Senate Universal basic income

Probably. But yeah, it's not like Wikipedia has a summary. Instead, let's just assume it's like it in America because America so great.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia

Oh god what is that who put that there guys what.

"Employers are required to make superannuation contributions for their employees on top of the employees' wages and salaries."

Jesus make it stop

"As of 30 June 2015, Australians have over AUD$2.02 trillion in superannuation assets"

AAAARGH STOP IT.

Right now, my salary package = my advertised remuneration which I take home in fortnightly instalments (and from which my employer deducts income tax at the applicable marginal rate) + my bonus target + my superannuation contribution. When I applied for the job, and this is true for most Australians, they just table the remunerated rate. i.e. if you go for a job with a $100K salary here, you're going to find that the 10% super is not included in that 100K and the employer pays it. They just quote you what they will pay you.

Meaning, there's no actual impact to saver's salaries. They get paid the same rate, but cost the employer more.

And with things like low income co-contributions from the state PLUS the capacity to draw down on the aged state pension when the asset test is failed (meaning, basically, you're not hiding super money away and using state funds) - yeah, we grew an AU$2trillion - US$1.5trillion- industry by grinding up poor families to use as cheap fuel. Not an effective retirement savings tool which eases (without eliminating) the burden on public purse strings for funding retirement.

Wocky/Even pls.

 

Why would he have looked at Wikipedia, though? Why wouldn't you have just explained your idea the first time?

It would be different if you had just said outright said "adopt the Australian system" and left people to find the details. Instead, you proposed a solution, gave some details, and then noted obliquely that "we did it" without even making clear if you intended similar adaptations for an American version or not. He criticized a portion of something you put forward that you left unclear. That's hardly a cause for derision.

Basic arithmetic errors are much safer grounds for teasing, seeing as it's actually deserved.

 

Well it's just, if you Google "superannuation in Australia" the first page is Wikipedia, the second is the Government website on it, and the third is ASIC - our SEC (but actually useful).

So I mean... if someone says something works... I don't know. I'd look at it. It's just me.

 

To the folks who say the day is coming soon when robots will take a significant percentage of human jobs, what kind of work, specifically, do you envision robots taking? Most employment involves a lot more than raw computational ability. Even incredibly mundane tasks like stocking shelves at a retail store require subtle muscular poise and a fine motor skills and even simple judgment calls that even the "smartest" computer might not be very good at -- should I finish with this shelf really quick, or help this customer? Since the item next to this one is out of stock, can I steal its place for now to put out all of this stock of another item? Where does raw superhuman intelligence actually come into play for jobs like this? Would customers want to shop somewhere staffed by robots? Automated phone line menu systems are frustrating enough. Also, is the cost for such advanced robotics and the upkeep of them ultimately cheaper than paying the typical prevailing low-skill manual labor wages? Obviously, it wouldn't be ideal to have job market tor humans that's entirely mundane jobs of the sort I've listed, but what are the kinds of jobs where the relationship between the sheer computational power that superintelligent machines will presumably possess simply and directly related to the "point" of the job?

 

Aren't drones already taking delivery service jobs? And military jobs?

I personally think that the company I work for would benefit from the use of iRobot-like units in place of its current cleaning department (which, has become so notoriously ineffective that its duties have bled into the duties of other departments and job roles).

 

Btw, I'm referring to the company's after hours cleaning department. The regular hours folks do a pretty solid job.

 

UBI vs welfare

What I did not know is that much of welfare does not go to those who need it.

 

Ontario is going to test a system of $1320 a month

A study in Manitoba, Canada done back in the 1970s provides us with an idea of what a community receiving basic income would look like. Many believe people would stop working, and become lazy. They would be half right, some people did stop working in Manitoba. But when you look at the data a little closer, we begin to see how poverty starts at an early age and how basic income could help them get out.
Allow me to explain: People in the town received a set income of $9,000 a year (by today's standards) from the government. Evelyn Forget, an economist and professor at the University of Manitoba, who looked over the data from the study says there was a 9% reduction in working hours among two main groups of citizens.
Here’s the kicker: New mothers were using their additional income to extend their maternity leaves and spend more time with their infants, and teenage boys were using that income to stay in school.
“When we interviewed people, we discovered that prior to the experiment, a lot of people from low-income families, a lot of boys in particular, were under a fair amount of family pressure to become self-supporting when they turned 16 and leave school. When Mincome came along, those families decided that they could afford to keep their sons in high school just a little bit longer,” Forget told PRI in an interview.

 

When do you plan on addressing the inflationary pressure a UBI would produce?

And that the UBI would be a convenient mechanism for the state to stop spending money on essential services like healthcare, because costs are intended to be covered by this UBI?

i.e. "No medicare for you, because we give you that in the UBI. You're meant to save it".

Rational economics: the person saves
Behavioural economics: they'll spend it

 

You could do it in a form that they could only spend in certain ways and for certain things. Redeemable only for certain things.

 

I've already handed out enough info in enough links but I guess I'll just type it.

UBI is not new money and printing trillions of dollars and handing it out. It used already existing money.

But links are great because someone explains it better.

 

Well, the reason I ask is: "Ruddbucks".

LostOnHoth and others can probably remember this.

In 2009, 7m Australians got $900 from the Federal government as part of a stimulus package. That money was designed to stimulate spending.

Rational economists warned against it, arguing people would use the money either to pay down debt (defeating the purpose) or save it (defeating the purpose). Behavioural economists said, no, you give people money for nothing, they'll spend it.

Since the intent would be that this income represents a sort-of ex gratia payment, it'd be hard to prescribe its use because you're dealing with the diverse needs of a citizenry. I don't need UBI, so I'd just spend frivolously right? Others do.

In this instance, the rational economics approach would be correct. Those who need it most can afford least to spend it, because it is always designed as a payment in lieu of other social services. And since we know people are more likely to spend it, it does nothing to mitigate the exposure vulnerable people have to shock expenses. It simply means when they need help, it's not there.

 

Yes, we understand this VLM. That's precisely the point. It replaces existing welfare payment systems, and doesn't do more than change redistributive wealth mechanisms.

My questions address this. You may not understand how, but they fully take into account what you're talking about.

 

So Ruddbucks essentially were used as another form of income for people rather than social insurance?

Yeah my understanding on UBI is with the idea that it replace social insurance.

Ender: Those who need it most can afford least to spend it, because it is always designed as a payment in lieu of other social services. And since we know people are more likely to spend it, it does nothing to mitigate the exposure vulnerable people have to shock expenses. It simply means when they need help, it's not there.​

If it contains this sort of paradox that you suggest behavioral economists pointed out, then its success would be difficult.

 

No, it was just a measure to stimulate spending.

The point's more:

The rational approach says save it, there's economic uncertainty due to GFC, pay down debt, be smart.

The behavioural approach is, give people money for nothing, they'll spend it.

The latter proved true. It will prove true with the most vulnerable and UDI.

 

Was this a lump sum payment of Ruddbucks or did they get allotments?

It's sort of like lotteries. Many winners blow it all.

 

Lump sum. Just AU$900, which was about US$920 at the time (2009).

VLM obviously believes in the idea of a free lunch, but doesn't want to address the issues it raises.

 

I guess it comes down to people assume if you give people a basic income that they will buy necessities, or what we or experts regard as necessities.

Apparently it doesn't work that way.

That would be the difficulty in any sort of basic income. I haven't seen one proposal out there that would effectively peg it to a specific use either.

Probabaly just better to have a handful of social insurance programs that address specific things rather than a giant one big income with no controls.

 

If you give them money, they will spend it on groceries or things like a TV - and not in the "OMG HOW CAN THEY BE POOR AND HAVE A TV" right wing nonsense. Spending on cheap entertainment is actually sensible, but anyway.

So when a shock cost emerges, say for health, there's no socialised medicine so the usual mechanism for covering these costs - state services - is gone.

 

Ruddbucks was a stimulus package. It does not compare to UBI. And yes, it redistributes money. That's the point.

 

You're missing an amazingly simple point about behavioural economics VLM.

 

Yes but what is to stop people from spending it on frivilous things instead of what policymakers want them to spend it on, namely health care, food shelter, essentials? The whole point is to give people a basic income for basics. How do you prevent that?

You know VLM what happens to lottery winners.

 

I suspect he's too enamoured with the idea of a free lunch, so to speak, to want to hear the criticisms. He still hasn't been able to account for how a flat currency introduction like a UBI might affect inflation, because the value of money has been diminished when it is distributed independent of output. He also doesn't want to accept that the rational economic message for Ruddbucks and UBI was the same thing; save, pay down debt, keep it for a rainy day. But behavioural economics told us people would consume with it. Whilst that's what was needed for Ruddbucks, for UBI the intent of the payment is to supplement the provision of state services so that people are now able to spend as much as necessary of the UBI on health care (for example) instead of receiving access to the care.

Since they're more likely to spend it on consumable goods, their capacity to fund (continuing the example) health care is diminished greatly. Or; UBI creates more problems than it solves.

 

So what if they do? They can spend it on whatever they want. The point is if they lost their job they have money coming in until they find a new one.

I think there are some UBI folks abnd anti-UBI folks who think this is income replacement right off. Maybe one day it could be though it is hard to see from here. People generally work because they have to. I would not do my job if I did not have to. Capitalism works, but it is abused. If UBI were started with the current sought amount it'd be $1,000 a year. I could not live off this. But I'd have options. There could be people who attempt to pool their money together and live together in a house and not work at all. Add up costs to rent a home with 3,4,5, 6 people and they might be able to get away with it but they won't be living high on the hog.

I have a few medical bills this year. I am not dumb enough to go without insurance. Insurance with an extra $1,000 a month and I'd have no issues but I still have hundreds of dollars to throw at it.

SO, tests have to be done. Which is why several countries are giving it a go to see what happens. The first sentence is the primary answer to your statement.