andrewducker | 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...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, what can I say...

Firstly, at present, taking wolflady as an example, should she wish to take income from her company: Let's say it earns £1.5m (an easy number, trust me)

She pays 30% corporation tax
leaving £1,050k
She pays 1% NIC
Her company pays 12.8% Eer's NIC
She pays 40% income tax

Leaving £620k
And increasing the cost to her company to 1,692k

In all, her tax rate is effectively 74%.
She then pays 17.5% VAT on most purchases she makes.
And any excess she has on her death will suffer 40% inheritance tax.

a 50% general simple tax would fuck the budget. What always gets me is how the Labour government can fuck up our public services, given the unbelievable levels of stealth tax we suffer.

==================================

On another, more airy fairy subject, I think you have to consider the rejects on the dole.

I'm of two minds here. Firstly, I feel that these people should work for their money. I resent the fact that eventually, my high earnings [(please god let me pass these exams. Oh, also don't forget to exist...)] will be taxed to keep them alive, without asking if I care.

On the other hand, it's a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff... people with drive and ambition will work because they want to. Those on the dole are happy to not work.

But why give people that option? I can find them something to do, for $20,000. I can employ them. Clean the streets. Collect the bottles, while the country gets drunk. Polish the railways. Sweep the leaves. Clean the pavement. We are paying you money. Until there is an actual lack of work, then you should not receive money for nothing.

That's what a society is, and has always been about. Co-dependance. If you don't contribute, why should I care if you are in or out? And when there's less work, why should one person stop working, while another continues working as hard?

4 day week. Eventually, a 3 day week. Then 2, 1... But not free hand outs. Please...

Adam

Call me idealistic if you like, but I actually think that giving people the money for free will make them _more_ likely to work.

Right now you can get about £100 a week for free (income support + housing benefit). Get a minimum wage job (£160 a week) and you basically get an increase of £30 a week over that(after tax), meaning you work for £1 an hour increase in income, usually in a shitty job.
Who the hell wants to do that? Especially when unemployed people can usually get discounts off of a variety of things and don't pay poll tax, etc.

With my system, assuming that you were still getting paid £160 a week you'd get an extra £80 a week out of it, which is an amount that people might actually be interested in. It might actually encourage people back to work...

Oh, also, if you have a safety net it's much easier to say "Fuck You" to your boss and go find a differen minimum wage job that's a little less shitty, encouraging employers not to make cheap jobs as shitty as possible. I know people that were stuck in jobs that would have been bearable if they'd been run properly, but because they were stuck in a "shit job or starve to death" situation the management had no reason to make the job less evil.

All of this is from something I've been writing for months now, and is up to about 10,000 words. When it's finished and vaguely coherent I'll post a link to it :->

cynical disagreement, concerning people working, as opposed to leaching.

As for employers... well, usually there's a reason that the wages and benefits package are shitty... usually, several alternatives have been considered, and the cheapest one wins out. The very real problem with creating added pressure on management to improve the quality of working remuneration is that it's very simple for them to out-source to eg India, or China, as I've seen with a few of my clients. As far as I know, there's no citizens wage in China.

Harsh realist? Maybe...

Adam

If you give people a minimum, most people will want more. And they'll be prepared to work for it, if they can see the benefit. At the moment there's not enough benefit, but if you make it more obvious, you'll get them. And once you're on the treadmill, you tend to want more and more...

And you can't outsource shitty mcjobs like being a cinema usher. I remember when all of my friends worked at the local bingo and were unnecessarily badly treated. To treat them with a little respect would have cost the company nothing (or possibly peanuts), but the employees had no leverage to get that respect with, because they couldn't leave.

Taxes in the US are far lower. We currently have no national inheritance taxes. When my parents die I'll receive a sizable inheritance, and I'd still far prefer high inheritance taxes for large inheritances, which the money being distributed directly to the poor, from my PoV, inherited money is even less one's own money than the money a business owner extracts from their workers.

As for the rest, I'm uncertain what the tax rate on 1.5 million would be, but I'd be shocked if it was more than maybe 35%, and with all of the many tax loopholes available to the greedy rich, it could easily be as low as 10-15% (ie lower than similar taxes on far smaller businesses). I know that some businesses and business owners actually do end up paying as little at 10-15% of their total income in taxes. The US tax system is an utter disgrace.

Firstly, I feel that these people should work for their money.

It's fascinating the language people use.

These people? Who are "these people"?

"Them" and "we" and it's like there's a class of people who've never contributed and a class of people who always contribute.

Life's not that simple, you know? Sometimes you give and sometimes you may have to take.

Chalk me up in favour of the citizen's whatnot.

Has anyone mentioned British Leyland yet? I'll bet you a quid it happens. :-)

not so much "them and us" as "them and me".

"Them" and "we" and it's like there's a class of people who've never contributed and a class of people who always contribute.

Like.... well, like suggests that this is a fantasy. I assure you It's a reality. What's worse, in Ireland, the majority of this "class" are "traditionally" (and I use that word with wonderful lashings of irony) involved in trouble and violent conduct. I have no time for such people. Frankly, I'd be happy to kill them. Unproductive, harmful, ignorant, and wasteful. Oh, wait... I've got a better idea... I'll give them some of my money for free.

I appreciate that there are people who are on benefits for valid reasons. But there are people who are on benefits because it's easy. Or because they're criminal.

Yes, it's not black and white. It's a greyscale. But one end of the scale is white, and the other is most definitely black. And I don't want the black end getting free money.

Adam

I appreciate that there are people who are on benefits for valid reasons

Surely anyone who is on benefits (other than the miniscule minority who are defrauding the system) is on benefits for valid reasons?

The state makes the benefit rules. The rules say what's valid.

Still not clear on the scale we're talking about. The white end would presumably be self-made millionaires. The black end would be violent criminal welfare claimants. Where do lone parents fit? Those unable to work due to ill-health? How about pensioners? What about people claiming on the strength of national insurance contributions they have made?

Fact is, if you start looking at people who claim welfare benefits, most are are doing it for a valid reason.

The kind of negative attitude towards benefits you seem to be portraying is also a factor in the fact that (in the UK) millions of pounds of benefits go unclaimed each year, often by potential claimants who really need the money. Pensioners are a case in point. Many are too proud, are afraid to be seen as "scroungers", and the money goes begging.

Robots and Income

Frankly, no

Re: Frankly, no

Frankly, no

Re: Frankly, no

Re: Frankly, no

Re: Frankly, no

Frankly, no

Re: Frankly, no