Universal guaranteed income experiment

[bush_cheney2004]

11 hours ago, hernanday said:

....As for why the average worker has seen their wages decrease from 1980s and they earn so little, and I am speaking from a US perspective here as those are the economics I studied.

 

Actually, there has been wage growth since the 1980's in the U.S., especially for the upper two quintiles. Mean household income in the U.S. actually set an all time high in 2015.  It is a popular myth that average worker wages have decreased from the 1980's.   This would not be true for actual wage dollars and buying power.  Inflation adjusted wages have stagnated for some workers.  But worker benefits and other compensation have increased at the same time.

 

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2016/09/15/u-s-household-incomes-a-49-year-perspective

 

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Edited January 10, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Bryan]

Pay is absolutely higher. The real problem is, people's expectations of what they should be able to afford has gone up even more. 

[H10]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Well, there are two parties out there:  one that uses capital to create wealth, and one that uses privilege to employ capital to no other end than just re-distributing wealth.

I could never sink to low as to do nothing but re-distribute wealth.  Whether by receiving welfare or in any other way working for government or by reaching to the very bottom of the barrel and buying existing equities or throwing the dice on derivatives to speculate with my capital.

Gains that are purely speculative do nothing but put inflationary pressure on the money supply (as someone has to increase it to cover the payout from the Casino) - and I could never do that to my fellow countrymen, my children or my grandchildren.

BTW:  nothing wrong with drilling a well (or just buying an existing one).  Try actually investing some time, instead of just speculating.   No, you won't get the 100x return from being the first man in on another dotcomm but when you cash your 5% dividend cheque, you will have actually earned something.  If you want to earn more than that, nothing to gamble, just roll your sleeves up and buy your own wells and work them.  If everyone did that, we would ALL have a country with a healthy economy to enjoy in the future.  Main Street built this country (or should I say "these" countries, as I am a Canadian citizen but mostly US corporately) and is the ONLY thing that can sustain it.   Wall Street will once again (as in1929 and 2008) simply destroy it.

Too risky, what if a rock fell on my $500 shoes?

[cannuck]

3 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Too risky, what if a rock fell on my $500 shoes?

You win - as you would have learned not to be stupid enough to stand under falling rock

[cannuck]

to try to correct apparent thread drift (for which I will take credit):

the reason those in the lowest quintile (thanks B-C for posting numbers) believe they should be entitled to receive a GAI is apparent if you listen to Hernanday and the discussion of CEO compensation and the ever increasing disparity in income.  There are so many today who believe they are entitled to make very large incomes with no risk and no work.  As I explained, they merely exercise the privilege to re-distribute wealth with no effort or effect of creating any.  Why then would you not expect that with such a shining example, those at the other end of the scale who contribute JUST AS MUCH to the economy (even if, as I also mentioned, they do nothing but collect welfare) expect they should share in the free ride?

From some earlier posts:  the idea that some kind of GAI will eliminate crime is a pipe dream.  Check out the income on reserves - pretty much one place where we DO have a GAI - and then note the portion of aboriginal Canadians incarcerated in this country.  You can't buy your way out of criminal activity, alcoholism and drug abuse.  These are things that people do - but much moreso if they have the time to do it.  People who are working to survive are less likely to do so - as they have a better understanding of what it takes to earn a living.

Could I get behind a GAI - being from rather far over on the right side of the political spectrum?   Yes, I could.   Under some conditions, though.  Dump ALL of the government positions that are there to give out public money, and give out no other public money except for essential social services (of which sick care, health care and education should be universal).  Today, most of our dependent populations reside in the most expensive places in the country - largely due to the convenience for the useless t1ts of government to be able to live in big cities so as to have the conveniences of shopping and socializing with their own ilk while doling out our tax dollars - or to keep them herded into single locations in the North where it is so easy to present images of their missfortune.  Put a GAI out there, and NOTHING ELSE, and those on said fixed income will move to the cheapest places, not huddle in the most expensive.

If you are going to do this GAI, then there would have to be radical tax reform to pay the bill.   My solution is that the only "progressive" taxation would be by exempting the GAI from any income tax at all.  To make it really fair, EVERYONE should recieve the GAI, not just those who the massive bureaucracy would be needed to determine if they "qualified".   From that level, every dollar actually earned above the GAI would be taxable at a flat rate that would be equal to the actual budget of the Federal and Provincial governments in power (i.e. no deficit spending).   In that way, you could not hide the costs, nor pass them on to future generations or even the next administration.  A flat tax on real income would end penalizing success.

To make ME happy, I would also have to see a HUGE tax on speculative gain.   What does this have to do with GAI?  Simple:  if you do not do something to create wealth, you contribute NOTHING to society or the economy - you just drive costs to levels not justified by...well...ANYTHING.  If we stop the ridiculous rise in costs of such things as real estate, the GAI can simply stay at one value instead of being re-distributed into speculator's pockets.   Part of the real issues around fixed income is the rising costs of necessities.   If we are going to create some baseline, it needs to happen on the COL side as well as GAI.  Tax the crap out of people who are doing diddly squat for the bux, and it pretty much leaves them with two choices:  invest their money in productive endeavor that will create wealth - or get a job that pays them for actually DOING something.  That means, for instance, tax the crap out of trades, but not IPOs and POs that are held long term - and definitely NEVER tax a dividend.  As it stands, something like one in six Canadians actually does something that creates the wealth the other 5 live from (thus why a GAI is not so far fetched).

Edited January 10, 2017 by cannuck

[H10]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

to try to correct apparent thread drift (for which I will take credit):

the reason those in the lowest quintile (thanks B-C for posting numbers) believe they should be entitled to receive a GAI is apparent if you listen to Hernanday and the discussion of CEO compensation and the ever increasing disparity in income.  There are so many today who believe they are entitled to make very large incomes with no risk and no work.  As I explained, they merely exercise the privilege to re-distribute wealth with no effort or effect of creating any.  Why then would you not expect that with such a shining example, those at the other end of the scale who contribute JUST AS MUCH to the economy (even if, as I also mentioned, they do nothing but collect welfare) expect they should share in the free ride?

 

There was risk and work, but if you find a way other than the GAI to make sure someone gets money with no risk or work you tell me!  What do you mean by "re-distribute wealth" and not "Creating any", I don't know anyone in the business world not creating anything.  Even the people in commodities have to sell them.

 

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

From some earlier posts:  the idea that some kind of GAI will eliminate crime is a pipe dream.  Check out the income on reserves - pretty much one place where we DO have a GAI - and then note the portion of aboriginal Canadians incarcerated in this country.  You can't buy your way out of criminal activity, alcoholism and drug abuse.  These are things that people do - but much moreso if they have the time to do it.  People who are working to survive are less likely to do so - as they have a better understanding of what it takes to earn a living.

Could I get behind a GAI - being from rather far over on the right side of the political spectrum?   Yes, I could.   Under some conditions, though.  Dump ALL of the government positions that are there to give out public money, and give out no other public money except for essential social services (of which sick care, health care and education should be universal).  Today, most of our dependent populations reside in the most expensive places in the country - largely due to the convenience for the useless t1ts of government to be able to live in big cities so as to have the conveniences of shopping and socializing with their own ilk while doling out our tax dollars - or to keep them herded into single locations in the North where it is so easy to present images of their missfortune.  Put a GAI out there, and NOTHING ELSE, and those on said fixed income will move to the cheapest places, not huddle in the most expensive.

If you are going to do this GAI, then there would have to be radical tax reform to pay the bill.   My solution is that the only "progressive" taxation would be by exempting the GAI from any income tax at all.  To make it really fair, EVERYONE should recieve the GAI, not just those who the massive bureaucracy would be needed to determine if they "qualified".   From that level, every dollar actually earned above the GAI would be taxable at a flat rate that would be equal to the actual budget of the Federal and Provincial governments in power (i.e. no deficit spending).   In that way, you could not hide the costs, nor pass them on to future generations or even the next administration.  A flat tax on real income would end penalizing success.

To make ME happy, I would also have to see a HUGE tax on speculative gain.   What does this have to do with GAI?  Simple:  if you do not do something to create wealth, you contribute NOTHING to society or the economy - you just drive costs to levels not justified by...well...ANYTHING.  If we stop the ridiculous rise in costs of such things as real estate, the GAI can simply stay at one value instead of being re-distributed into speculator's pockets.   Part of the real issues around fixed income is the rising costs of necessities.   If we are going to create some baseline, it needs to happen on the COL side as well as GAI.  Tax the crap out of people who are doing diddly squat for the bux, and it pretty much leaves them with two choices:  invest their money in productive endeavor that will create wealth - or get a job that pays them for actually DOING something.  That means, for instance, tax the crap out of trades, but not IPOs and POs that are held long term - and definitely NEVER tax a dividend.  As it stands, something like one in six Canadians actually does something that creates the wealth the other 5 live from (thus why a GAI is not so far fetched).

 

Yeah and if you do that tax guess what happens to the businesses that do create things and want to raise money?  They leave your country and meet with investors in foreign countries with no taxes on speculative gains.  And how the heck do you separate a speculative trade from a non-speculative trade?

[cannuck]

5 hours ago, hernanday said:

 

There was risk and work, but if you find a way other than the GAI to make sure someone gets money with no risk or work you tell me!  What do you mean by "re-distribute wealth" and not "Creating any", I don't know anyone in the business world not creating anything.  Even the people in commodities have to sell them.

 

 

Yeah and if you do that tax guess what happens to the businesses that do create things and want to raise money?  They leave your country and meet with investors in foreign countries with no taxes on speculative gains.  And how the heck do you separate a speculative trade from a non-speculative trade?

People who trade commodities add no value, they just increase the price.  If someone doesn't take physical possession of the commodity, there are just in it to increase the price and IMHO have little reason to BE in the business.   Yeah, yeah, yeah....they provide liquidity.   I happen to BE in the business of producing resources, and can tell you that the presence of financial institution trade desks distorts the frick out of our markets and serves no purpose other than to separate the producer from the his customer due to the privilege of putting themselves in the middle and marking up each shipment by millions of dollars.  Those dollars belong in the producer's hands or those of his actual clients, not on the table at the Casino.

Trading an equity creates nothing but inflation (or in the special case of the Greenback, pent-up inflationary pressures).   That's why I was very specific in referencing IPOs and POs - that are HELD.   The simple way to identify what is and is not an actual investment, and the solution is tax 99% on day one, 95% in first year, taper down to nominal tax rate at 5% per year.  Money won't "go away", as there is no place to go.   If you wanted to be in North America, you would be simply better off to follow the rules (which is what people and money do now - just the the rules are frigging STUPID) and invest in business, not speculate on Wall Street.

Very simply:  Main Street is the economy.   Wall Street is there to destroy it (as it did in '29 and as it SHOULD have been allowed to happen in '08 when they were rewarded for their treachery, not allow to do what an actual business would have done and simply gone down the drain where they belong).

No time to dally, it is 05:30 here and have to go and get some of those resources out of the ground that the useless t1t part of the world will suck the lifeblood out of our economy by trading.

[H10]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

People who trade commodities add no value, they just increase the price.  If someone doesn't take physical possession of the commodity, there are just in it to increase the price and IMHO have little reason to BE in the business.   Yeah, yeah, yeah....they provide liquidity.   I happen to BE in the business of producing resources, and can tell you that the presence of financial institution trade desks distorts the frick out of our markets and serves no purpose other than to separate the producer from the his customer due to the privilege of putting themselves in the middle and marking up each shipment by millions of dollars.  Those dollars belong in the producer's hands or those of his actual clients, not on the table at the Casino.

 

People who trade commodities add value to the market by stabilizing prices and by providing greater liquidity to the commodities market.  If you ever seen what a market with only producers looks like it is highly restricted, all those people making money off their pensions and 401ks can kiss that money good bye, you are speculators because you will not go drill for an oil well.  Who is stopping the producers from going straight to the consumers?  NO ONE.  The middle man provides a valuable service in connecting the two, for a price of course.

 

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Trading an equity creates nothing but inflation (or in the special case of the Greenback, pent-up inflationary pressures).   That's why I was very specific in referencing IPOs and POs - that are HELD.   The simple way to identify what is and is not an actual investment, and the solution is tax 99% on day one, 95% in first year, taper down to nominal tax rate at 5% per year.  Money won't "go away", as there is no place to go.   If you wanted to be in North America, you would be simply better off to follow the rules (which is what people and money do now - just the the rules are frigging STUPID) and invest in business, not speculate on Wall Street.

 

Lol, the market would just create structures to circumvent this by making vehicles who hold stocks like an etf but permit investors to dispose of the asset in an outside zone tax free.

 

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Very simply:  Main Street is the economy.   Wall Street is there to destroy it (as it did in '29 and as it SHOULD have been allowed to happen in '08 when they were rewarded for their treachery, not allow to do what an actual business would have done and simply gone down the drain where they belong).

No time to dally, it is 05:30 here and have to go and get some of those resources out of the ground that the useless t1t part of the world will suck the lifeblood out of our economy by trading.

Wall Street runs America, Wall Street gets, what Wall Street wants, GREED IS GOOD!  It doesn't matter who you vote for, we control both sides. We have our left hand in the democrats back pocket and our right hands in the republicans front pocket.

[?Impact]

On 1/9/2017 at 10:56 PM, Bryan said:

Pay is absolutely higher. The real problem is, people's expectations of what they should be able to afford has gone up even more. 

Let's see housing, good food, clothing, etc. Yes the comparative prices of televisions has dropped, but that is totally meaningless. Shelter has skyrocketed, especially in urban areas. Good food is no longer affordable, yes I can buy packaged sugar cheaper but that doesn't help anything. Clothing is also relative. Yes I can get a cheaper petroleum product to wear today, but a good piece of clothing that will last has increased significantly.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The way things are going, some sort of universal income will be necessary.  

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 1/12/2017 at 9:19 PM, ?Impact said:

Let's see housing, good food, clothing, etc. Yes the comparative prices of televisions has dropped, but that is totally meaningless. Shelter has skyrocketed, especially in urban areas. Good food is no longer affordable, yes I can buy packaged sugar cheaper but that doesn't help anything. Clothing is also relative. Yes I can get a cheaper petroleum product to wear today, but a good piece of clothing that will last has increased significantly.

Apart from jobs, restaurants and concerts (big considerations I'll admit), Toronto's allure mystifies me. It is an ugly place.