western Europe that might actually be worse than Ireland's own system.

Also, why are you proposing reducing the incomes of the worst off in society if poverty limits people as you yourself admit?

Loafing Oaf

Suryavarman wrote: »

why are you proposing reducing the incomes of the worst off in society

Who says UBI would do that?

Suryavarman

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Who says UBI would do that?

Either UBI reduces the incomes of the worst off in society or it is completely unaffordable. Choose one.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Loafing oaf, posting memes is not serious debate.

Water John

Don't get the points you are making that UBI would make the poor worse off.

It's the whole purpose is the reverse.
Maybe its the possibility of higher taxes on high incomes is your real concern?

El Tarangu

Water John wrote: »

Don't get the points you are making that UBI would make the poor worse off.

It's the whole purpose is the reverse.
Maybe its the possibility of higher taxes on high incomes is your real concern?

I think the idea with UBI is that is replaces all social welfare payments with a single payment that is paid to everyone. If someone was in receipt of JSB, rent supplement, children's allowance, free medical card, etc., they would probably be worse off on just the UBI payment.

In order for them not to be worse off on the UBI payment, you would need to make UBI so high as to be unaffordable.

Water John

Don't think any of the UBI options have suggested that an unemployed person would be worse off.
This is a red herring.
I think my prior post is more the issue and this is throwing shadows.

Loafing Oaf

El Tarangu wrote: »

I think the idea with UBI is that is replaces all social welfare payments with a single payment that is paid to everyone.

Not necessarily
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/should-everyone-in-ireland-be-paid-752-a-month-for-doing-nothing-1.2683030

Some argue that a basic income for all could leave those most in need less well off. However, Ryan says such a system would have to allow for special payments for those with special needs, disabilities etc. Allowances such as rent allowance would continue to be paid. “No one should be worse off than they are now,” she says.

OleRodrigo

Its a good point that there are some who are completely supported by social welfare payments who might be worse off. But I can imagine they would be a minority. A supplementary scheme to ensure they aren't penalized by a UBI would be easy to apply, so isn't of itself a strong argument against the UBI.

One powerful enabler of the UBI will be automation within public administration. Currently, the amount of people employed in public admin and the civil service doing work which is highly susceptible to better automated processes, is high - up to 2/3 of all staff in the HSE for example, and a large percentage of any other public admin department that you care to mention.

What will all those people do and what can be done with the money saved ?

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

I think the idea with UBI is that is replaces all social welfare payments with a single payment that is paid to everyone. If someone was in receipt of JSB, rent supplement, children's allowance, free medical card, etc., they would probably be worse off on just the UBI payment.

In order for them not to be worse off on the UBI payment, you would need to make UBI so high as to be unaffordable.

No. UBI would replace JSB.

Rent allowance stays the same
Childrens allowance stays the same
Free medical card, etc, remain the same.

UBI would allow people to work, whilst retaining the safety net of a basic income. If they work, of course, the other benefits will be stopped.

Bass Reeves

I think some people are associating UBI with a kind of social welfare utopia. IMO rent allowance is not compatible with UBI. A UBI system is supposed to be an enabler for those at the bottom of the ladder. For it to work people must accept that there lives are decided by there own choices. The state government them a basic income that is supposed to prevent starvation but not poverty. A UBI is supposed to give you the choice of making a decision on what lifestyle you choose.

Medical care is possible with UBI and there would be a children's allowance as all would be entitled to a basic level of support. Education would be free up to the end of second level and you would make your own choices when you reach 18 years of age(adulthood). The issue with rent supplement is that people could or would choose to live in area's where accommodation is expensive even though there income is limited. In an ideal UBI if you could not afford accommodation in an area you would move to a less expensive area. Also rent supplement could be a discouragement to some to advance themselves or even encourage some to work in a black economy so as not to lose the benefit of rent supplement.

UBI is supposed to be an enabler in that it gives one the choice to work and improve your lifestyle without the risk of startvation. There are risks where maybe drug addict's might fall through the cracks on the system. As well how to deal with disabilities, and how do you support such people without allowing the system to be abused and creating ways for some to get a higher level of support.

There is a radical difference in the proposal of UBI between the right and left in society. Some on the left see it as an utopia state by giving people the choice to do what ever is there choice. But this type of UBi is not affordable. Those on the right of the spectrum see it as giving people the choice to make of life what they will

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

No. UBI would replace JSB.

Rent allowance stays the same
Childrens allowance stays the same
Free medical card, etc, remain the same.

UBI would allow people to work, whilst retaining the safety net of a basic income. If they work, of course, the other benefits will be stopped.

but surely if we all get UBI, then we all should get rent allowance?

Otherwise UBI isn't UBI.

Water John

I think some see the parralel to UBI as the Minimum Wage. I would see it in terms of a Living Wage.

I would be disturbed at any view that sees poverty as ok as long as it isn't absolute poverty.
Are the poor to be so grateful we, as social beings, would try to ensure all are lifted above absolute poverty?
Absolute poverty, needs to be left behind by humanity as this point.

Bass Reeves

Water John wrote: »

I think some see the parralel to UBI as the Minimum Wage. I would see it in terms of a Living Wage.

I would be disturbed at any view that sees poverty as ok as long as it isn't absolute poverty.
Are the poor to be so grateful we, as social beings, would try to ensure all are lifted above absolute poverty?
Absolute poverty, needs to be left behind by humanity as this point.

I think you fail to understand the theory of a basic income. If it was set at the minimum wage it would be at a level of 20k/ year or an income of nearly 400/week. That might be possible in a future society which is dominated by robotic technology but in present times it is not even remotely possible. A UBI in present day society is more of an enabling payment. It's purpose is to give people the choice to leave poverty by using the UBI as a building block to achieve an income that is substantially above poverty level living.

Let's assume that UBI is set at a low level of 150/ adult/ week and tax is flat rated at 40%. What effect will this have on a person Social welfare. At present they have an income of 188 euro. In the new senario they have a UBI of 150 euro. But lets assume that they work 30 hours at 10 euro/ hour. Now this 300 euro is taxed at 40% leaving them with 180 euro and 150 UBI. Now if we transfer this to a family situation it leaves such a family with earning of 360/ week after tax, a UBI of300/ week as well as CA for each child.

If UBI was set at present welfare rate of 188/ week this family would be another 76 euro/ week better off. If tax rate was graduated with maybe first 6k of earnings/ individual were taxed at 20% they be 45 euro/ family better off. This would bring a family with two children ( assuming a CA of 50/ week for each child) with a disposable I income of over 45k.

blanch152

Water John wrote: »

I think some see the parralel to UBI as the Minimum Wage. I would see it in terms of a Living Wage.

I would be disturbed at any view that sees poverty as ok as long as it isn't absolute poverty.
Are the poor to be so grateful we, as social beings, would try to ensure all are lifted above absolute poverty?
Absolute poverty, needs to be left behind by humanity as this point.

The Irish social welfare system ensures that there is nobody in Ireland who suffers from absolute poverty unless they choose to.

If they are not choosing it, and they are experiencing absolute poverty, given the amount of supports available, there is little else, short of institutionalisation, that society can do.

segosego89

Suryavarman wrote: »

Either UBI reduces the incomes of the worst off in society or it is completely unaffordable. Choose one.

What makes you so sure? What evidence do you have to support the notion that it is unaffordable?

Suryavarman

Water John wrote: »

Don't think any of the UBI options have suggested that an unemployed person would be worse off.
This is a red herring.
I think my prior post is more the issue and this is throwing shadows.

UBI proposals don't tend to be based in reality which would explain why this is the case.

Water John wrote: »

Don't get the points you are making that UBI would make the poor worse off.

It's the whole purpose is the reverse.
Maybe its the possibility of higher taxes on high incomes is your real concern?

It fails in its purpose.

LOL if you think a UBI can be paid for with higher taxes on higher incomes.

segosego89 wrote: »

What makes you so sure? What evidence do you have to support the notion that it is unaffordable?

Give a UBI of €10k per year to everyone in employment. That would cost €20bn per year alone. That doesn't include the massive increase in spending that would be needed to absorb all the immigrants from across the EU that will move for a free €10k per year. Show me that we can raise taxes enough to fund that.

Loafing Oaf

Suryavarman wrote: »

UBI proposals don't tend to be based in reality which would explain why this is the case.



It fails in its purpose.

LOL if you think a UBI can be paid for with higher taxes on higher incomes.



Give a UBI of €10k per year to everyone in employment. That would cost €20bn per year alone.

My understanding is that wealthy people would pay it all back in tax

Water John

If you put UBI in place, it has to be a holistic and not piece meal exercise.
For example, any person would have to be domiciled here for a certain length to avail of it.

I have an open mind on UBI. I see great benefits in it socially. Lets look at various options and levels within it. I don't understand just constantly saying, it won't work, it won't work.

Bass Reeves

Suryavarman wrote: »

UBI proposals don't tend to be based in reality which would explain why this is the case. .

Some of them don't and some do. It amazing how many conservative economist's believe in UBI. Generally where it falls down is with socialist promoting it where they want UBI with too many safety nets. UBI is supposed to be an enabler.

Suryavarman wrote: »

It fails in its purpose.

LOL if you think a UBI can be paid for with higher taxes on higher incomes..

Generally most economists expect slightly higher taxes. However most are not factoring in extra economic activity which may increase tax revenue with out having exceptionally higher taxes. In a UBI scheme tax would be payable on all income earned above UBI. So even someone only earning 4k in earned income above UBI could be paying 700-1k in tax. The biggest difference would be on tax at lower incomes.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Give a UBI of €10k per year to everyone in employment. That would cost €20bn per year alone. That doesn't include the massive increase in spending that would be needed to absorb all the immigrants from across the EU that will move for a free €10k per year. Show me that we can raise taxes enough to fund that.

Not correct. UBI could be set below present social welfare rates. However if it was set at present welfare rate it would cost 9800/ individual. However subtract personnel and PAYE tax credit and it costs 6500. However all income is now taxable. A person on the minimum wage( approximately 20k) previously paid a tax, PRSI and USC of about 1800 euro. At a tax rate of even 20% he pay 4k leaving a shortfall of 4.3k. TBF most promoters of UBI speak about flat tax rates of 40% which would leave this person as a net contributor to the system. However more than likely there would be an entry level rate lower than 40% on the first part of the income. A person earning 20k in earned income might pay 3k in income tax. People earning less than 16 k in earned income who pay no tax at present would be paying at least 3k in tax

The gap is not as large as people think unless you start put in safety nets as some left wing promoter's present. You have to look at UBI as an enabler not as a social safety net

blanch152

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/socialconditions/expenditureonsocialwelfare/


Assume 2009, 20.5 bn expenditure on social welfare is the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland

4.7 million people living in Ireland, 1 million under 15, assume that is 1.2 under 18.

That means UBI has to be paid to 3.5m adults and 1.2m children.

Assume half-payment for each child. That gives you 4.1m WTEs.

That allows for a UBI payment of €5,000 for each adult and €2,500 for each child. You would also have to abolish all social welfare payments.

Is €100 a week enough UBI for everyone with no rent supplement, no back to education etc?

Income tax currently brings in around €20bn a year. Therefore to double the payment to €200 a week, we would have to double income tax revenue. Is that really feasible?

Suryavarman

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

My understanding is that wealthy people would pay it all back in tax

Pay what back in tax?

Water John wrote: »

I don't understand just constantly saying, it won't work, it won't work.

It has to do with the fact that nobody has proposed a workable UBI that doesn't dramatically reduce incomes for the worst off in society.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Some of them don't and some do. It amazing how many conservative economist's believe in UBI. Generally where it falls down is with socialist promoting it where they want UBI with too many safety nets. UBI is supposed to be an enabler.

They are few and far between.

Generally most economists expect slightly higher taxes. However most are not factoring in extra economic activity which may increase tax revenue with out having exceptionally higher taxes. In a UBI scheme tax would be payable on all income earned above UBI. So even someone only earning 4k in earned income above UBI could be paying 700-1k in tax. The biggest difference would be on tax at lower incomes.

Slightly higher taxes won't pay for a hugely expensive programme.

What evidence do you have to suggest that a UBI would significantly boost economic growth?

You expect us to pay for a UBI with only a 25% income tax? Wow.

Not correct. UBI could be set below present social welfare rates. However if it was set at present welfare rate it would cost 9800/ individual. However subtract personnel and PAYE tax credit and it costs 6500. However all income is now taxable. A person on the minimum wage( approximately 20k) previously paid a tax, PRSI and USC of about 1800 euro. At a tax rate of even 20% he pay 4k leaving a shortfall of 4.3k. TBF most promoters of UBI speak about flat tax rates of 40% which would leave this person as a net contributor to the system. However more than likely there would be an entry level rate lower than 40% on the first part of the income. A person earning 20k in earned income might pay 3k in income tax. People earning less than 16 k in earned income who pay no tax at present would be paying at least 3k in tax

What the hell are you rattling on about? First you say you'd tax a UBI at over 30%, then you say you'd tax incomes at 15%. This is why UBI proponents aren't taken seriously. You clearly haven't given the idea a whole lot of thought. If you can't be bothered to think about what you're proposing then don't expect people not to dismiss your proposals straight out of hand.

The gap is not as large as people think unless you start put in safety nets as some left wing promoter's present. You have to look at UBI as an enabler not as a social safety net

What does this even mean?

blanch152 wrote: »

Income tax currently brings in around €20bn a year. Therefore to double the payment to €200 a week, we would have to double income tax revenue. Is that really feasible?

No it isn't feasible. Not a bit.

Loafing Oaf

Suryavarman wrote: »

Pay what back in tax?

Their UBI

Suryavarman

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Their UBI

And everyone else's as well?

Geuze

http://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/publication/4633/basicincomefullbookdec2016.pdf

2016 book by SJI on UBI.

See page 128 for costs of their proposal.

2015 = 31,298m

It requires an ATR of 40%.

Sam Russell

So, as a basic income earner of, say €30k, I get a UBI of €7,600 and a tax bill of €12,000. Ok, that sounds doable.

Now, if Ivan is an EU citizen working beside me, just arrived, he does not get the UBI, but pays tax at €12,000. I do not think that would fly at EU level as all EU citizens must be treated equally.

Now, if I earned €200,000 or €500,000 per year, I would be quite pleased to only pay 40% on my gross income with the small addition of €7,600 for my incidental expenses.

I cannot see it working.

A generous minimum wage, say €12/hr, with a guaranteed job of hours equal to JSA would appear to be easier to fund.

Minimum wage feeds money back into the economy as poor people tend to spend ALL of their income, while highly paid save much of theirs.

Suryavarman

Geuze wrote: »

http://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/publication/4633/basicincomefullbookdec2016.pdf

2016 book by SJI on UBI.

See page 128 for costs of their proposal.

2015 = 31,298m

It requires an ATR of 40%.

So we'd have to massively increase taxes just to boost the incomes of high income households? And leave the worst off in society no better off? A UBI seems to get more farcical the more I hear about it.

Suryavarman

Sam Russell wrote: »

So, as a basic income earner of, say €30k, I get a UBI of €7,600 and a tax bill of €12,000. Ok, that sounds doable.

Now, if Ivan is an EU citizen working beside me, just arrived, he does not get the UBI, but pays tax at €12,000. I do not think that would fly at EU level as all EU citizens must be treated equally.

Now, if I earned €200,000 or €500,000 per year, I would be quite pleased to only pay 40% on my gross income with the small addition of €7,600 for my incidental expenses.

I cannot see it working.

A generous minimum wage, say €12/hr, with a guaranteed job of hours equal to JSA would appear to be easier to fund.

Minimum wage feeds money back into the economy as poor people tend to spend ALL of their income, while highly paid save much of theirs.

Such an increase would put a lot people out of work. It would also mostly benefit medium and high income households.

Saving is vital for economic growth. So minimum wage workers spending a higher proportion of their income isn't necessarily a good thing.

Herp_a_Derp

I think a UBI could certainly work.

Lots of misconceptions about how it'd work and what it'd cost.

This was posted earlier by another poster.



I have used some of Social Justice Ireland's figures, from
http:// www .socialjustice. ie/content/policy-issues/ costing-basic-income-ireland
Their presentation, size 429Kb, slides 4, 5 and 6.



What's offered?
We could pay a UBI at the same rates as current social welfare rates.
188 to all adults, except people aged 18 to 24 who get 102 per week as currently.
We'd pay 230 per week to those over 66, and 240 per week to those over 80, and we'd pay child benefit.

We'd also pay approx 3,600 million in additional benefits as listed on Slide 5, of SJI presentation.

That's more benefits than Social Justice Ireland propose so it needs extra money.
7,288 million extra in fact.



How is it paid for?
The shortfall of 7,288 million represents 27% of the current income tax system.
We could increase effective rax rates by 27% and we're done. No other tax changes necessary.

People may not complain as much as you think as many of them are receiving approx 10,000 extra per year.

That extra 10,000 per year will offset the additional tax for most workers. Only the rich would pay more under this system I suspect. Very progressive.

30% effective tax rate would be increased to 37%
48% effective tax rate would be increased to 60%



It is fairer to increase other taxes, in my opinion.

For example, corporation tax in 2015 took in 6,873 million.
Excise took in 5,463 million.


If corporation tax was doubled for example the UBI would more or less be paid for.
Could corporation tax be doubled?

There would certainly be a public appetite to see corporation tax increased, and doubling the tax rate from 12.5% to 25% would be acceptable to the public.
It'd be an easy sell to the public and a very difficult sell to the corporations.



Consider the benefits!

A re-invigorated society which would be very fair and one in which people want to work and in which people are rewarded for working.

Sam Russell

Suryavarman wrote: »

Such an increase would put a lot people out of work. It would also mostly benefit medium and high income households.

If I run a business, I make profit by employing people, and I pay the going rate and charge enough to make a profit. If every other business I compete with pays a minimum rate of pay, then I can afford to as well. It might cause me to be expect more efficiency from my employees, but it does not put a lot of people out of work.

Saving is vital for economic growth. So minimum wage workers spending a higher proportion of their income isn't necessarily a good thing.

The richer people will still save (because they have more money than they need), and it is people spending that causes growth. People saving allows for investment which is also necessary for long term growth. There is no point in building a new factory with faster machinery to produce more product if you cannot find a market.

Water John

Herp, the figures you repost are reasonable and a good basis of discussion. Some here are throwing in extreme cases to queer the whole subject.
I certainly, and most others are not talking of providing UBI to every child, for example.

Herp_a_Derp

I agree that many people are proposing extreme versions of UBI and then criticising their own extreme versions, and finally concluding that their own extreme versions are unworkable.


The version I have posted about is reasonable and affordable. It could be implemented immediately although it would be a huge change.


My proposal is to make as few changes as possible. Pay the same rates as current social welfare rates, no-one would be worse off, and the tax system need not change significantly.
People who earn small amounts over their UBI under my proposal do not pay tax, as tax doesn't kick in until 18,000 or so.


What can be criticised about my proposals?

Herp_a_Derp

I can't quote as I'm a new user.

This was said by Bob24 in post 309.
but I haven't seen anyone explain why this industrial revolution will be different from the previous ones which destroyed some jobs but also created others in similar quantities.


It has been explained.
This time it is intelligence which has been automated. That has never happened before.

No further explanation should be necessary. In the past brute labour was automated. Intelligence was never automated. Now, human intelligence is about to be rendered obselete by machines.

El Tarangu

Herp_a_Derp wrote: »

What can be criticised about my proposals?

Herp_a_Derp wrote: »

The shortfall of 7,288 million represents 27% of the current income tax system.
We could increase effective rax rates by 27% and we're done. No other tax changes necessary.

Proposing to increase the income tax take by one quarter would not be as trivial an exercise as you are making out.

Herp_a_Derp wrote: »

There would certainly be a public appetite to see corporation tax increased, and doubling the tax rate from 12.5% to 25% would be acceptable to the public.
It'd be an easy sell to the public and a very difficult sell to the corporations.

At the moment, Ireland receives so much foreign direct investment precisely because our rates of corporation tax are so; I don't see the same public appetite to raise them as you do.

Herp_a_Derp

quote
Proposing to increase the income tax take by one quarter would not be as trivial an exercise as you are making out.


Of course not.
But I'm also proposing to pay approx 9,776 to each worker for free.

This means you'd better off under the new system unless you earn approx 75,000 euro per year. That figure is fairly hard to estimate but I think 75k is about right.
(edit: I think that 75k would be lower now, perhaps as low as 50k per year but I'm not familar with the tax bands. It's a difficult figure to calculate.)


I agree there is a worldwide problem with corporation tax rates. All countries must raise their rates together. If one country holds out it can cause problems.
Countries must work together to deliver higher tax returns from corporations.


Ordinary people, who have votes, pay tax at up to 60%.
Why do voters accept that corporations, who aren't even real people, should pay very low rates, as low as 12.5% in theory, but even as low as 1% in practice?


There needs to be a public backlash against corporations who refuse to pay taxes at reasonable rates.

If it's reasonable for hard working normal people to pay tax at 50% it should also be reasonable for corporations.

Suryavarman

Herp_a_Derp wrote: »

What's offered?
We could pay a UBI at the same rates as current social welfare rates.
188 to all adults, except people aged 18 to 24 who get 102 per week as currently.
We'd pay 230 per week to those over 66, and 240 per week to those over 80, and we'd pay child benefit.

We'd also pay approx 3,600 million in additional benefits as listed on Slide 5, of SJI presentation.

That's more benefits than Social Justice Ireland propose so it needs extra money.
7,288 million extra in fact.


How is it paid for?
The shortfall of 7,288 million represents 27% of the current income tax system.
We could increase effective rax rates by 27% and we're done. No other tax changes necessary.

People may not complain as much as you think as many of them are receiving approx 10,000 extra per year.

That extra 10,000 per year will offset the additional tax for most workers. Only the rich would pay more under this system I suspect. Very progressive.

30% effective tax rate would be increased to 37%
48% effective tax rate would be increased to 60%

The paper linked to earlier by Geuze advised a UBI of €7,600 per year and that would cost an extra €15bn per year over current social welfare expenditure.

A UBI is the exact opposite of progressive. How can a welfare programme where almost all the benefits go to middle and high income families be called progressive?

It is fairer to increase other taxes, in my opinion.

For example, corporation tax in 2015 took in 6,873 million.
Excise took in 5,463 million.


If corporation tax was doubled for example the UBI would more or less be paid for.
Could corporation tax be doubled?

There would certainly be a public appetite to see corporation tax increased, and doubling the tax rate from 12.5% to 25% would be acceptable to the public.
It'd be an easy sell to the public and a very difficult sell to the corporations.

We already have the second highest capital taxes in the world. Increasing them further is insane.

You also seem to think that if we double the rate then we double the revenue from that tax which is clearly incorrect. If revenue from CT doubled then it would only cover half the cost of the UBI suggested by Social Justice Ireland.

Consider the benefits!

A re-invigorated society which would be very fair and one in which people want to work and in which people are rewarded for working.

How is it fair? How is giving the rich a large cash payment every year fair? How does taxing the middle class and giving them the money straight back seem like a good idea to anyone?

Sam Russell wrote: »

If I run a business, I make profit by employing people, and I pay the going rate and charge enough to make a profit. If every other business I compete with pays a minimum rate of pay, then I can afford to as well. It might cause me to be expect more efficiency from my employees, but it does not put a lot of people out of work.

This just isn't the case at all. It's a well documented fact that when minimum wages are set too high they reduce employment. It's also well documented that most of the benefits of minimum wage increases go to middle and high income families.

The richer people will still save (because they have more money than they need), and it is people spending that causes growth. People saving allows for investment which is also necessary for long term growth. There is no point in building a new factory with faster machinery to produce more product if you cannot find a market.

Investment increases short term growth. Only productivity growth increases long run growth.

Geuze

Suryavarman wrote: »

So we'd have to massively increase taxes just to boost the incomes of high income households? And leave the worst off in society no better off?

I don't get your point.

A 40% ATR would be higher than what most high-earners pay now.