Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Poll
 | 6 votes (21.42%) | ||
| | 1 vote (3.57%) | ||
| | 9 votes (32.14%) | ||
| | 12 votes (42.85%) |
28 members have voted
Quote: IbeatyouracesNobody will ever get nearly the amount they pay into it. Jist like any other form of insurance, it's a scam.
Wait...what?
I though you are more likely to get MORE than you paid into it... that's why so many people claim it's an unsustainable ponzi scheme.
Because you get more than you pay into it, thus putting the burden of getting that extra money on the next generation, and so on.
Here's one source on that....
Here’s a better argument for SS being means tested. If you have any type of income (pension, investment, earnings, gambling winnings, etc.) over a certain amount even after the normal returment age, the SS benefits are taxable. Most of my clients have the maximum 85% of their SS being federal taxable income. So essentially they give some of the benefits back in federal income taxes and pay taxes on some of their withheld medicare premiums, essentially paying those Medicare premiums with after tax dollars.
Additional means testing is my preferred method of fixing the bankrupt system that is Social Security. Benefits are completely phased out at some level of annual income or net worth...but politically I think it will be a tough sell to legislate people “paying into the system their whole lives” and because they were more successful in life, they get no benefits at the normal retirement age (or there is a 100% tax on benefits). I much prefer increase means testing to the ever increasing Social Security Wage Base or going to an inlimited SS wage base as the feds did with Medicare (which had an additional 0.9% tax added on to it with Obamacare).
Quote: ParadigmI don’t equate having benefits reduced by earnings for those that retired before the targeted age to be a means test. If you want benefits early, their are restrictions, this is an age restriction, not a means test. Once you hit normal retirement age, the age the system was designed to fund, there are no earnings restrictions.
Here’s a better argument for SS being means tested. If you have any type of income (pension, investment, earnings, gambling winnings, etc.) over a certain amount even after the normal returment age, the SS benefits are taxable. Most of my clients have the maximum 85% of their SS being federal taxable income. So essentially they give some of the benefits back in federal income taxes and pay taxes on some of their withheld medicare premiums, essentially paying those Medicare premiums with after tax dollars.
Additional means testing is my preferred method of fixing the bankrupt system that is Social Security. Benefits are completely phased out at some level of annual income or net worth...but politically I think it will be a tough sell to legislate people “paying into the system their whole lives” and because they were more successful in life, they get no benefits at the normal retirement age (or there is a 100% tax on benefits). I much prefer increase means testing to the ever increasing Social Security Wage Base or going to an inlimited SS wage base as the feds did with Medicare (which had an additional 0.9% tax added on to it with Obamacare).
I agree about removing the earnings cap for phasing out payments. Or at least raising it significantly. Then removing the means testing on the other end to help compensate those sa me people. Good plan.
"Quote: IbeatyouracesNobody will ever get nearly the amount they pay into it. Jist like any other form of insurance, it's a scam.
Utter nonsense. Many people get many times what they put in.
My father died in 1978. At that time, SS paid out to survivors as long as you were in college so I received roughly $200 per month . As did my little sister. Between those payments and my Mother collecting Survivors Benefits until her death in 2015, SS laid out far more than my Father contributed.
Live long enough and you win. Die young , without children and you lose.
Quote: billryan"
Utter nonsense. Many people get many times what they put in.
My father died in 1978. At that time, SS paid out to survivors as long as you were in college so I received roughly $200 per month . As did my little sister. Between those payments and my Mother collecting Survivors Benefits until her death in 2015, SS laid out far more than my Father contributed.
Live long enough and you win. Die young , without children and you lose.
Baby boomers are going to suck SS dry and pull up the ladder for future generations, like they seem to do with just about everything.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis makes a huge difference to me, as I retired before full retirement age. I have to avoid earnings, INCLUDING W2Gs I can't offset with losses, and other sources, above this amount. The effective taxation rate on winnings beyond that threshold is above 84% (34% federal tax rate, 50% loss of SSI, plus any state taxes withheld at jackpot time). And they check closely.
This only applies to earnings, not pension plans, IRA disbursements, or other income. There are many retirement jobs designed around and expecting this ceiling, where people work every year until say, March or April, then resign when they get close to the ceiling, and other people get their hours, or come in behind. January next year, rinse and repeat.
Which is the very definition of means testing.
Maybe its splitting hairs but I'm not sure this is what is commonly meant as "means testing". The restriction here is applied based on age, not net worth or income. Once you hit full retirement age (currently 66 yr & 2 months) my understanding is that the restriction lifts. For that matter, can somebody who has "earnings" actually be considered to be retired?
Like I said, splitting hairs.
The real problem is that SS originally kicked in at 65 at a time when most people didn't live to that age. Since 1940, the age expectancy has gone up and SS has not followed up. Few people were expected to collect even ten years of payments. Now ,thirty or more years isn't surprising.
Quote: TigerWuWait...what?
I though you are more likely to get MORE than you paid into it... that's why so many people claim it's an unsustainable ponzi scheme.
Because you get more than you pay into it, thus putting the burden of getting that extra money on the next generation, and so on.
Here's one source on that....
I think this article is way off on their SS analysis. It says in the footnotes they considered the employers contributions in the Medicare analysis which I take to mean that they didn’t consider this in the SS analysis.
An employer matches an employees contributions to SS. That means the authors amount of “contributions/pay ins” to the system made on behalf of the employee (via wage withholding and employer payments) is off by 100% (or only 50% of what is actually paid in).
If you factor that into the articles analysis, employees are getting screwed versus what was put in as a result of their wages and what they got out...of course since the article screwed that huge piece up, the rest of its analysis is likely garbage as well...relying on the media to tackle just about any topic is a complete waste of time...they rarely get anything right particualrly financial or tax information.
Quote: billryanThe problem is the Baby Boomer generation is bigger than the ones that follow. There were more Boomers than retirees. Now it's the opposite.
The real problem is that SS originally kicked in at 65 at a time when most people didn't live to that age. Since 1940, the age expectancy has gone up and SS has not followed up. Few people were expected to collect even ten years of payments. Now ,thirty or more years isn't surprising.
Life expectancy in the US is currently less than 80 (and has been decreasing over the last couple of years), which means on average (which is what matters in a macro analysis) SS recipients receive 15 years of retirement benefits.
Quote: IbeatyouracesNobody will ever get nearly the amount they pay into it. Jist like any other form of insurance, it's a scam.
1. It is not insurance. Call it a ponzi maybe, but not insurance. Insurance is designed that you get less out than pay in.
2. If this were true, it would not have a funding problem, they would have to build more safes to keep all that money.
WIZARD PLEASE ANSWER IF YOU ARE ALLOWED
What year do we reach peak Baby Boomer drain on the system? 1946-1966 births mean many will die before others collect. But did you ever handle when the peak is? (Sorry to be hijacking my own thread BTW)
Quote: AZDuffman2. If this were true, it would not have a funding problem, they would have to build more safes to keep all that money.
Where do you think the employees of this fraud get their income from?
Quote: IbeatyouracesWhere do you think the employees of this fraud get their income from?
General Treasury receipts. Same as everything from the US Army to the guy who makes sure there is always enough diet Coke at the WH.
Quote: AZDuffman
What year do we reach peak Baby Boomer drain on the system? 1946-1966 births mean many will die before others collect. But did you ever handle when the peak is? (Sorry to be hijacking my own thread BTW)
I bet it's happening right now, if not already passed.
The VA has already done a lot of research on Veteran demographics, and Vietnam Veterans (which is a huge overlap with Baby Boomers in general) are already in a state of steady decline and have been for several years now.
Quote: TigerWuI bet it's happening right now, if not already passed.
Happening maybe, I doubt passed as the last Boomers are still 15 or so years out.
Amazing how such a birth spike will in the end have had such a huge effect for 100 years.
Although, if you're talking out of 76 million total, I think we're probably right around 50%. But it's not an even distribution, with the two highest years after midpoint.
Total boomers approx. 76 million 1946-1965.
Quote: gamerfreakBaby boomers are going to suck SS dry and pull up the ladder for future generations, like they seem to do with just about everything.
We could make it up. But they decided they don't like paying taxes or cutting spending so future generations will be tied up in their debt.
Quote: beachbumbabsNot quite there yet, if we're talking reaching 65.
I am asking more peak collections. Reaching 65 just the one half, also have to take into account how many olders die off.
If only we knew an expert. lol
I don't even think I'll get social security, or it will be such a pittance in the future you might as well not get it.
Will US population figures rebound, will workers rebound, will workers make any decent money or just pay bills and die.
Quote: NathanI may be being naive but why not have the government take out some of the pay from say a 6 million winning Lottery ticket and add 43 percent tax? 33 percent standard tax, and 10 percent to help every adult in the U.S? I put on my math hat and it seems that 10 percent of 6 million is roughly $600,000. There are roughly 241,000 adults 18 or over according to Google. So every adult would get a check for roughly $2,490. I know winners would be like,"I'm not having roughly 241,000 complete strangers get a cut out of my winnings!" But it would help the United States a lot. And it would be mandatory in my hypothesis, so the winners would have no choice.
The feds are already taking nearly 40% of lottery winnings.
241,000 adults over 18? Within 25 miles of my house alone! You need to recheck this number, I suspect you mean 241,000,000.
Quote: NathanI may be being naive but why not have the government take out some of the pay from say a 6 million winning Lottery ticket and add 43 percent tax? 33 percent standard tax, and 10 percent to help every adult in the U.S? I put on my math hat and it seems that 10 percent of 6 million is roughly $600,000. There are roughly 241,000 adults 18 or over according to Google. So every adult would get a check for roughly $2,490. I know winners would be like,"I'm not having roughly 241,000 complete strangers get a cut out of my winnings!" But it would help the United States a lot. And it would be mandatory in my hypothesis, so the winners would have no choice.
241,000 people? I think you mean 241,000,000.
WTF am I reading?Quote: NathanI may be being naive but why not have the government take out some of the pay from say a 6 million winning Lottery ticket and add 43 percent tax? 33 percent standard tax, and 10 percent to help every adult in the U.S? I put on my math hat and it seems that 10 percent of 6 million is roughly $600,000. There are roughly 241,000 adults 18 or over according to Google. So every adult would get a check for roughly $2,490. I know winners would be like,"I'm not having roughly 241,000 complete strangers get a cut out of my winnings!" But it would help the United States a lot. And it would be mandatory in my hypothesis, so the winners would have no choice.
241,000 adults? which suburb is that?
If you meant 241,000,000 then by all means divi up that 600,000 which is roughly 10% of 6 million. Send out cheques of 0.25 cents to each adult. America's problem solved.
Ah! but which idiots would bother buying a lottery tickit where the entire population shared the big prize? So where would the winnings come from?
This has to be the most ridiculous post since... well since Nathan joined the forum. It WILL be ridiculed, and rightly so.
Quote: NathanGuys, I made a mistake when writing the numbers. I kept putting 241,000 when I meant $241,000,000. I will edit my post! Love that edit button! ;)
Always remember, government cannot simply create wealth. Nor can there be a long-term gain from taxing stealing from one person to give it away to others.
What are you smoking Nathan?Quote: NathanGuys, I made a mistake when writing the numbers. I kept putting 241,000 when I meant $241,000,000. I will edit my post to change it to 600,000 adults! Love that edit button! ;)
You meant to type 241 million people not $241m
So when you redo the math, and come up with the stupid idea of sending out checks for 0.24 cents, the WHOLE POST becomes an absurdity. I suggest you don't slightly edit the post, but that you edit it just to the sentence " I have deleted this post because it was embarrassingly incorrect in every way."
Quote: AZDuffmanAlways remember, government cannot simply create wealth. Nor can there be a long-term gain from taxing stealing from one person to give it away to others.
Did building the Panama Canal build wealth? How about the Interstate Highway system? I've never understood how supposedly intelligent people can't grasp the fact that government absolutely creates wealth. Why do rich people like to live in nice neighborhoods?
Quote: billryan
Did building the Panama Canal build wealth? How about the Interstate Highway system? I've never understood how supposedly intelligent people can't grasp the fact that government absolutely creates wealth. Why do rich people like to live in nice neighborhoods?
No and no.
Because the government DOES NOT create wealth. The trade thru the Panama Canal made the wealth. Ditto the IHS, it was what it allowed. Alone they are nothing. If the government could create wealth, it could just create it, distribute it, and make everyone rich. In fact, the capital projects you mention were only created when real wealth was taken from others.
Rich people like to live in nice neighborhoods so they do not have to interact with lower class people. Do you want to live in a ghetto?
If your premise were true, places without any government should thrive. Why don't they?
Here is how we create wealth.
1) Bring in more money than you spend.
2) Develop programs and habits that take advantage of the surplus from rule 1.
Anything there that a government can't do?
Quote: AZDuffmanNo and no.
Because the government DOES NOT create wealth. The trade thru the Panama Canal made the wealth. Ditto the IHS, it was what it allowed. Alone they are nothing. If the government could create wealth, it could just create it, distribute it, and make everyone rich. In fact, the capital projects you mention were only created when real wealth was taken from others.
Rich people like to live in nice neighborhoods so they do not have to interact with lower class people. Do you want to live in a ghetto?
It’s the infrastructure that makes that trade possible. And many large scale infrastructure projects are just not feasible by 100% private enterprise.
What fesablen way could the interstate highway system be built and maintained without tax dollars?
Quote: AZDuffmanNor can there be a long-term gain from taxing stealing from one person to give it away to others.
Every time someone substitutes stealing for taxes, they should announce they don't live in the real world, but in a world of fairy tales.
No workable system exists because it actually requires a degree of cooperation that rivals "successful" communism. All the capital investment would fall apart because, "I don't wanna pay for it" would gut nearly all projects. Believe or not, people would refuse trash and sewer repair in your neighborhood. Nothing you could do about it but SMELL it. Your neighbor could refuse fire service and even though you pay for it, your house or property could burn up because someone else won't pay for the FD to come until the fire spreads from their house. If someone doesn't want to pay the jails and prisons a fair share, you are going to deal with all the crooks who get loose if you don't make up the difference.
When I sit in buffets, I think we are in the last days. It will all be over soon for many, they're not going to understand how they have a good life today and total misery down the road. After a while of generations of uselessness, can't have trouble seeing the powers that be think eliminating the population is good and right.
Quote: onenickelmiracleI'd support the idea if it becomes practically impossible for people to have any kind of success in society. We're getting there, the rich are going to be in control for an eternity. Don't think there will be many jobs in 20 years due to automation and AI. You can't think about the way things are now, you have to consider the way things will be.
When I sit in buffets, I think we are in the last days. It will all be over soon for many, they're not going to understand how they have a good life today and total misery down the road. After a while of generations of uselessness, can't have trouble seeing the powers that be think eliminating the population is good and right.
You're making me think.of the opening to one of the Terminator movies, where you see robot feet crunching over piles of bleached skulls. Depressing.
Quote: OnceDearWhat are you smoking Nathan?
You meant to type 241 million people not $241m
So when you redo the math, and come up with the stupid idea of sending out checks for 0.24 cents, the WHOLE POST becomes an absurdity. I suggest you don't slightly edit the post, but that you edit it just to the sentence " I have deleted this post because it was embarrassingly incorrect in every way."
I edited the newer post. That edit button is a real help. ;)
One person usually manages 8 or 10 registers now. Somebody went missing when that happened. No reason why it won't continue to happen. Might be piecemeal, but it will happen.
Don't sit around and expect a giant boom and robots walk in and take over.* It's already slippin' in the back door, installed in the evening, and ready for business in the morning sitting in the chair you used to be in.
~
*but that also will probably happen some day.
Quote: OnceDearWhat are you smoking Nathan?
You meant to type 241 million people not $241m
So when you redo the math, and come up with the stupid idea of sending out checks for 0.24 cents, the WHOLE POST becomes an absurdity. I suggest you don't slightly edit the post, but that you edit it just to the sentence " I have deleted this post because it was embarrassingly incorrect in every way."
OnceDear, I would encourage you to chill about Nathan. It is one thing to worry about people who are abusive and insulting - but it is not your flippety-flop role to scold people like Nathan who have a childish enthusiasm for naive ideas and are incorrect in their mathematics. I find it endearing and I think you should stop bullying her.
I would encourage you, OnceDear, to learn to laugh. Once you do that, you will find that Nathan makes you laugh. She certainly makes me laugh. And your reaction to her makes me grimace.
Quote: NathanI edited the newer post. That edit button is a real help. ;)
Measure twice, cut once.
Quote: gordonm888OnceDear, I would encourage you to chill about Nathan.
I think mods have to read a whole lot of stuff they don't want to read. They are eventually driven mad.
Quote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanNor can there be a long-term gain from taxing stealing from one person to give it away to others.
Every time someone substitutes stealing for taxes, they should announce they don't live in the real world, but in a world of fairy tales.
They already have.
It's funny how nutty ideologues of all stripes follow the same patterns.
Taxation is theft
All heterosexual sex is rape.
Meat is murder.
Several examples have been given but obviously there is a reason wealthy countries full of successful businesses have things like roads, scools, health and building inspectors, fire departments, courts, etc.
When Somalia takes over the global economy, give me a calll
Or just go launch a new industry on some uninhabited island.
Quote: RigondeauxTaxation is theft
Not necessarily theft but it's -EV unless you don't make a lot of money, then it's +EV
Quote: RigondeauxTaxation is theft
Theft....not quite. Extortion...BINGO!!!!
Quote: IbeatyouracesTheft....not quite. Extortion...BINGO!!!!
Nope. As Rush says, words mean things.
I'm chilled. Nathan is ok and need not feel bullied. I don't know about 'eventually' You have to be mad to take the role.Quote: rxwineI think mods have to read a whole lot of stuff they don't want to read. They are eventually driven mad.
Quote: NathanI may be being naive but why not have the government take out some of the pay from say a 6 million winning Lottery ticket and add 43 percent tax? 33 percent standard tax, and 10 percent to help a lot of adults in the U.S? I put on my math hat and it seems that 10 percent of 6 million is roughly $600,000. So why not give 600,000 adults a $1,000 each?
Serious question from a UK user. I hope Nathan can answer....
In the UK, we use the period (.) as a decimal marker and a comma(,) as a thousands marker and for currency, when written with a decimal marker, we would usually have none or two digits to the right of the separator. Eg, I might write 'one thousand dollars' as $1,000 or $1,000.00 and rarely as $1,000.000
However, I understand that different countries have different conventions. I thought that in the US, you used comma for thousands, like we Brits do.
I do note that in the '600,000' part of the quote, Nathan has apparently used the comma as a thousands separator, unless he meant 600 people and no fractional people)
So, two questions for Nathan:
Did your post mean to suggest sending those six hundred thousand adults one thousand dollars each?
Or were you proposing to send them $1 each with no thousandths of a dollar.
Depending on the answer to that... What's the point of sending them one lousy dollar?
or
How would you get 600000 x 1000 out of a pot of money with 600000 in it?
Thanks in advance.
OD
Those who tax want to give it to themselves, not others. They are just forced to use intermediaries.Quote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanNor can there be a long-term gain from taxing stealing from one person to give it away to others.
Every time someone substitutes stealing for taxes, they should announce they don't live in the real world, but in a world of fairy tales.
No workable system exists because it actually requires a degree of cooperation that rivals "successful" communism. All the capital investment would fall apart because, "I don't wanna pay for it" would gut nearly all projects.
Fire departments? Grants Pass, Oregon has TWO private fire departments and zero public ones. Many private fire departments are forced to "save lives but not structures" for non-subscribers.
Jails and Prisons Josephine County, Oregon closed its jail and told judges find alternative community based solutions.
Don't know what all this has to do with a guaranteed basic income though. Forcing someone to bail with a teaspoon has never really achieved much. Some people choose to leave the rat race or at least step off the treadmill for awhile. Its like this controversy with the Roseanne show: the real winners are the ones who never bothered to watch it in the first place.
Expenses rise to meet income.Quote: FleaStiffWill US population figures rebound, will workers rebound, will workers make any decent money or just pay bills and die.
My expenses seem to always rise to exceed income. C. Northecote Parkinson had the right idea for organizations though.Quote: petroglyphExpenses rise to meet income.
Social Security is based on an ever expanding work force of zealous capitalists, not a stagnant population and a work force of zealous tax evaders.
Quote: billryanPeople live in good neighborhoods because government services protect them and their family.
If your premise were true, places without any government should thrive. Why don't they?
Here is how we create wealth.
1) Bring in more money than you spend.
2) Develop programs and habits that take advantage of the surplus from rule 1.
Anything there that a government can't do?
Are you asking if a government could run a profitable business? Sure they could. Governments have. Every now and again the government runs a little concession that turns a profit. The US Mint makes a small profit making coins for small countries unable to handle the job for one example.
But that is not what the OP was talking about. The OP, and my reply, are talking about the idea that you can take money from one person, give it to others, and "create" wealth. Or just create it by printing money. It can't be done.
Quote: gamerfreakIt’s the infrastructure that makes that trade possible. And many large scale infrastructure projects are just not feasible by 100% private enterprise.
What fesablen way could the interstate highway system be built and maintained without tax dollars?
This is the Elizabeth Warren/Barack Obama "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT! SOMEONE ELSE DID!" argument.
And it is silly.
If the IHS system created wealth then everyone would have gotten equal wealth. That did not happen.
The "YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT" line was insulting when they said it and it is insulting now.
