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...

Threaded | Flat

People (from research) seem to be sensitive to large income differences rather than absolute income. If everybody around you earns £10 a week (and you are all not starving) then everybody is happy (usually). If one guy earns £100 then you get resentement starting and people get dissatisfied with their £10 in a way they just don't when they can't see it.

JUST like the 'pretty people' thing.

The scheme that you describe goes some way to evening that out (at least at the lower levels).

When we were in Denmark/Sweden/Norway, Sean commented on how the trains/trams/buses were really noce and ran on time and the streets were clean and all that and wondered why. I said "three little words - 50 pecent tax". In fact I think it's actually higher than that. Seems to work though....

Even in Roskilde (denmark) for the festival it didn't get messy or violent or anything - folks just ought their crates of beer, sat on a roundabout and drank it. A man with a trolley came and colelcted all the empties seeral times a day (no doubt because there is hefty deposit).

Your plan has the same glaring flaws as Communism.

The biggest reward is for being average.

Excellence is punished.

What's the motivation to work at all, when without having to put forth any effort at all, you receive 2/3 of the average income?

Take me, for instance. I started a new company, which could theoretically be good for the economy, create new jobs, and stuff like that. I've been working like a slave at it, for far less than the minimum wage, for over a year, and I'm still going. Why? Because I think that it has the potential of becoming seriously profitable. That's the only reason why I started, and the only reason I continue.

Now, with your plan, even if it were to become extremely profitable, the government would take away most of my income give to people who didn't take the risk, and didn't do the hard work. In that scenario, there is no way I would have tried it, and I would have simply stayed at my old job, consuming jobs that could have gone to other people.

a perfectly valid point.

however. i work hard to earn my salary and whilst i'm all for lifting the bread line and tackling poverty i find it hard to beleive that anyone in this country would be prepared to "give" their salary away.

but then I'm baised - because i'm not on the poverty line

This is an excellent and moderate plan that I would highly approve of.

I'm reminded of the fact that I've seen calculations showing that all of Oregon's income tax could be paid by simply having a 50% tax on all money above $250,000 that people earn (ie the first $250,000 of everyone's income would be tax free, and only money above this amount would be taxed). The wealthy are coddled far too much in the US. I don't see how anyone has a right to have more than $250,000/year when other citizens are starving (Oregon leads the US in hunger).

I'd be up for this. But then, I took a stupidly large pay cut for a nice job working for a charity, so I'm not particularly fiscally motivated.

I don't think that the encroachment of robotics is going to be the cause of mass unemployment. The cause of mass unemployment and poverty is the attitude of the companies, striving to cut costs at the expense of their workers' welfare. Tricks like cutting average working hours to just below full time (most menial staff are part-timers, who work more than full-time hours through overtime to make sensible amounts of money, and hence don't get the benefits or protection of full-time employment) result in an unskilled, demotivated workforce, and I think that changing that would be a "better" fix than a reformed welfare state, although I do approve of that idea.

I welcome our new robot overlords!

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

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Forgot to mention...

Frankly, no