Soldato
When the vast majority live off the services paid for by the minority and the majority seem to call for them to pay even more, then the result is that the minority will then try to avoid paying more tax
Universal basic income
- Thread starter terley
- Start date
When the vast majority live off the services paid for by the minority and the majority seem to call for them to pay even more, then the result is that the minority will then try to avoid paying more tax
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,655
I think it's a good idea. As Dolph said used as negative taxation could work well. It would mean a lot of savings by getting rid of complex benefit systems and assessments. It would also remove the crazy system where people want to limit hours to avoid benefits being removed, even if they want to work more.
Soldato
A fair tax system would be the more you have the more you pay. We don't have that. /thread.
it was a hypothetical question to see who is needed more.
the rich are a lot more dependent on the poor than the poor are on the rich.
by rich I don't mean people worth a couple of million
what happens in the future when almost everything is automated? with the level of inequality we have now how do the poorer members of society live?
governments nationalise most industries and distribute resources evenly or what? the current system wouldn't work and we are fast approaching times where you only need a handful of people inside a massive factory to keep it running.
for some industries that already happened.
Last edited:
Soldato
I take it you mean wealth? As we have tax thresholds so those that earn more pay more
Soldato
I'm sorry, were you referring to my penguin?
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,655
That is exactly what we have. I think you wrongly assume that anyone that self assess for tax ends up writing off 50% of their salary.
Soldato
Yes, we have tax bands. /BS
Soldato
No we don't have this. Yes the wealthy pay more but it's not correlated to income.
A fair tax system takes the same percentage from all, which means those who have more, pay more.
We currently have a very unfair tax system where most of the burden falls on a small percentage of people.
My proposal fulfills your criteria, but I bet you wouldn't support it, because your other posts show you don't want a fair tax system.
It's because the billionaire's money isn't the same value as poor mans money. It's just heavily inflated money which can only be used to purchase heavily inflated expensive things. Because a poor man needs to spend money on basic sustenance to keep himself alive, and the rich man also has to do this, but all the extra billions are superfluous.
Its to do with resources. The money is worthless if you cant spend it on something everybody holds with value, and a rich person cannot simply buy 1 billion pounds-worth of food because there are no immediate resources to produce that demand of food. However he can easily go buy 10 hyper-cars because there is stock sitting in the forecourt of all Lambo dealerships.
Soldato
But I do want a fair tax system, so I can only assume you have misinterpreted my previous posts. I agree with your proposal.
The more automated things are the cheaper everything is, over the last couple of hundred of years we have seen massive automation and the living standard of the poorest has skyrocketed by far the most.
I still fundamentally disagree with that sentiment though as your first £ has more value to you than your millionth
That's because a small % of people have most of the income and wealth
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,588
Automation technology is advancing at a fast rate which is doing more jobs that people used to do, good examples are more and more self-service at supermarkets and fast food. Amazon has opened a shop that has no checksout at all. You walk in the shop, you pick up the food, cameras that are positioned everywhere in the shop tracks you and scans your items and bills you after you leave the shop.
Then we got self-driving cars and trucks, once that technology matures, long distance trucking will be affected and taxis.
Skip a few 200-300 years and am sure things will be very different compared today.
It's gonna happen soon or later.
That said, an UBI does make sense, it pays back society, sure, you are giving money to people, but they are spending that money on whatever they need to buy for their daily living and benefit, the money comes back and around the system. Everyone benefits.
Then we got self-driving cars and trucks, once that technology matures, long distance trucking will be affected and taxis.
Skip a few 200-300 years and am sure things will be very different compared today.
It's gonna happen soon or later.
That said, an UBI does make sense, it pays back society, sure, you are giving money to people, but they are spending that money on whatever they need to buy for their daily living and benefit, the money comes back and around the system. Everyone benefits.
This is something I have given a lot of thought to.
I like the idea of a universal payment to replace all existing benefits and state pension payments and paid for through additional taxation, but there's a lot of detail needed to make the basic idea workable.
For simplicity I assume that the UP is set at £1000 per month per person, and you receive that whether you are working or not.
At what age would you become eligible? Should there be a sliding scale dependent on age? One suggestion is that everyone would be entitled to £100 per month from birth, with the UP taking the place of Child Benefits and payable to the designated parent. This would increase to £500 at 16, payable to the individual, £750 at 18 and £1000 at 21.
The next issue is whether those with disabilities should receive additional money from the scheme. Logically, the answer would be less due to additional expenses and reduced earning potential but this then re-introduces the bureaucracy the UP system is designed to eliminate.
Finally, at what level should additional taxes be applied to fund the UP, without providing a disincentive to work? Perhaps the simplest method would be for everything £1,000 earned, you pay an additional £250 in taxation. This gives a break-even point of a salary of £48,000 (the point at which UP = additional tax paid). There would also need to be an upper limit on the additional tax so as not to deter entrepreneurs - perhaps £100,000 salary
I like the idea of a universal payment to replace all existing benefits and state pension payments and paid for through additional taxation, but there's a lot of detail needed to make the basic idea workable.
For simplicity I assume that the UP is set at £1000 per month per person, and you receive that whether you are working or not.
At what age would you become eligible? Should there be a sliding scale dependent on age? One suggestion is that everyone would be entitled to £100 per month from birth, with the UP taking the place of Child Benefits and payable to the designated parent. This would increase to £500 at 16, payable to the individual, £750 at 18 and £1000 at 21.
The next issue is whether those with disabilities should receive additional money from the scheme. Logically, the answer would be less due to additional expenses and reduced earning potential but this then re-introduces the bureaucracy the UP system is designed to eliminate.
Finally, at what level should additional taxes be applied to fund the UP, without providing a disincentive to work? Perhaps the simplest method would be for everything £1,000 earned, you pay an additional £250 in taxation. This gives a break-even point of a salary of £48,000 (the point at which UP = additional tax paid). There would also need to be an upper limit on the additional tax so as not to deter entrepreneurs - perhaps £100,000 salary
This isn't how it works. The poorest is a constant. You cant just shift the goal posts because poorest who have skyrocketed are not the poorest any more, someone else is always poorer.
What can the poorest people buy? Only low-cost things of the lowest possible quality.
Yes, the flat rate does this. The question is, do rich people pay equal tax for each, for example, 10,000 pounds they have.
If my monthly income is 10,000 pounds and I pay in taxes 1,000, do the rich whose income is 1,000,000 pounds, pay 100,000 in taxes?
Soldato
Correct. It's not a percentage based tax system but a rate based tax system. Meaning the wealthiest pay les as a proportion of their income. Something some people in this thread don't seem to have grasped.
So what? Are you suggesting that the poorest should be able to afford caviar and champagne?