|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On February 01 2017 09:31 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 04:10 MyTHicaL wrote:
I was last there in October for graduation.. Yeah there are definately issues that were easy to see and that was in the South. Can't imagine what the North is like..
On a side note it shocked me how badly people treat the homeless in the UK, how they even talk about them really made me pause several times o_o. No compassion or empathy to say the least. What compassion? I do my job and get paid, if I stop to give money to every homeless in the UK, I will be poor soon. It's their fault for failing in life. This is the problem with social democrats/left wing. They keep pouring water (money) into a mug without bottom (also known as welfare). Instead, you invest in business so they can employ more people and those homeless guys start supporting themselves. It's the best you can do for them as a long-term solution. Speak to your MPs and government about improving the business environment.
Well idk if you have ever slept rough. I have some times like for a night or whatever, due to public transport being cancelled or randomly lost lol- so not the real thing at all but it is fucking freezing! Nothing but that makes me empathise with them. I'm not asking you to give money to them either. Most of them probably have some form of job seekers, a way to get by. But, for example, a recent study said some huge amount had been sexually assaulted, etc. Lit on fire, pissed on. I mean they are human not dogs, and I wouldn't wish for that to ever happen to a dog so..
They probably have burnt most of their family and social bridges, and it won't have been just one mistake that put them in that situation. But it is still a difficult life, and frosty jacks can only do so much to cure it ;x. I guess England's lucky not to have Buckfast, then real chaos would ensue.
Your solution is ignorant and doesn't tackle the problem in any which way or form. I'm sure certain businesses would love to stick x2 their required work force on 0 hour contracts just to get tax relief, but that is hardly fair either.
I actually like the minimum monthly allowance being provided in Fife and.. I want to say Sweden but could be wrong about which Nordic country it is. Just a flat amount of money you receive regardless of occupation, situation, etc. It in turn would cause people to spend that money within the economy; thus stimulating it before you get your shit in a twist. It seems to have worked out during both experiments but I doubt it will be implemented any time soon and not with a bloody tory government at the stern anyways.
|
It's expected because Labour announced they wouldn't vote against it. The only thing that surprises me is that I expected more MPs to vote against that decision.
|
50 SNP voted against it, 6 abstained. Oh wells.
|
It is Finland trialling UBI, but they are trialling it exclusively on unemployed individuals so the results will not be particularly meaningful. The entire point is that it's universal, so it doesn't discriminate against people in work. I think we will see a lot of trials in the coming years, though, as it is the economic model of the future for developed countries. It's almost certainly not feasible for the UK right now, though. In fact I think the only country that could implement it fully right now would be Norway.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:38 bardtown wrote:I mentioned it in a long list of factors and you latched onto it because you understood that your initial statement was indefensible and wanted a diversion. Note that alcoholics often have underlying issues, too. Discipline is necessary to tackle addiction, but it is not for you to judge and make assumptions about the man on the street that you know nothing about. As far as news goes: Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 billhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883This was, of course, inevitable, but given that people in this thread had argued that the commons would never back Article 50 it should be posted. Any other result would have had appalling consequences.
That's great news. Let's make it happen.
|
On February 02 2017 07:55 bardtown wrote:
It is Finland trialling UBI, but they are trialling it exclusively on unemployed individuals so the results will not be particularly meaningful. The entire point is that it's universal, so it doesn't discriminate against people in work. I think we will see a lot of trials in the coming years, though, as it is the economic model of the future for developed countries. It's almost certainly not feasible for the UK right now, though. In fact I think the only country that could implement it fully right now would be Norway.
This system just asks for abuse if it is not well thought.
Imagine x = salary/month
You work the same job as David. David quits his job for a day or a bit more, he applies for UBI and starts getting $580 or whatever the amount. Then, he rejoins a day or a bit later and he still gets UBI.
Now we establish that your salary/month is: x
Then we establish that his salary/month is: x + $580
Conclusion: you're fucked
I understand $580 is supposed to let them catch up, but you can still end up being fucked if you had recently joined but slightly before UBI was introduced. Even without tricks, it's still not ideal.
|
On February 02 2017 10:21 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:55 bardtown wrote:
It is Finland trialling UBI, but they are trialling it exclusively on unemployed individuals so the results will not be particularly meaningful. The entire point is that it's universal, so it doesn't discriminate against people in work. I think we will see a lot of trials in the coming years, though, as it is the economic model of the future for developed countries. It's almost certainly not feasible for the UK right now, though. In fact I think the only country that could implement it fully right now would be Norway. This system just asks for abuse if it is not well thought. Imagine x = salary/month You work the same job as David. David quits his job for a day or a bit more, he applies for UBI and starts getting $580 or whatever the amount. Then, he rejoins a day or a bit later and he still gets UBI. Now we establish that your salary/month is: x Then we establish that his salary/month is: x + $580 Conclusion: you're fucked I understand $580 is supposed to let them catch up, but you can still end up being fucked if you had recently joined but slightly before UBI was introduced. Even without tricks, it's still not ideal.
I don't think you understand what the trial is about and how it works... And what the final goal is... But keep going.
|
That's not what it is. It's like giving 500€ automatically to every adult. They get that regardless of their situation. If they are disabled they will get that + diability. If they work salary + 500. And I don't know of an employer that would allow someone to quit for a day, sign on, then get their job back.
If anything you could argue that some people may be content with just the 500€ a month and therefore would have no incentive to go out and get a job, being perfectly happy with just that basic allowance. And I'd say that that could be true. But I personally believe in, I want to say Nietzche philosophy (been 8 years might be getting this muddled) in that every individual needs work or labour because of the intangible benefits it gives, purpose, fullfilment, etc.
I suppose it would also lessen the power of employers, getting fired or having your hours cut wouldn't be nearly as significant.
|
On February 02 2017 10:53 MyTHicaL wrote:
That's not what it is. It's like giving 500€ automatically to every adult. They get that regardless of their situation. If they are disabled they will get that + diability. If they work salary + 500. And I don't know of an employer that would allow someone to quit for a day, sign on, then get their job back.
If anything you could argue that some people may be content with just the 500€ a month and therefore would have no incentive to go out and get a job, being perfectly happy with just that basic allowance. And I'd say that that could be true. But I personally believe in, I want to say Nietzche philosophy (been 8 years might be getting this muddled) in that every individual needs work or labour because of the intangible benefits it gives, purpose, fullfilment, etc.
I suppose it would also lessen the power of employers, getting fired or having your hours cut wouldn't be nearly as significant.
I'd add that with job automation around the corner with all the skilled and unskilled jobs at stake a UBI is essential.
Also, re Shield's point on UBI unfairness the process should be.
John doesn't have a job and gets UBI £x
Jane has a job £y and gets UBI £x.
John still has a living of £x, Jane still has sn incentive to work with income £x plus £y.
They just wonder up Maslowe's hierarchy.
|
On January 31 2017 22:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 18:07 RvB wrote:On January 31 2017 04:55 LightSpectra wrote:On January 31 2017 04:43 RvB wrote:On January 31 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote:
If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. Ugh. As an American that's had to live through this in the '00s, and probably very shortly from now, I implore you not to believe this nonsense. Across the pond it's called "trickle-down economics" and the "Laffer curve", and it's wildly discredited--primarily because most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks and real estate, and there's no way to avoid the taxes on those by emigration. (You can avoid them using loopholes in taxes however, but I'm assuming we're talking about whatever happens after those loopholes are closed.) On January 30 2017 17:27 bardtown wrote:
It's just basic economics. The only reason multinationals HQ in Ireland is because of its low tax rates. That's why the Irish govt. are so upset about the EU ruling. Until you create a global authoritarian regime you will never be able to stop rich businesses/individuals from finding somewhere with low tax rates, because there will always be nations that want to attract them. So your argument is that the egregious legalized tax evasion done by lots of international corps (e.g. via the "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich") is a *good thing* because we're at least skimming 2% off them? Poppycock. Apple and Google and Intel (et al.) aren't going to stop doing business in Europe because they have to pay 12% taxes instead of 2%. Trickle down economics is 'discredited' because it's incredibly vague. It doesn't really mean anything. It's the knee jerk reaction of some on the left whenever they hear tax cut. The laffer curve isn't wildy discredited, it's wildy debated and disputed. It's a difficult theory though since the laffer curve most likely changes depending on the circumstances. Income taxes in the US are sufficiently low though that lowering the taxes won't increase revenue. In some European countries it might be different. "Trickle-down economics" usually refers to the practice of lowering taxes on extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, with the justification that it will result in an increase in quality-of-life for the poor/middle classes due to a healthier economy overall. Except that never happens. QOL stays about the same or decreases, whereas the wealth gap widens. It happened with Reagan, with Thatcher, with George W. Bush, and it's gonna happen again with Trump. The "Laffer curve" is not nonsense per se, since there's some truth in that tax revenues start to decrease once taxes reach a certain point. But in application it's just voodoo. Nobody knows where exactly the curve changes direction. During the three aforementioned neoliberal administrations, the government's tax revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts. However many right-wingers still peddle the myth that upper-bracket taxes are repressing the government's budget. A distinction has to be made between extremely wealthy individuals and corporations. The corporate tax is very damaging. I made a post about it earlier if you want to see my point of view on it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/471672-european-politico-economics-qa-mega-thread?page=645#12897To summarize: It's bad for capital investment and R&D. Half of the corporate tax is paid by labour (lower wages for employees) and even the part which is paid for by shareholders is not necessarily good for the common man since a lot of big investors are pension funds/ sovereign wealth funds/ life insurers. A better alternative would be property taxes since those are progressive too. Lowering income taxes on the rich will probably cause some more growth which benefits the poor and middle class. I agree though that if you want to help the poor and middle class it makes sense to reduce their tax burden instead. Google, Apple and Microsoft are each sitting with about $100-200 billion in raw cash, from sheer low-taxed profits; if increased corporate taxes results in them lowering wages or increasing prices, you can bet they're full of shit and just using the taxes as an excuse.
A little late response but I'll do so anyway. The high amount of offshore assets is a problem created by the US tax system in particular. 60% of those assets is held by 35 companies. The corporate tax rate is levied on all companies (including SMEs).
Your response makes no sense. It's not used by those companies to lower wages or increase prices. A corporation is nothing. It consists of it's employees, suppliers, consumers, shareholders etc. So any tax a 'corporation' pays is paid by those stakeholders. The question is not 'does labour bear some of the corporate tax' it's 'how much of of the corporate tax does labour bear'. The study reviews literature and concludes that 50% of the tax rate is paid for by labour.
On January 31 2017 20:40 bardtown wrote:
Property taxes need to be considered very carefully. The concept of a 'mansion tax' was a key Labour/Lib Dem policy before Corbyn. Initially the idea was to tax properties worth over £1 million. Unfortunately that includes two bed flats in London and the cottages of little old ladies in pretty villages. They since changed it to £2 million but it's still essentially a tax on aspiration and, as far as I'm concerned at least, completely contrary to British values. Taxing people who own lots of property that isn't for personal use could work (model it), but don't dissuade people from aspiring to better themselves or building attractive or innovative properties.
A basic principle that is often neglected is that inequality - providing that it is not too extreme - is a powerful engine for competition and innovation.
If I could decide everything I'd finance the removal of the corporate tax rate by cutting government expenditure. I don't really care for inequality at all tbh (partly for the reason you give). Since I'm argueing with someone who (I assume) is from the left I'm trying to provide a good alternative.
Why do I think the property tax is a good alternative to the corporate tax? It's the least damaging form of taxation while corporate tax is the most damaging. From an economic perspective it's the most efficient and makes the most sense. I don't really care that a 1 million pound property is a two bed flat in London or a cottage of a little old lady. If you're able to finance and live in a property of 1 million pounds you can pay tax on it. If they can't they can always sell and move to a cheaper house.
Anyway I think the problem of 1 million pound 2 bed flats in London is better solved by easing restrictions on building houses to increase the supply and reduce prices that way. London (and a lot of big cities) have way too many restriction on building houses which has caused a lack of supply for years.
|
On February 02 2017 19:28 RvB wrote:
If you're able to finance and live in a property of 1 million pounds you can pay tax on it. If they can't they can always sell and move to a cheaper house.
This is exactly what I dislike. If you work hard through your life to afford something it is nonsensical that you should then be punished for having that thing, especially in the case of your primary residence. Imagine finally buying the house you've wanted for your whole life and then having to sell it as soon as you retire because it's costing you half your pension in some arbitrary tax. For properties that are not your primary residence it's more reasonable.
|
You aren't being punished by the tax. If you cannot afford a house you wanted your entire life as soon as you retire, that simply means that your desire do not match your means. That someone desires an expensive home does not preclude that they should be able to afford it. In the end people are able to obtain wealth such as a £1 million house simply due to strong rule of law and institutions that allow them to own and keep this wealth, and so they should pay to upkeep the society that contributes to their wealth. I don't like the idea to tax properties over £1 or £2 million though. It is arbitrary and it would simply be far more effective to raise and re-evaluate council tax bands.
|
On February 02 2017 19:28 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 22:36 LightSpectra wrote:On January 31 2017 18:07 RvB wrote:On January 31 2017 04:55 LightSpectra wrote:On January 31 2017 04:43 RvB wrote:On January 31 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote:
If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. Ugh. As an American that's had to live through this in the '00s, and probably very shortly from now, I implore you not to believe this nonsense. Across the pond it's called "trickle-down economics" and the "Laffer curve", and it's wildly discredited--primarily because most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks and real estate, and there's no way to avoid the taxes on those by emigration. (You can avoid them using loopholes in taxes however, but I'm assuming we're talking about whatever happens after those loopholes are closed.) On January 30 2017 17:27 bardtown wrote:
It's just basic economics. The only reason multinationals HQ in Ireland is because of its low tax rates. That's why the Irish govt. are so upset about the EU ruling. Until you create a global authoritarian regime you will never be able to stop rich businesses/individuals from finding somewhere with low tax rates, because there will always be nations that want to attract them. So your argument is that the egregious legalized tax evasion done by lots of international corps (e.g. via the "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich") is a *good thing* because we're at least skimming 2% off them? Poppycock. Apple and Google and Intel (et al.) aren't going to stop doing business in Europe because they have to pay 12% taxes instead of 2%. Trickle down economics is 'discredited' because it's incredibly vague. It doesn't really mean anything. It's the knee jerk reaction of some on the left whenever they hear tax cut. The laffer curve isn't wildy discredited, it's wildy debated and disputed. It's a difficult theory though since the laffer curve most likely changes depending on the circumstances. Income taxes in the US are sufficiently low though that lowering the taxes won't increase revenue. In some European countries it might be different. "Trickle-down economics" usually refers to the practice of lowering taxes on extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, with the justification that it will result in an increase in quality-of-life for the poor/middle classes due to a healthier economy overall. Except that never happens. QOL stays about the same or decreases, whereas the wealth gap widens. It happened with Reagan, with Thatcher, with George W. Bush, and it's gonna happen again with Trump. The "Laffer curve" is not nonsense per se, since there's some truth in that tax revenues start to decrease once taxes reach a certain point. But in application it's just voodoo. Nobody knows where exactly the curve changes direction. During the three aforementioned neoliberal administrations, the government's tax revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts. However many right-wingers still peddle the myth that upper-bracket taxes are repressing the government's budget. A distinction has to be made between extremely wealthy individuals and corporations. The corporate tax is very damaging. I made a post about it earlier if you want to see my point of view on it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/471672-european-politico-economics-qa-mega-thread?page=645#12897To summarize: It's bad for capital investment and R&D. Half of the corporate tax is paid by labour (lower wages for employees) and even the part which is paid for by shareholders is not necessarily good for the common man since a lot of big investors are pension funds/ sovereign wealth funds/ life insurers. A better alternative would be property taxes since those are progressive too. Lowering income taxes on the rich will probably cause some more growth which benefits the poor and middle class. I agree though that if you want to help the poor and middle class it makes sense to reduce their tax burden instead. Google, Apple and Microsoft are each sitting with about $100-200 billion in raw cash, from sheer low-taxed profits; if increased corporate taxes results in them lowering wages or increasing prices, you can bet they're full of shit and just using the taxes as an excuse. A little late response but I'll do so anyway. The high amount of offshore assets is a problem created by the US tax system in particular. 60% of those assets is held by 35 companies. The corporate tax rate is levied on all companies (including SMEs). Your response makes no sense. It's not used by those companies to lower wages or increase prices. A corporation is nothing. It consists of it's employees, suppliers, consumers, shareholders etc. So any tax a 'corporation' pays is paid by those stakeholders. The question is not 'does labour bear some of the corporate tax' it's 'how much of of the corporate tax does labour bear'. The study reviews literature and concludes that 50% of the tax rate is paid for by labour.
No, you're full of shit. If you asked Google/Apple/Microsoft to cough up $10 billion each, they can easily pay that fee with their cash reserves. They have no need to buck that cost to their employees/customers/shareholders.
There is nothing that should be philosophically challenging about this. They have money. Gov'ts ask for the money. The money is transferred. Anything more complicated than that is a diversionary tactic.
|
Google and apple are building fucking castles for themselves.
Amazon wants to build a cargoairport for themselves.
Johnson&johnson is trying a hostile overtake of syngenta paying 3++ the cost of the actual shares.
.... and so on
But yeah, taxing that shit would doom the employees because companies are hurting for money and wages are shit because they can't afford real wages.
How is life in your reality?
Companies won't share their earnings with their lower end employes and they don't have to pay real taxes because they would have to lower wages?
Where does your reasoning make any sense?
|
|
|
On February 02 2017 10:48 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:21 Shield wrote:On February 02 2017 07:55 bardtown wrote:
It is Finland trialling UBI, but they are trialling it exclusively on unemployed individuals so the results will not be particularly meaningful. The entire point is that it's universal, so it doesn't discriminate against people in work. I think we will see a lot of trials in the coming years, though, as it is the economic model of the future for developed countries. It's almost certainly not feasible for the UK right now, though. In fact I think the only country that could implement it fully right now would be Norway. This system just asks for abuse if it is not well thought. Imagine x = salary/month You work the same job as David. David quits his job for a day or a bit more, he applies for UBI and starts getting $580 or whatever the amount. Then, he rejoins a day or a bit later and he still gets UBI. Now we establish that your salary/month is: x Then we establish that his salary/month is: x + $580 Conclusion: you're fucked I understand $580 is supposed to let them catch up, but you can still end up being fucked if you had recently joined but slightly before UBI was introduced. Even without tricks, it's still not ideal. I don't think you understand what the trial is about and how it works... And what the final goal is... But keep going.
Go watch video. I'm not arguing with people who can't bother. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/finland-experiments-universal-basic-income.html
|
On February 03 2017 06:36 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 10:48 mahrgell wrote:On February 02 2017 10:21 Shield wrote:On February 02 2017 07:55 bardtown wrote:
It is Finland trialling UBI, but they are trialling it exclusively on unemployed individuals so the results will not be particularly meaningful. The entire point is that it's universal, so it doesn't discriminate against people in work. I think we will see a lot of trials in the coming years, though, as it is the economic model of the future for developed countries. It's almost certainly not feasible for the UK right now, though. In fact I think the only country that could implement it fully right now would be Norway. This system just asks for abuse if it is not well thought. Imagine x = salary/month You work the same job as David. David quits his job for a day or a bit more, he applies for UBI and starts getting $580 or whatever the amount. Then, he rejoins a day or a bit later and he still gets UBI. Now we establish that your salary/month is: x Then we establish that his salary/month is: x + $580 Conclusion: you're fucked I understand $580 is supposed to let them catch up, but you can still end up being fucked if you had recently joined but slightly before UBI was introduced. Even without tricks, it's still not ideal. I don't think you understand what the trial is about and how it works... And what the final goal is... But keep going. Go watch video. I'm not arguing with people who can't bother. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/finland-experiments-universal-basic-income.html
Thanks, I fully know what the idea is, how they are trialing it and what the final goal is. That was the reason for my statement. Because your post made absolutely no sense.
|
Shield, the idea of universal basic income is that people will get paid the universal basic income no matter if they are being paid in a job or not. Even bardtown understands this. So your example simply makes no sense. It's also fairly obvious that you either haven't read or have misunderstood the link; the trial in Finland is just that; a trial. The idea is to trial it first, then see if it works and enable everybody, whether they were originally unemployed or not, to recieve universal basic income. It's kinda in the name. Not sure why we are talking about this in a UK politics thread though.
|
On February 03 2017 06:42 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:36 Shield wrote:On February 02 2017 10:48 mahrgell wrote:On February 02 2017 10:21 Shield wrote:On February 02 2017 07:55 bardtown wrote:
It is Finland trialling UBI, but they are trialling it exclusively on unemployed individuals so the results will not be particularly meaningful. The entire point is that it's universal, so it doesn't discriminate against people in work. I think we will see a lot of trials in the coming years, though, as it is the economic model of the future for developed countries. It's almost certainly not feasible for the UK right now, though. In fact I think the only country that could implement it fully right now would be Norway. This system just asks for abuse if it is not well thought. Imagine x = salary/month You work the same job as David. David quits his job for a day or a bit more, he applies for UBI and starts getting $580 or whatever the amount. Then, he rejoins a day or a bit later and he still gets UBI. Now we establish that your salary/month is: x Then we establish that his salary/month is: x + $580 Conclusion: you're fucked I understand $580 is supposed to let them catch up, but you can still end up being fucked if you had recently joined but slightly before UBI was introduced. Even without tricks, it's still not ideal. I don't think you understand what the trial is about and how it works... And what the final goal is... But keep going. Go watch video. I'm not arguing with people who can't bother. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/finland-experiments-universal-basic-income.html Thanks, I fully know what the idea is, how they are trialing it and what the final goal is. That was the reason for my statement. Because your post made absolutely no sense.
So what doesn't make sense?
1. If given the opportunity from your employer, can't you resign from work to get UBI, then rejoin so you still get your salary + UBI? Provided that only unemployed people get it, I don't see how it is the same situation as someone who just works.
2. If someone gets employed a few weeks before UBI, aren't they at a worse position than someone who gets employed immediately after UBI is introduced to public?
If you say no to either, please let me know why. Otherwise it's just talk without arguments.
On February 03 2017 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Shield, the idea of universal basic income is that people will get paid the universal basic income no matter if they are being paid in a job or not. Even bardtown understands this. So your example simply makes no sense. It's also fairly obvious that you either haven't read or have misunderstood the link; the trial in Finland is just that; a trial. The idea is to trial it first, then see if it works and enable everybody, whether they were originally unemployed or not, to recieve universal basic income. It's kinda in the name. Not sure why we are talking about this in a UK politics thread though.
Sure, I'm arguing about the trial in Finland only. Obviously
x = y
x + 580 = y + 580
x and y are balanced either way.
Edit: It just seems like a weird trial to me. You want the trial to be as close to reality as possible. Take 1000 employed people and 1000 unemployed people. Give each group +580 and see what happens. This is the idea?
I think what you'll discover is that either 1) the rich gets richer or 2) one size (580) doesn't fit all, especially unemployed people.
|
Its a good idea for the future as more and more jobs become automated. Obviously being low paid a part of me wants it, but I'm not sure this is the right time as companies still actually have jobs that need low paying workers. I'm more in favour of incentives to pay more for essential work that is currently minimum wage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
