Robots and Income
Sep. 1st, 2003 08:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerAll 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...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Frankly, no
Date: 2003-09-02 12:37 pm (UTC)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. :-)
Frankly, no
Date: 2003-09-02 01:16 pm (UTC)"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
Re: Frankly, no
Date: 2003-09-02 02:51 pm (UTC)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.