Universal basic income

[Dolph]

Firstly: Anyone who claims that the tax code is complex because of multiple tax bands clearly has absolutely no understanding of taxation. The UK tax code is something like 10,0000 pages long, with the separate tax bands taking up the whole of 2-3 pages. The US has something like a dozen tax bands, creating a much smoother function which has lots of benefits when going through pay rises, receiving bonuses , calculating deductions etc. It would be great if the UK moved to a more continuous function,; start tax at 15% and increment it by 2% each band to you hit the current 45%.

Secondly: you are on your own thinking there is a more issue with multiple tax bands. Countless philosophers and economists conclude otherwise, and the reasons are quite obvious. Money doesn't have a linear value for starters, and there is already a moral problem that salaries are vastly different despite people working similar hours and just as hard. Then there is the entire debate around the existence of taxation in he first place, but basically if you want to live and work in the state then the states' tax rules apply in absolute.


Flat rate doesn't replace the current benefits system, not without a significant UBI, but these are not necessarily linked. Current tax already treats everyone equally (all people earnings the same with the same deductions pays the same tax) and there is no moral case for avoiding taxes. The problem with flat tax is it creates a system that is extrmely sensitive to the tax threshold, and if implemented you will find a lot more people not paying any taxes what so ever, many more people paying at a higher tax band, and the wealthiest will carry on trying to avoid taxes. E.g. you set the tax free threshold to 20K and everyone above that pays the 45% tax rate. Someone that used to pay a little tax on their 18K income now doesn't pay a penny, their friend who earns 24K finds the selves with a very steep marginal tax rate, and they find them selves simply working less hours because anything earned above the 20K sees a large deduction from their paycheck. If instead you had 20 different tax bands then the change in marginal rate is so gradual it is invisible.

We've been through this. You think that the state is fine to treat people differently based on arbitrary reasons, as long as it applies those arbitrary reasons consistently.

I disagree, because the above flies in the face of equal treatment under the law.

The logic inconsistency in presenting your position as equality may help you sleep at night, but it doesn't make it true.

Seperate but equal is not a solution.

 

[Dolph]

Personally I think we are at a point in time where everyone on the planet should expect to have as a bare minimum:

- A roof over their head
- Food and water
- Access to healthcare
- An internet connection

But I think if you have to rely on the Government or Council to have any of those things, you do so on their terms not your own (specifically housing).

The problem is, do we prioritise actually having these things, or having the means for them?

What do we do about people who have the means but fail to prioritise these things.

 

[D.P.]

We've been through this. You think that the state is fine to treat people differently based on arbitrary reasons, as long as it applies those arbitrary reasons consistently.

I disagree, because the above flies in the face of equal treatment under the law.

The logic inconsistency in presenting your position as equality may help you sleep at night, but it doesn't make it true.

Seperate but equal is not a solution.

We have been through this before and you still don;t seem to grasp the most fundamental aspects.
The state treats everyone equally in the eyes of taxes, they do not discriminate based age, sex, race or religion.

Of curse people pay different amounts of taxes. they also earn different amounts, and there is often an inherent unfairness in the distribution of wages. So if you are really worried about equality then you will have to pay everyone equally.

 

[Judgeneo]

The problem is, do we prioritise actually having these things, or having the means for them?

What do we do about people who have the means but fail to prioritise these things.

Quite. I'm much more inclined towards providing good quality social housing, food stamps etc instead of giving people money.

Provide the basics, and then let people keep (most of) what they earn to do with as they please.

 

[Dolph]

We have been through this before and you still don;t seem to grasp the most fundamental aspects.
The state treats everyone equally in the eyes of taxes, they do not discriminate based age, sex, race or religion.

Of curse people pay different amounts of taxes. they also earn different amounts, and there is often an inherent unfairness in the distribution of wages. So if you are really worried about equality then you will have to pay everyone equally.

Your failure to respect the right to own and enjoy property is where your argument falls down.

The state should not disproportionately take property from people. You don't need to treat people unequally, so you should not. Simple. A flat rate achieves this, a variable rate does not.

 

[D.P.]

Your failure to respect the right to own and enjoy property is where your argument falls down.

The state should not disproportionately take property from people. You don't need to treat people unequally, so you should not. Simple. A flat rate achieves this, a variable rate does not.

Your gross salary is not your property, only the net salary.

When salaries are disproportionate and the ability to pay for the cost of the state is disproportionate then it is entirely fair and morally right to have taxes at disproportionate rates. Progressive taxation is not unequal treatment, it is equal treatment for those with the same salary. When there is an unequal ability to pay, then quite clearly there will be those that ahve to pay more taxes and those that pay less.


Moreover, a flat rate tax does no tax people equally. Someone earning under the tax-free allowance will pay infinitely less tax than someone earning a 7 figure salary. You are still advocating for in-equal taxation in absolute terms.



You are also still completely failing to realize that the value of money is not equal depending on the amount of money you have in the first place. $1000 is much more important to the person earning 10K a year than it is to the 7 figure CEO. And thus, even udner a progressive tax system there is still a disproportionate weight on the poor and middle class.

 

[Glaucus]

That is under the assumption of a revenue neutral UBI scheme, which clearly wont work. UBI will have to be paid for by increased taxes on the wealthy, with some offsets from current welfare

Well most ubi purposals is increased corporation tax,rather than individual. As per more jobs going towards automation.

Essentially swapping wages for tax.

 

[D.P.]

This is a useful read to see why Dolph is completely wrong:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195150163.001.0001/acprof-9780195150162

In particular, the emphasis on distributing the tax burden relative to pretax income is a fundamental mistake. Taxation does not take from people what they already own. Property rights are the product of a set of laws and conventions, of which the tax system forms a central part, so the fairness of taxes can’t be evaluated by their impact on preexisting entitlements. Pretax income has no independent moral significance

 

[D.P.]

Well most ubi purposals is increased corporation tax,rather than individual. As per more jobs going towards automation.

Essentially swapping wages for tax.

In the future UBI could be used to combat automation but the level of UBI would have to be much higher.

UBI could be implemnted now, paid for from general taxation pool. There have been lots of positive trials.

 

[Irish_Tom]

It's fascinating how UBI can be heralded by both "small government libertarians" and "left-leaning / socialists".

It seems to me that if it's used in the way the former group would like it used, they will be able to claim the poor have no excuses for their situation as we will have "equality of opportunity" (which by the way, I believe is a compete myth).

 

[Dolph]

This is a useful read to see why Dolph is completely wrong:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195150163.001.0001/acprof-9780195150162

I'm sure we debunked this nonsense the last time you posted it.

There is no requirement for the tax due to be paid with the income that generated the liability, which blows your whole argument out of the water.

 

[Judgeneo]

This is a useful read to see why Dolph is completely wrong:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195150163.001.0001/acprof-9780195150162

Its been some time since I had access to academic journals, so I can't read that text. I read through the paragraph of each chapter that was available though, and it seems to rest heavily upon this idea that pre-tax income is morally insignificant. I'm far from sold on that, do you have a link to a full argument for it?

 

[D.P.]

I'm sure we debunked this nonsense the last time you posted it.

There is no requirement for the tax due to be paid with the income that generated the liability, which blows your whole argument out of the water.

No, you tried and failed and ran away without any intelligent reply, just like this time.

 

[D.P.]

Its been some time since I had access to academic journals, so I can't read that text. I read through the paragraph of each chapter that was available though, and it seems to rest heavily upon this idea that pre-tax income is morally insignificant. I'm far from sold on that, do you have a link to a full argument for it?

The text presents nothing new, it is just a useful reminder that most people fail to properly understand the state, property and taxes and mistakenly think they have complete rights to something which is not theirs. You pre-tax salary is absolutely irreverent, and doesn't belong to you. What belongs to you is the post-tax net income. The money isn't your until the state gives it to you.

One way to view this is it would absolutely be within the states rights to keep all pre-tax money and pay out everyone an exact equal salary, i.e. communism. There is nothing illegal or amoral about that.

The states provides a huge amount of the infrastructure and frameworks to allow a corporation to exist and operate, it is therefore perfectly fair that the state levies a tax on that. It is like runnign a franchise. The franchise provides the products, services, marketing/brand, etc., you just sell the product. None of your profits would exist at all without the franchise. The franchise can charge for what it provides you, you are only entitles to what profits are left.

 

[Dolph]

No, you tried and failed and ran away without any intelligent reply, just like this time.

You refusing to engage is not the same as me not giving you a reply.

 

[Energize]

We have been through this before and you still don;t seem to grasp the most fundamental aspects.
The state treats everyone equally in the eyes of taxes, they do not discriminate based age, sex, race or religion.

Of curse people pay different amounts of taxes. they also earn different amounts, and there is often an inherent unfairness in the distribution of wages. So if you are really worried about equality then you will have to pay everyone equally.

It doesn't treat everyone equally, it treats certain groups of individuals more unfavourably based on their financial status. So what if they treat everyone the same based on gender, religion etc. it is not really pertinent. Since you use religion as an example, why should the government not be allowed to discriminate based on religion which is simply an ideology not a fundamental characteristic like gender, but be allowed to discriminate based on wealth?

 

[Zethor]

It doesn't treat everyone equally, it treats certain groups of individuals more unfavourably based on their financial status. So what if they treat everyone the same based on gender, religion etc. it is not really pertinent. Since you use religion as an example, why should the government not be allowed to discriminate based on religion which is simply an ideology not a fundamental characteristic like gender, but be allowed to discriminate based on wealth?

Because wealth is not a part of who a person is, wealth is what the rest of the society allows you to own. If the principle of equal treatment under the law was 100% enforced through the tax system then all the wealth of a country should be redistributed equally to everyone.

 

[D.P.]

It doesn't treat everyone equally, it treats certain groups of individuals more unfavourably based on their financial status. So what if they treat everyone the same based on gender, religion etc. it is not really pertinent. Since you use religion as an example, why should the government not be allowed to discriminate based on religion which is simply an ideology not a fundamental characteristic like gender, but be allowed to discriminate based on wealth?

It doesn't treat anyone unfavorably if they are presenting the same amount of taxable income. Nothing stops you reducing your taxable income through things like pension contributions, or charity donations.

You are right that religion doesn't necessarily have to be protected in this regard, it just so happens that the UK taxes all religious affiliations and atheists the same. In many European countess you pay a tax to the church if you indicate you are a Christian etc..

 

[D.P.]

Because wealth is not a part of who a person is, wealth is what the rest of the society allows you to own. If the principle of equal treatment under the law was 100% enforced through the tax system then all the wealth of a country should be redistributed equally to everyone.

Exactly, the state in all wstern countries allows you to keep widlyl different amounts of income. It could very well provide everyone with equal income.

 

[dowie]

JSA was just one example, you can also obviously reduce disability and pensions by the UBI amount.

I'm not sure what the benefit of such a system would be? You're adding on even more costs and in the case of disability benefits they can be quite specific things, you don't need to give everyone a free car via mobility payments etc... so why would that equivalent amount be thrown into UBI?