In the News II

Quote: AZDuffman

You understand it so little you do not understand why you don’t understand. You are so far behind in the race you think you are in the lead.

Heck you need a study to tell you people like getting an extra $500 a month!

Yes because I cited studies to substantiate my claim that everywhere UBI has been tried it has been successful and well-received. (granted small population studies are not a true Nation UBI by definition).
Whereas you cite nothing to explain it will cost most people more than they receive out of the program (which is empirically false).

Here is another good example, the closest thing to UBI we have in America is the Alaska Permanent Fund. Every year people get a fixed check (varies every year based on the fund's strength) anywhere from 1.5k-4k a year. People get this check simply for living in Alaska. This program is massively popular in an overwhelming Red State. And, it receives almost universal praise from recipients of the fund. And, is regarded as a positive for society in almost every function (there are correlations to fund distribution and substance abuse as a negative), but there is no effect in people quitting their jobs. Plus even if it was 4K a year every year (it's often not), that is not enough to quit your job over.

https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/10581/2019_05_20-EffectsOfAKPFD.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

This is a fund that is from one industry. Now imagine if every State did this with every industry that used public lands or waters. That would be a true democratization of profits from public lands (and waters).

Quote: odiousgambit

you're just kidding of course. They don't have that at all, the elites live quite well, thank you.

Maybe outside the elites it's pretty equal misery

No, not kidding. You said it yourself, outside of the elites it is pretty equal.

Quote: Gandler

Yes because I cited studies to substantiate my claim that everywhere UBI has been tried it has been successful and well-received. (granted small population studies are not a true Nation UBI by definition).
Whereas you cite nothing to explain it will cost most people more than they receive out of the program (which is empirically false).

Citing an unprojectable study is not understanding economics. Being able to explain your position is understanding it. Your position seems to be that "it will work because we will just steal the money at the point of a gun from a very few people." Sorry, won't work. "The rich" do not have enough money. Your "studies" ignore the simple facts I am pointing out.

Quote:

Here is another good example, the closest thing to UBI we have in America is the Alaska Permanent Fund. Every year people get a fixed check (varies every year based on the fund's strength) anywhere from 1.5k-4k a year. People get this check simply for living in Alaska. This program is massively popular in an overwhelming Red State. And, it receives almost universal praise from recipients of the fund. And, is regarded as a positive for society in almost every function (there are correlations to fund distribution and substance abuse as a negative), but there is no effect in people quitting their jobs. Plus even if it was 4K a year every year (it's often not), that is not enough to quit your job over.



https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/10581/2019_05_20-EffectsOfAKPFD.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

This is a fund that is from one industry. Now imagine if every State did this with every industry that used public lands or waters. That would be a true democratization of profits from public lands (and waters).

\

Actually that is an awful example. This is not UBI, it is a royalty payment for oil leases. We do not have to "imagine if every state did this." Lots of states do it. The feds do it. They just do not distribute collected monies directly. It simply goes into the general fund. There is not enough to make much of a payment to people.

Nice try, but, see, this payment comes from actual new created wealth. Not from stealing existing wealth.

And you still fail to explain why wealth inequality is even a problem.

What if you did the UBI stuffs by not adding taxes, just replace some other welfare programs and foreign aid or some stuffs? How do you like dem apples?

Quote: rquiredusername

What if you did the UBI stuffs by not adding taxes, just replace some other welfare programs and foreign aid or some stuffs? How do you like dem apples?

It still will not work. Simple math. To give everyone $1000 you need to take that much and more from them.

Annnnnd, after a few years liberals would whine that "they still cannot live on that" and want to bring back food stamps, section 8, etc.

Quote: AZDuffman

Citing an unprojectable study is not understanding economics. Being able to explain your position is understanding it. Your position seems to be that "it will work because we will just steal the money at the point of a gun from a very few people." Sorry, won't work. "The rich" do not have enough money. Your "studies" ignore the simple facts I am pointing out.

\

Actually that is an awful example. This is not UBI, it is a royalty payment for oil leases. We do not have to "imagine if every state did this." Lots of states do it. The feds do it. They just do not distribute collected monies directly. It simply goes into the general fund. There is not enough to make much of a payment to people.

Nice try, but, see, this payment comes from actual new created wealth. Not from stealing existing wealth.

And you still fail to explain why wealth inequality is even a problem.

I never said wealth inequality was a problem. There will always be wealth inequality, and it is not inherently good or bad, it is just a measure of an individual's (or organizations) success.

A royalty payment is very similar to a VAT, except it collects royalties from every step of the supply chain. This can be funded into a UBI fund. Like royalties does a VAT make the final product more expensive to the end consumer? Of course (in most cases), but the benefit is the services that the increased cost provides. But, this is not relevant to APF.

For example Milton Friedman who is the economic hero of the right supported UBI (granted calling it an negative income tax), while different than UBI in the sense that is only pays monthly checks to those projected to make below a living wage, it functions similar (people who are wealthy still are not taxed on that level of income, but will not receive monthly checks because they will end up owing more at the end of the tax year).

But, that is how the Alaska checks are funded. Money initially is made from revenues from oil sales royalties, it is then invested into a variety of items which are designed to generate perpetual revenue (IE it will continue when the oil and gas disappear), in fact the whole poine of the APF is similiar to the Saudi fund, it is to build up a substantial fund that can stand on it's own when oil disappears or loses value. So it is a government fund that is invested in a range of assets (from stocks to real estate to toll roads), that is designed to sustain it's self and profit. It was the voters of Alaska, that determined that this profit should be paid in the form of cash to citizens of Alasks in the 80s (prior to this it was used for State projects). It is funded (mostly) by oil royalties, but the money paid out is not royalties, it is growth and dividends from the assess in the fund. So yes, the APF is a government fund that pays an annual check to people for simply being alive in Alaska, the origin of the fund prior to being invested just happens to be oil royalties.

In fact in many ways it would be similar to Social Security, if SS funds were invested wisely (and the reason they are not mostly the fault of Republicans, SS funds can only be invested in essentially saving accounts and CDs, and some bonds, low yield investments, nothing with any risk). If we could go back to the 1930s and design SS to invest in appreciable assets, SS would never be questioned, if anything the fund would be too large. The only reason there are troubles with the SS fund is because of the low yield. But, there is nothing stopping the Federal government from starting a new fund (like many nations do by the way, especially oil rich countries) that invests in a range of appreciable assets, and pays the gains and dividends to all citizens.

https://www.ifswf.org/members/usa#:~:text=It%20uses%20oil%20royalties%20to,grow%20and%20finance%20the%20Fund.

Quote: Gandler

I never said wealth inequality was a problem. There will always be wealth inequality, and it is not inherently good or bad, it is just a measure of an individual's (or organizations) success.

A royalty payment is very similar to a VAT, except it collects royalties from every step of the supply chain. This can be funded into a UBI fund. Like royalties does a VAT make the final product more expensive to the end consumer? Of course (in most cases), but the benefit is the services that the increased cost provides. But, this is not relevant to APF.

No, it is not the same at all. A VAT is a tax. A royalty payment is a payment on something owned. In the case of AK it is oil, same as if you had a farm where they found oil and paid you to drill. Except it is on public lands. A royalty payment does not oil more expensive because the alternative is the oil company has to buy the land outright, which rarely happens.

The kicker here is that a great way to get wealth to people was proposed in 2005. Bush43 proposed letting people put part of their SS tax into their own account that could be handed down to the next generations. Liberals could not let that happen and destroyed the idea.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, it is not the same at all. A VAT is a tax. A royalty payment is a payment on something owned. In the case of AK it is oil, same as if you had a farm where they found oil and paid you to drill. Except it is on public lands. A royalty payment does not oil more expensive because the alternative is the oil company has to buy the land outright, which rarely happens.

The kicker here is that a great way to get wealth to people was proposed in 2005. Bush43 proposed letting people put part of their SS tax into their own account that could be handed down to the next generations. Liberals could not let that happen and destroyed the idea.

Here is a bigger kicker in the 90s Clinton wanted to put a (too small in my view, 15%) portion of the SS fund into the Market, to increase the power of the fund, and Republicans opposed it and destroyed the idea. We can do this all night. You will go back to Reagon, and I will go back to Carter, etc.....

Royalties and taxes both increase the end price for the consumer. A royalty is essentially a private tax that is tied to a specific brand or service that must be paid for a term or forever (or until the brand dissolves). Companies rarely eat this cost, it almost always results in a higher cost to the end consumer by increasing the cost of the product by the amount of the royalty (if it is a fixed amount and not scalable).

Alaskans are not paid by royalties. Royalties simply fund a government fund that is then invested, and a portion of the profits are annually distributed to the citizens of Alaska. This could very easily happen on the Federal level (many nations do just that). Ironically Alaska is one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world and it is near the bottom of GDP rankings (and pretty low on population). If we had a Federal Fund it would be a game changer.

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

Quote: Gandler

I never said wealth inequality was a problem. There will always be wealth inequality, and it is not inherently good or bad, it is just a measure of an individual's (or organizations) success.

A royalty payment is very similar to a VAT, except it collects royalties from every step of the supply chain. This can be funded into a UBI fund. Like royalties does a VAT make the final product more expensive to the end consumer? Of course (in most cases), but the benefit is the services that the increased cost provides. But, this is not relevant to APF.

For example Milton Friedman who is the economic hero of the right supported UBI (granted calling it an negative income tax), while different than UBI in the sense that is only pays monthly checks to those projected to make below a living wage, it functions similar (people who are wealthy still are not taxed on that level of income, but will not receive monthly checks because they will end up owing more at the end of the tax year).

But, that is how the Alaska checks are funded. Money initially is made from revenues from oil sales royalties, it is then invested into a variety of items which are designed to generate perpetual revenue (IE it will continue when the oil and gas disappear), in fact the whole poine of the APF is similiar to the Saudi fund, it is to build up a substantial fund that can stand on it's own when oil disappears or loses value. So it is a government fund that is invested in a range of assets (from stocks to real estate to toll roads), that is designed to sustain it's self and profit. It was the voters of Alaska, that determined that this profit should be paid in the form of cash to citizens of Alasks in the 80s (prior to this it was used for State projects). It is funded (mostly) by oil royalties, but the money paid out is not royalties, it is growth and dividends from the assess in the fund. So yes, the APF is a government fund that pays an annual check to people for simply being alive in Alaska, the origin of the fund prior to being invested just happens to be oil royalties.

In fact in many ways it would be similar to Social Security, if SS funds were invested wisely (and the reason they are not mostly the fault of Republicans, SS funds can only be invested in essentially saving accounts and CDs, and some bonds, low yield investments, nothing with any risk). If we could go back to the 1930s and design SS to invest in appreciable assets, SS would never be questioned, if anything the fund would be too large. The only reason there are troubles with the SS fund is because of the low yield. But, there is nothing stopping the Federal government from starting a new fund (like many nations do by the way, especially oil rich countries) that invests in a range of appreciable assets, and pays the gains and dividends to all citizens.

https://www.ifswf.org/members/usa#:~:text=It%20uses%20oil%20royalties%20to,grow%20and%20finance%20the%20Fund.

Not sure you actually know how VAT's work. The tax that is received by the government is only the amount paid by the final consumer. All the companies that pay the tax on their supplies along the way are credited that tax amount back. The companies don't get credited back and actually pay only on the items they are the final consumer of. The main advantage a VAT has over conventional sales taxes is that it picks up a lot of the underground economy and is easier to collect by both companies and government.

Quote: kenarman

Not sure you actually know how VAT's work. The tax that is received by the government is only the amount paid by the final consumer. All the companies that pay the tax on their supplies along the way are credited that tax amount back. The companies don't get credited back and actually pay only on the items they are the final consumer of. The main advantage a VAT has over conventional sales taxes is that it picks up a lot of the underground economy and is easier to collect by both companies and government.

Yes, that is almost identical to how I explained it earlier in the thread. I want what you guys have:
https://wise.com/gb/vat/canada

(Some countries may or may not refund other stages in the supply process, and I have mixed feelings about this credit and am open-minded either way as long as the government gets the final amount, I don't have a hardcore loyalty to one method versus the other, whatever is determined to be easier I am fine with).