1201
Society is Limited by Wage Slavery (slrpnk.net)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
197 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 9 months ago (22 children)

it's a good idea but it requires that costs don't adapt. that 800€ apartment you wanted? well since you're already getting a subsidy it's now 1600€. after all, if you discount the subsidy it's cheaper!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    Yes, it definitely has to be recalculated frequently. If it doesn't, it will be about as useful as the US minimum wage after some time.

    But as I said, most people wouldn't have significantly more or less money than they do today. At least I carefully calculated those numbers so that most people would have pretty much the same, for Germany in 2019. So I don't really expect prices to go up drastically.

    It's not that people suddenly have 1000€ extra. Either their unemployment benefits get replaced by that UBI, or they now have to pay an extra 1000€ in taxes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (11 children)

    it's not even supposed to be an "extra 1000€ in taxes", it would just be gradually eaten up by taxes the more you make.

    the big problem is, a lot of people on long-term sick pay who are not allowed to work would get less from this system. there needs to be something to deal with that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    Currently the tax rate is progressive. In the future it wouldn't be anymore. But because those progressive taxes only apply to income over a certain threshold, people with lower incomes would profit more.

    This system would not replace social security. If you get a pension due to age or sickness or in your first year of unemployment, you would still be covered by your mandatory insurance. Same with your mandatory health insurance. And you'd still have to pay for it on top of your taxes. The employee and the employer pay 20% of the gross income each.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (9 children)

    it's my understanding that the system would replace social security. the savings from slimming down the systems responsible for payout would be part of what made the entire thing possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    It would replace long term unemployment benefits. And minimum pension. The benefits that are paid directly by the government, not mandatory insurance.

    It would be mostly financed through getting rid of progressive taxes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    isn't a progressive taxation system meant to ramp up as you earn more, not down? that would lose you money by getting rid of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (6 children)

    What do you mean?

    For example if you earn 277k that's currently taxed 42%. Getting rid of the progressive tax, it would be taxed 45%.

    It's not enough, to finance a sufficiently high UBI but it's definitely an increase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    if i specifically were to earn 277k that's currently taxed 48% in the system we use, and if we got rid of our progressive brackets it would be taxed at 33%. but we're not talking about specific countries, we're talking about removing progressive taxation from a hypothetical economy to replace in with... what? flat rates?

    progressive taxation is an umbrella term for a bunch of systems all over the world. the only thing in common is that as income goes up, so does the percentage of it you need to pay in taxes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    Flat rates at the maximum tax rate and an UBI that replaces the progressive tax system. Where is that 33% coming from? That clearly isn't the maximum tax rate in your jurisdiction.

    I'm aware that there are different progressive tax systems. But to my knowledge they all have a maximum tax rate. One that's, by definition, higher than any other possible tax rate

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    no it's the normal level. the 48% is the maximum.

    i don't see why you can't have ubi and progressive taxation at the same time. you can tailor the curve to work with the extra money. you can even set the maximum rate at 100% for people who earn more than, say, 10M a year.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    It would just be pretty redundant. And a flat tax rate is a lot more transparent

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Exactly. What's to keep the sellers from just jacking everything up?

    College was expensive, but affordable, until the government made it easier to get student loans. Colleges responded by wildly jacking up their prices, and now you literally have to voluntarily take on a lifetime of debt to get a college degree for a job that probably won't cover the cost of your loan. And what did the government do? They went right along with it, and demand repayment before anything else.

    They recently started a benefit program with Medicare that gives you some money each month to buy health related items in drugstores and such, and they responded by jacking up the prices in Walgreens and CVS.

    I'm all for UBI as well, but it has to comes with price controls so the corporate parasites don't just take it all. UBI Gouging has to be a harshly enforced crime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    What we need is to jail people who do exploitive shit like this. Just like any other harmful acticity we jail people for.

    Or maybe jusr, OP's 50% tax deal ramps up the more acxumulated wealth and property you have. Tonstrongly discourage that practice. Like sure, you exploited your rent holdings and you are a ten millionaire. But now we are taxing you at 100% so we can bump people's UBI subsidy up enough to account for your exploitation.

    Good job, you accomplished nothing in the end.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    We can't jail them without a law that makes it illegal.

    And if we introduce rent control, we need to replace it with other incentives to build new apartment buildings. Ideally ones that create a slight oversupply of housing. Otherwise, in a decade or so, you get cheap rent but tons of homeless people because the supply is insufficient.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    The incentive is that its what is good for society and good for everyone. The ince tive is doing good. Because people need places to live.

    Needs of the many vs needs of the few and all that.

    Laws can be made. Laws are all made in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago

    Building apartments currently cost about a quarter million per unit. Plus interest on the mortgage. Most potential landlords don't just have millions in liquid funds.

    Nobody will be taking out loans like that if they won't even earn their investment back if everything goes to plan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Which is why UBI should be coupled with UBS (universal basic services). In this context, at the very least there would exist also a rental board (like Quebec's existing Regie du Logement). If you're more ambitious, housing would be a universal service and taken out of the market altogether. And don't forget that that 1600E income of the landlord would be also taxed.

    More generally: https://ubiadvocates.org/inflation-and-ubi-separating-fact-from-fiction/

    If UBI is financed through measures that inject new money into the economy, such as deficit spending or monetary expansion, the risk of inflation may be heightened. This is because the increase in the money supply outpaces the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services, leading to a general rise in prices.

    Conversely, if UBI is funded through redistributive measures, such as progressive taxation or cuts in inefficient spending, the inflationary pressures can be mitigated. By targeting resources from high-income individuals or unproductive sectors of the economy, such funding mechanisms redistribute existing wealth rather than injecting new money into circulation.

    This ensures that the overall level of demand remains relatively stable, thereby limiting the potential for inflationary spirals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent