[Submitted] Universal Basic Income And Paying Worker Wages

[United Cats of America]

The World Assembly,

Concerned about the low standards of living for non-wealthy individuals around the world;

Observing the consequences of recessions and pandemics on the well-being of the working and middle class;

Wishing for a world that is more egalitarian and supportive of the struggles of individuals;

Hereby,

Defines "citizens" as people who hold the legal status of citizenship to a country;

Defines "check" as money;

Defines "unemployed" as no longer actively working (includes citizens not actively finding work);

Mandates all member states to provide a monthly check of at least $2,000 or the local currency equivalent to all citizens in the country, regardless of race, religion, sex, income, political belief, or national origin;

Mandates all member states to fully compensate citizens who are unemployed their wages to the amount equivalent to the income they made at their last place of employment (or the minimum wage of the country if the person never had a job before);

Requires all member states to provide both the monthly check and the compensation of unemployed citizens;

Requires member states to pass appropriate legislation to prohibit banks or other organizations from forcing people to surrender their monthly checks or compensation;

Encourages all member states to provide more money than required in this resolution if possible.

Anyone want to voice their opinions on the bill?

[Tinhampton]

Yes. I reiterate my earlier comments:

Always draft your proposals for a couple of weeks before submitting them.

Also, "defines check as money?"

[Arzt0zka]

The World Assembly,

Concerned about the low standards of living for non-wealthy individuals around the world;

Observing the consequences of recessions and pandemics on the well-being of the working and middle class;

Wishing for a world that is more egalitarian and supportive of the struggles of individuals;

Hereby,

Defines "citizens" as people who hold the legal status of citizenship to a country;

Defines "check" as money;

Defines "unemployed" as no longer actively working (includes citizens not actively finding work);

Mandates all member states to provide a monthly check of at least $2,000 or the local currency equivalent to all citizens in the country, regardless of race, religion, sex, income, political belief, or national origin;

Mandates all member states to fully compensate citizens who are unemployed their wages to the amount equivalent to the income they made at their last place of employment (or the minimum wage of the country if the person never had a job before);

Requires all member states to provide both the monthly check and the compensation of unemployed citizens;

Requires member states to pass appropriate legislation to prohibit banks or other organizations from forcing people to surrender their monthly checks or compensation;

Encourages all member states to provide more money than required in this resolution if possible.

Anyone want to voice their opinions on the bill?

This sounds like radical / "heroic" territory, maybe tone down some of the demands?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Minimum Standard of Living Act, viewtopic.php?p=26911746#p26911746.

[United Cats of America]

Minimum Standard of Living Act, viewtopic.php?p=26911746#p26911746.

UBI and paying worker compensation is different from that.

[United Cats of America]

Yes. I reiterate my earlier comments:

Always draft your proposals for a couple of weeks before submitting them.

I submitted this proposal before I made my first forum post. Sorry!

Also, "defines check as money?"

What is wrong?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Minimum Standard of Living Act, viewtopic.php?p=26911746#p26911746.

UBI and paying worker compensation is different from that.

Concerned about the low standards of living for non-wealthy individuals around the world;

---

Not to mention the unemployment effects of fully subsidising not-working to the same degree that one subsidies work that adds makes things for other people and actually adds to society. Even from a labour theory of value perspective, paying people not to work in a general sense—rather than in a pandemic response sense—detracts from some "socially necessary abstract labor".

In standard labour supply theory, it's very trivial to work out from a utility function and budget constraint that a large endowment, let alone a kinked horizontal utility function, would reduce labour supply. That such a thing would have negative effects on society writ large is obvious. Nor does it resolve the problem that an income and leisure maximising worker would only take higher-paying work... and then just quit to enjoy the now-required and totally-leaving-irrelevant subsidies.

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

Yes. I reiterate my earlier comments:


I submitted this proposal before I made my first forum post. Sorry!

Also, "defines check as money?"

What is wrong?

What do you mean by that? Defines Check as money?

[United Cats of America]

What is wrong?

What do you mean by that? Defines Check as money?

Yes. I said check is money

[Imperium Anglorum]

Define money.

[United Cats of America]

UBI and paying worker compensation is different from that.

Concerned about the low standards of living for non-wealthy individuals around the world;

---

Not to mention the unemployment effects of fully subsidising not-working to the same degree that one subsidies work that adds makes things for other people and actually adds to society. Even from a labour theory of value perspective, paying people not to work in a general sense—rather than in a pandemic response sense—detracts from some "socially necessary abstract labor".

In standard labour supply theory, it's very trivial to work out from a utility function and budget constraint that a large endowment, let alone a kinked horizontal utility function, would reduce labour supply. That such a thing would have negative effects on society writ large is obvious. Nor does it resolve the problem that an income and leisure maximising worker would only take higher-paying work... and then just quit to enjoy the now-required and totally-leaving-irrelevant subsidies.

Sure, but either way, I am doing this out of morals

[United Cats of America]

Define money.

It is implied in the bill that money is the local currency

[Imperium Anglorum]

Are you taking a M0 definition that money is only currency?

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

UBI and paying worker compensation is different from that.

Concerned about the low standards of living for non-wealthy individuals around the world;

---

Not to mention the unemployment effects of fully subsidising not-working to the same degree that one subsidies work that adds makes things for other people and actually adds to society. Even from a labour theory of value perspective, paying people not to work in a general sense—rather than in a pandemic response sense—detracts from some "socially necessary abstract labor".

In standard labour supply theory, it's very trivial to work out from a utility function and budget constraint that a large endowment, let alone a kinked horizontal utility function, would reduce labour supply. That such a thing would have negative effects on society writ large is obvious. Nor does it resolve the problem that an income and leisure maximising worker would only take higher-paying work... and then just quit to enjoy the now-required and totally-leaving-irrelevant subsidies.

Oh Lord, imagine the costs of UBI for a nation? We have to up our taxes then, and it would most likely lower our economic output...

[United Cats of America]

Are you taking a M0 definition that money is only currency?

No, but you can't give a house to a poor person as money. That is just ridiculous.

[United Cats of America]

Concerned about the low standards of living for non-wealthy individuals around the world;

---

Not to mention the unemployment effects of fully subsidising not-working to the same degree that one subsidies work that adds makes things for other people and actually adds to society. Even from a labour theory of value perspective, paying people not to work in a general sense—rather than in a pandemic response sense—detracts from some "socially necessary abstract labor".

In standard labour supply theory, it's very trivial to work out from a utility function and budget constraint that a large endowment, let alone a kinked horizontal utility function, would reduce labour supply. That such a thing would have negative effects on society writ large is obvious. Nor does it resolve the problem that an income and leisure maximising worker would only take higher-paying work... and then just quit to enjoy the now-required and totally-leaving-irrelevant subsidies.

Oh Lord, imagine the costs of UBI for a nation? We have to up our taxes then, and it would most likely lower our economic output...

Solving income inequality is more important than worrying about economic output

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

Oh Lord, imagine the costs of UBI for a nation? We have to up our taxes then, and it would most likely lower our economic output...

Solving income inequality is more important than worrying about economic output

But by lowering economic output you fuck the country economically, we need people to earn money to tax them to give UBI. If they were to stop working because they had UBI, we'll have less money to tax, and in return less money to give for UBI. The entire thing would kill itself. Giving people free money is a bad idea.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Are you taking a M0 definition that money is only currency?

No, but you can't give a house to a poor person as money. That is just ridiculous.

Nobody is claiming that a house is money. What is your definition of money?

[United Cats of America]

No, but you can't give a house to a poor person as money. That is just ridiculous.

Nobody is claiming that a house is money. What is your definition of money?

In my context of my bill, a check or direct deposit of money into a person's bank account

[Imperium Anglorum]

Concerned about the low standards of living for non-wealthy individuals around the world;

---

Not to mention the unemployment effects of fully subsidising not-working to the same degree that one subsidies work that adds makes things for other people and actually adds to society. Even from a labour theory of value perspective, paying people not to work in a general sense—rather than in a pandemic response sense—detracts from some "socially necessary abstract labor".

In standard labour supply theory, it's very trivial to work out from a utility function and budget constraint that a large endowment, let alone a kinked horizontal utility function, would reduce labour supply. That such a thing would have negative effects on society writ large is obvious. Nor does it resolve the problem that an income and leisure maximising worker would only take higher-paying work... and then just quit to enjoy the now-required and totally-leaving-irrelevant subsidies.

Sure, but either way, I am doing this out of morals

How could it possibly be moral to break the engine from which a nation could even fund such a programme?

---

In my context of my bill, a check or direct deposit of money into a person's bank account

What is your definition of money?

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

Nobody is claiming that a house is money. What is your definition of money?

In my context of my bill, a check or direct deposit of money into a person's bank account

Also isn't it "Cheque"? not "Check"?

[United Cats of America]

Sure, but either way, I am doing this out of morals

How could it possibly be moral to break the engine from which a nation could even fund such a programme?

---

In my context of my bill, a check or direct deposit of money into a person's bank account

What is your definition of money?

Because GDP is stupid. GDP does not account for the happiness of the average person.

I said money money is a check given my the government or a direct deposit by the government

[United Cats of America]

In my context of my bill, a check or direct deposit of money into a person's bank account

Also isn't it "Cheque"? not "Check"?

If you are British

[Tinhampton]

GDP is stupid. GDP does not account for the happiness of the average person.

Soooooooo? Just draft a proposal requiring all nations to create a (domestic) Gross National Happiness index if that's what you're after! ;P

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

Because GDP is stupid. GDP does not account for the happiness of the average person.

And there's goes the funding to your UBI Programme. You need money to fund this program, if you wish to give people money, you need to know where you're getting you're money from. Governments usually get money from taxes, and if 2000 dollars are for each person, let's time it by a population shall we, take an example, my nation. 6 Billion Citizens times 2000 dollars... And that be 120 Trillion Dollars per month, and in a year we will need to spend 1444 Trillion Dollars per year.

Taxes will need to be raised. If taxes need to be raised, people are earn less, and are more dependent on the UBI, and soon they need more, so you UP the UBI, meaning we need more taxes and this cycle will continue until we crash financially