andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-09-01 08:21 am
andrewducker) wrote2003-09-01 08:21 am
Robots and Income
All you people interested in a possible future of income, go and have a read of this.
In it the writer points out that increasing automation is basically going to create an unemployed class and that something is going to have to be done about this. He basically invents Citizen's Income, an idea I'm wholly in favour of. I sent him an email telling him that the idea had been invented numerous times before (with a few links) and some off the top of my head figures:
In my opinion, the best way to manage citizen's income is as a percentage of the median wage, and then tax _everyone_ at 50% of their wages (obviously you don't tax the citizen's income bit), simultaneously simplifying the taxation of individuals so that there are no fiddly exemptions.
Let's say that the median wage is $30,000 and citizen's income is set at 2/3 of that ($20,000).
if the person was earning nothing, then suddenly they're $20,000 better off.
If they were earning a low wage of $15,000, then they're now earning ($15,000/2 + $20,000 = )$27,500, a substantial rise.
A person on the median wage goes from $30,000 to $35,000.
A person on a high wage ($100,000) is now on $70,000.
And a person on a ridiculous wage ($1,000,000) is now on $520,000
All of these final figured should, of course, be compared to the current income _after tax_.
Of course, living in a country, as I do, with a 40% upper tax bracket, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not sure the average American is going to go for it, but it would certainly revolutionise the world - no more poor people, anywhere...
In it the writer points out that increasing automation is basically going to create an unemployed class and that something is going to have to be done about this. He basically invents Citizen's Income, an idea I'm wholly in favour of. I sent him an email telling him that the idea had been invented numerous times before (with a few links) and some off the top of my head figures:
In my opinion, the best way to manage citizen's income is as a percentage of the median wage, and then tax _everyone_ at 50% of their wages (obviously you don't tax the citizen's income bit), simultaneously simplifying the taxation of individuals so that there are no fiddly exemptions.
Let's say that the median wage is $30,000 and citizen's income is set at 2/3 of that ($20,000).
if the person was earning nothing, then suddenly they're $20,000 better off.
If they were earning a low wage of $15,000, then they're now earning ($15,000/2 + $20,000 = )$27,500, a substantial rise.
A person on the median wage goes from $30,000 to $35,000.
A person on a high wage ($100,000) is now on $70,000.
And a person on a ridiculous wage ($1,000,000) is now on $520,000
All of these final figured should, of course, be compared to the current income _after tax_.
Of course, living in a country, as I do, with a 40% upper tax bracket, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not sure the average American is going to go for it, but it would certainly revolutionise the world - no more poor people, anywhere...
no subject
And it _removes_ the problem of the welfare gap which exists at the moment. This is where you give welfare to only the very poorest people and it becomes economically pointless for them to work. This way round you get more money the more you bring in. Thus you have an incentive.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Everything you actually earn is taxed at 50%. This leaves you with 50% of anything you earn to yourself (as an incentive to actually work) and uses the other 50% to pay for the redistribution and the rest of general costs.
I do think it's workable, honestly. But I can't get my hands on the figures to be 100% sure. I'm still trying to do so without handing over £100s to the Office of National Statistics.
no subject