Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,042
You're assuming that the underlying assumptions and methodology used in compiling the report are both beyond reproach. That's quite a big assumption.
It's hardly simplistic to point out that your conclusion that "the ESRI study provides me with a firm, analytical basis to decide whether or not to support or reject this proposal, something that I didn't have before the study was performed" is wholly dependent on the validity of its methodology and underlying assumptions.Simplistic nonsense! And even if both were flawed, the outcome of the analysis still provides a starting point for coming to a more informed decision.
Furthermore, given that the report was peer reviewed before being published, it would appear that both the methodology and assumptions were regarded as valid; hence, unless you're implying some form of underhand academic behaviour, it has credibility.
But by all means put up your criticisms of underlying assumptions and methodology used - and your proposed alternatives - and we'll be able to judge the comparative merits of both.
Will you get this universal basic income even if you are working and earning a wage or salary of any level?
Will you have to pay 40% tax on it?
Reminds me of the Ali G skit where he was trying to get buy in to his new invention the hoverboard from tech investors in California. The hoverboard was just a skateboard with the wheels removed. Ali G paraphrasingAs for automation, for the types of jobs I listed, I'll believe it when I see it.
The problem is that to finance this universal basic income tax on any additional income earned through work would have to be very steep, thus creating a disincentive to work in the first place. That's why most economists seem to oppose it.Will you get this universal basic income even if you are working and earning a wage or salary of any level?
And that was immediately obvious , a complete waste of time like Delboy in Only Fools to RodneyThe problem is that to finance this universal basic income tax on any additional income earned through work would have to be very steep, thus creating a disincentive to work in the first place. That's why most economists seem to oppose it.
That would be great for high earners as they would see a significant reduction in tax.Here is the Social Justice Ireland model for a UBI:
- Payment would be conditional on residency within Ireland. In line with current welfare requirements, non-citizens must have lived here for a number of years before becoming entitled to a UBI.
- The level of the payment would be age-dependent.
- Payment would be constant and does not change upon the taking up of employment or the acquiring of other income.
- All income, aside from the UBI payment, would be subject to tax at one single rate of 40 per cent. All other income tax rates, as well as Employee PRSI and Universal Social Charge, are abolished. The rationale for using a tax rate of 40 per cent was to show what could be achieved in the prevailing context in 2016. Raising the necessary funds on the basis of a more progressive taxation model would be preferable.
- The Employer PRSI rate would increase to 13 per cent.
- There would be no tax credits or tax reliefs.
- The UBI would replace almost all core welfare payments, payments in respect of disability, illness and other additional needs would be retained.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?