If you give money to someone without any corresponding generation of goods and services, it will become purely inflationary. Milton Friedman won a nobel price when he proved this economic theory.I always see people encouraging a basic income...they suggest it should be a living wage.
So, I have a basic question...
1) where does the money come from?
So, instead of just giving to the minority (the unemployed and the retired), we'll take that money and give everyone money...I don't see that working as there are way more people currently not getting government handouts (umm I mean benefits) that can't afford to pay for the few who are currently.As for where the money comes from. We would eliminate Disability, Unemployment, GIS CPP etc. Right now, some of those various offices have paperwork and people have to track any work they might have done, where they looked for work etc. Then they get called in to talk to a government clerk to show their supporting paperwork. You know the drill. Eliminate most of this and just give people a basic amount.
So, if we we give everyone a base amount, aren't we just raising the bar for everyone equally? Maybe the poverty line goes from 25k to 50k, how's that any different if we just gave everyone 25k now.If you give money to someone without any corresponding generation of goods and services, it will become purely inflationary. Milton Friedman won a nobel price when he proved this economic theory.
Price increases, in a society, are paid for by everyone in that society, but the highest cost is paid for by the lowest incomes, since the effect of any price increase will be a higher percentage to lower income people then higher income people. Since the people getting the free money will obviously benefit, the highest cost will therefore be paid for by the people at the lowest incomes in that group that do not qualify to receive any free money. So the ones who just missed out on the free lunch. They will become the most poorer of all the citizens in that society as a result of this program.
The middle class get to take it in the behind again.
Clawback has to be much more aggressive to make the numbers work. Really, there is no reason/need to have a 0 marginal tax rate on all income up to 30k. Really, the clawback should be at least 33% from $1. It's much better than the current welfare clawback of 100%+ (penalizing work).I was listening to Sam Harris's podcast and this is an example of how it could work:
Everybody would get 12,000 a year. After one reaches 30,000 there will start to be a small clawback till it's gone. This ensures that people who can get a raise to 35,000 don't decide to quit because who wants to slide back to 12,000.
As for where the money comes from. We would eliminate Disability, Unemployment, GIS CPP etc. Right now, some of those various offices have paperwork and people have to track any work they might have done, where they looked for work etc. Then they get called in to talk to a government clerk to show their supporting paperwork. You know the drill. Eliminate most of this and just give people a basic amount.
With AI coming really quickly, we don't have many options.
Not quite sure I understand the question. If the poverty line goes from $25K to $50K, someone who earned $40K, who was a reasonably well off middle class person is now living in poverty.So, if we we give everyone a base amount, aren't we just raising the bar for everyone equally? Maybe the poverty line goes from 25k to 50k, how's that any different if we just gave everyone 25k now.
The boiling point in Edmonton is 97.8°C.It is an economic law not much different then trying to make water boil at 99 degrees C.
Germany has reduced work hours to avoid job loss with great success. They have the shortest average work week as well as one of the most productive economiesOr does it become a matter of decreasing the retirement age to something like 40, or making a 20 hour work week?
Again, remember I'm not talking next week or next year, but we will reach this point sooner rather than later and it's something we need to think about.
That's why the current clawback of 100% doesn't work. There is a balance somewhere that keeps enough incentive for the willing and able to workLook at how many people refuse to find a basic job because they can make more on EI, welfare or they can sit at home and their parents will pay the bills.
Certainly there are those who need assistance, but the vast majority don't. Cut gov't spending\benefits, cut the handouts, cut taxes and if the only option is to find a job, than that's what they will do.
Umm, you've obviously never worked in government, they never get rid of bureaucracy and I very much doubt that it would cover double (at a minimum) the amount of people who would get money that currently don't.The boiling point in Edmonton is 97.8°C.
Guaranteed income is limited wealth redistribution. It gets taken from government workers who administer the plethora of services that are currently required, and gets given to the people who currently use those services. If no additional money was added, it was just 'taking out the middleman', then I could get behind the idea. There would be the same amount of money given to society, therefore the prices of goods and services should not rise. And we can all get behind a more efficient govt.
Prices don'd tend to scale that way. This would be re-distributive.No, I'm suggesting by giving everyone a base of 25k, then the line moves up the scale...prices will rise so that those who make 50k will still be just as poor as when they made 25k. Those at 65k will be the same as when they were at 40k, etc. O thing changes after the initial windfall.
I do admit that, in the first little bit, there will be benefits, but there will eventually be a return to the mean and people will be right back in the same position.
It's like when the 7% gst replaced the 13% manufacturing tax. Prices of goods dropped by about 13% for a few months, then returned to their old prices, only now you had to pay gst on top of it. Retail made an extra 13% profits. Another example is a friend of mine who had his furnace replaced just before the government handed out rebates. He paid $3500 for a high efficiency furnace, a few months later the government issues its $1000 rebates which he didn't qualify for. The next year, his neighbor used the same company, had the same furnace installed and got the rebate...only problem is he paid $6500. The government rebate handed tons of profits to struggling furnace installers. Today, you can't even buy mid efficiency furnaces anymore so the prices should have gone down according to supply and demand, yet they're still about 7k to install.
I'm pretty sure Friedman didn't mean what you think it means. You seem to be thinking that if you give someone some of your earned income and they spend it it is inflationary, but if you don't give the money and you spend it, it is not inflationary. That's not what he meant.If you give money to someone without any corresponding generation of goods and services, it will become purely inflationary. Milton Friedman won a nobel price when he proved this economic theory.
Price increases, in a society, are paid for by everyone in that society, but the highest cost is paid for by the lowest incomes, since the effect of any price increase will be a higher percentage to lower income people then higher income people. Since the people getting the free money will obviously benefit, the highest cost will therefore be paid for by the people at the lowest incomes in that group that do not qualify to receive any free money. So the ones who just missed out on the free lunch. They will become the most poorer of all the citizens in that society as a result of this program.
The middle class get to take it in the behind again.
