Universal Basic Income

Could universal basic income be the future economic model? It seems like the world is headed that way. More automation, less jobs.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nah, aggressive depopulation methods will sort shit out a lot more than a basic income.

It's solution to a problem that doesn't exist. And another huge cost on top of current government handouts.

Who will pay the taxes for these incomes when everyone is sitting on their asses all day playing videogames?

Why have money then? Where's the value of something that takes no effort to earn.

I've never seen this plan fleshed out besides "JUST GIVE PEOPLE MONEY".

Fucking how? We'd still need people to do certain jobs. Why would they work without any monetary incentive?

To me it sounds a lot like a dressed up version of communism. Instead of just giving people the necessities we just give them cash.

Is there any alternative? Eventually automation will consume the entire job market, even programming to some degree.

no, it's a seductive idea, because it removes administrative overhead, but with mass unemployment, every community will turn into the communities you think when i say "bad neighborhood"
paying people to put up, paint, and tear down fences every week would be less socially corrosive

A lot of proponents of the basic income support the prior elimination of other welfare programs. Instead of incentivizing a system where you HAVE to be poor/unproductive to use benefits, they passively incentivize employment by giving people just enough to live on.
If you want to buy the new vidya and fancy TVs, get a part-time job.

it's communism

nothing is free

>More automation, less jobs
People have been saying this for centuries, and each time they were somewhat justified in saying it from the perspective they had.

We simply cannot tell whether automation will cause mass-redundancy, because we cannot envision the future.

Nope. It would never work and it's not even morally sound. "Everyone who's job got taken by a robot can sit on their ass and not work while everyone else who still has to use their brain because a robot doesn't have one, has to pay for them."

If anything, automation will just create a new crop of jobs that guide the automation.

This too. We literally haven't seen the robots take over these jobs and probably won't. We're too.. imaginative and projecting with AI. We just want our science fiction to come true.

I think if homeless people had a 1 room 1 bathroom set up with an I pad that would be better than letting them shit things up in the street or ending up in jail/prison being a problem and potentially more expensive.

I would be down for Unconditional Basic Income.

If it was changed to Conditional Basic Income.

And if the condition was: 'Be White.'

Anyone who believes the wealthy will take pity on the poor if they ever become obsolete doesn't have a firm understanding of human nature.

They'll be gassed and population control will be enacted.

>Have a friend
>He is a hippie leftest
>He is "bi"--has sex with dudes more often than with girls
>Smokes weed er'day
>Smokes some kind of crystal that is apparently "synthesized weed extract"
>Works a very hard manual labour industrial job
>Believes in free basic income

What the fuck is wrong with him? He's a nice guy who is very generous and trusting, but something isn't right in his weed addled brain. I confronted him about it, about how his tax dollars taken off his manual labour job check is going towards people abusing the system, and he just spouted a whole bunch of hippie nonsense about how innovation can only come about when people are free to pursue what they want.

Fucken idiot.

This. It would work if we got rid of all welfare programs, and it would be more efficient in my opinion. The right won't complain (as much) about leeches and the left won't complain about people dying in the streets.

>Why would they work without any monetary incentive?

Because not everyone wants to sit on their ass at the poverty line.

If everyone gets $10, nobody gets $10.

homeless people are often the untreated mentally ill with substance abuse problems
they largely need supervised living communities
transfer payments like ubi would just go into drugs/alcohol and they'd be on the streets again

>aggressive depopulation methods
Don't celebrate this!!!

Only white people are dumb enough to breed at below-replacement levels while importing a massive third-world underclass at the expense of the taxpayer, letting the (((government))) destroy the nuclear family and the benefits of marriage, the (((media))) promote racemixing and MGTOW, and sit back and watch it happen in their own countries!!!

Literally cucked beyond belief!!!!

... who told you youd need money if you had full automation?

Or, if you want the new vidya or a fancy TV, steal it. You didn't think about niggers, did you?

Basic Income is supposed to cost what compared to current gibs? Not that it matters because
>It's solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

>It's forward...
>into a cliff of self-destruction because the country goes bankrupt for supporting leftshit welfare sponges

By the time we reach a point where most people need universal basic income, we won't need currency or property, thus it isn't actually necessary. We'll have self sustaining, self maintaining, self replicating robots to do everything for us.

>We'd still need people to do certain jobs. Why would they work without any monetary incentive?
basic income would only cover the bare necessities of life (for the US probably ~$1500/month)
if you'd want any luxuries you still have to work; also there would be an incentive to pay a fair wage for unpopular but unskilled jobs
because your wageslaves don't rely on their jobs for survival

>To me it sounds a lot like a dressed up version of communism. Instead of just giving people the necessities we just give them cash.
It actually is the best of both worlds because you get the humanitarian aspect of communism while still maintaining a free market economy with all it's benefits
you'd also achieve a super lean state (algorithm writing a cheque to every citizen each month) instead of the bureaucratic clusterfuck we have nowadays

Yet you voted against it. Why?

The USA is in massive debt, they don't have the money to implement free gibs for everyone, you are we over your head desu.
>inb4 build wall
I don't want fat Amerilard's in my non degenerate country, we hang faggots here.
>Pic related, most of the Americans that live here are either homeless, nigger homeless and thug's.

Let's sat it actually does get to a point where 90% of the populace is unemployed because they are no longer necessary.

If you're in that 10% that can get those jobs, even if it's just clearing a sewer and standing in shit all day, you'll live like an oligarch. This gives incentive.

Everyone else would obviously need a basic income, we would have reached a point where a large amount of socialism is actually needed and required.

If you don't provide all these unemployed with a livelihood when we get to that point all you're going to have is either a slave state the likes of which you have never seen or the 90% murdering the 10% over and over again until a balance is achieved.

How about instead we abolish the minimum wage so it isn't illegal for people who are only capable of producing a value

>less jobs
Trump will fix that.

I would become the laziest piece of shit in the universe. So no this is a horrible idea.

Unconditional basic income is not left or right or forward, it's dictatorial government manipulation of a supposedly free market that will result only in rampant inflation, accelerated job automation and swelling numbers of unemployed people which will go on to inflate the number of people living in poverty or homelessness just so that selfish and naive college graduates can buy the iPhone that costs $1000 instead of the cheaper Android alternative that only costs $200. But then again a cheap phone is for losers isn't it so the rest of the country can go fuck themselves because what I want is far more important that what is best for my people.

that's the beauty of basic income
we could get rid of all the bureaucracy, minimum wage etc.
and still guarantee a minimum quality of life to everyone

you receiving an ssi tier dole payment is not socialism my man
it's just a bribe from the oligarchy to keep you from taking their stuff, while you rot in your tiny urban apartment
it's a bribe that will always been chipped at through inflation and budget cuts, because whatever percentage of people actually working/owning everything will want to maximize their own welfare at your expense

you're getting played by the neoliberals again

With significantly decreased productivity as opposed to a free market. I'd prefer to maintain our first world status and bring back a strong manufacturing base, champ.

us population is 325 million. 1500 a month would be 5.85 trillion a year, 34% of the country's GDP and and more than the entire federal budget combined. where does the money come from?

Imbecile

Universal basic income would be needed only in a situation when automatisation took away most of the jobs. You know, Star Trek scenario. This is not going to happen any time soon.

Basic income becomes the new minimum wage.

Unless I pay higher than what basic income is paying, no one will work for me.

Basic income should work but there should not be any other kind of welfare like universal healthcare and the likes

>opposed to a free market
it's still a free market you mongoloid that's my whole point, you could even further deregulate it

>it's too expensive
you'd have to raise taxes for those making more than the median wage so their net income stays the same as before (cutting the cost of ubi in half)
also kids would only get half the money as adults

>Unless I pay higher than what basic income is paying, no one will work for me.
you'd get the ubi on top of your wage, that's the universal part of it

True, why would the elites pay for useless eaters to survive.

It's starting to happen.

They would have to fight for it.

Like gladiators.

Which has never been done before and would not be at all debauched and/or degenerate.

(OP)
>1: US welfare budget?
>2: US number of citizens?
>1/2=...?
>projected numbers of US economical grows?

>(for the US probably ~$1500/month)
This makes whooping $5.7 trillions per year. Now look at US federal budget and weep.

>there is a task that requires no work and/or no one is willing to pay for it, therefore there should be basic income
>I contribute nothing but I deserve basic income because robots
Leftie retardation never fails to amuse me.

I'm all in favor of it as long as I can pay them in lead currency, and the velocity of that money is at least 700 m/s.

>Because not everyone wants to sit on their ass at the poverty line.
>"not everyone will be a parasite!"
Enough do to make your country shitty and unproductive

No. It is inherently unsustainable and will crash just like welfare states across the globe are crashing right now.

if it was such a great policy it would've been implemented long time ago, however I simply cannot see this happening without massive depopulation and genocide of at least 95% of Earths human population

Is dumbwards a direction? Because basic income is definitely dumbwards.

Not a chance.

When the elite have progressed technology to the point where automation and recycling are perfected, they won't need their Tax Cattle any more.

If we ever do progress (and idiots believing we are even 10% of the way there are just wishful thinking) the overlords will simply kill us all. Either engineer a nuclear war, or use one of half a dozen sneakier ways to sterilize entire populations.

Why would they waste precious resources providing us with luxuries for free?

I like the idea of UBI I should perhaps stress, but what incentive do our globalist overlords have to actually implement it?

see >you'd have to raise taxes for those making more than the median wage so their net income stays the same as before (cutting the cost of ubi in half)
>also kids would only get half the money as adults
so the costs are only $2.85tr/year and if you compare it not only to the federal budget but include local and state budgets as well you are looking at $6.9 tr for 2017
so while still not being an easy task it certainly is possible to achieve ubi

You have to take the hypothetical economic growth into account. Clearly, after instituting basic income, industries like mining and oil drilling and food production will flourish and America's GDP will skyrocket.

>universal basic income

It's called welfare, you fucking commie.

>Israeli co-worker invites me and a few others over after work on friday for dinner and a movie
>Ok sure why not
>Great food and conversation, we're all pretty big Trump supporters to boot
>He starts going off on how America does a lot of things well, but very badly elsewhere
>Like how we need more government regulations like the Gov restricting pricing on certain food items so poor people can buy them because foodstamps and other programs arn't good enough and how the Government needs to take full control of the healthcare system and how basic income is needed
>Our faces when we all got tricked into listening to a jew drone on about socialism and how Israel is the best with the promise of a meal, film, and lighthearted banter

...

>can't eat on $800 dollars a month per kid

I don't even spend $50 dollars a month on food for myself...

No.
What your talking about is a post scarcity economy, and were no where close. And if we ever reached that point there would be no need for universal basic income, because there would be no need for income at all, because things would no longer have value, because there's an infinite amount of resources.

As long as resources are limited, and scarcity still exists, universal basic income can't work because someone has to foot the bill. Eventually the system collapses when you run out of resources.

>also kids would only get half the money as adults
73 millions under 18 in US. This reduces budget to "just" $5.08 trillions

>>you'd have to raise taxes for those making more than the median wage so their net income stays the same as before (cutting the cost of ubi in half)
This is not UBI, dingus.

The fuck do you eat?
I spend about $130 counting restocking commonly used things like milk, cheese, and vegetables a few times a month.

>proponents of the basic income support the prior elimination of other welfare programs
>giving people just enough to live on

Welfare started out providing people in need just enough to live on, but has expanded to housing perfectly employable people in luxury apartments, providing for their every need and giving them disposable income on top of it.

Basic income would go down the same slippery slope, with people demanding an ever-increasing basic income and increased income for single mothers, disabilities, etc.

The problem with basic income is that all interest rates would reflect payment of basic income

People would get into debt trying to leverage basic income, get rekt, and end up paying all of their base income every pay period to money lenders (nothing new)

The cyclically poor can't be fixed through handouts

But I think the core idea, which gives all families liquidity, is a good start, I feel like the inherent inflation would mean chronic adjustments to basic income wouldn't solve the underlying problem that, in an economy predicated on winners and losers, the losers will always be exploited or die.

>lets have 500% real economical grows other things been equal
>would not it solve every fucking problem?
Of course it would! UBI OR NOT!

UBI dreamers are:
>what good things i would do to country if would have spare $5 trillions. King Obama laughing.jpg

>This is not UBI, dingus.
of course it is why wouldn't it be

>you'd have to raise taxes for those making more than the median wage so their net income stays the same as before (cutting the cost of ubi in half)

Then you destroy people who create businesses, that crate jobs for people to work. Then no one has a job because there are none. Then no one pays income taxes because they don't have jobs. Then who pays for the universal income?

>it's still a free market you mongoloid that's my whole point
It still has decreased productivity you mongoloid that's my whole point.

best post

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
>A basic income (also called unconditional basic income, Citizen's Income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income or universal demogrant[2]) is a form of social security[3] in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.
>unconditional sum of money
Kys.

>you'd have to raise taxes for those making more than the median wage so their net income stays the same as before
HAHAHAHA AND YOU WANT TO COMBINE THIS WITH A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN WORKER PRODUCTIVITY AND EMPLOYMENT IN GENERAL
Your stupid little pipe dream will never work until we're as automated as the fucking movie Wall-E.

>Then who pays for the universal income?
MUH 1% REEE

No.
It's a stupid idea.
How much is enough?
Where does the wealth come from?
Basic Income can't take off. Despicable.

By the way this isn't at all touching on the large-scale behavioral impact of implementing a UBI, have you ever seen niggers on welfare?

I work in an auto plant (pumps) 90% of the jobs are picking up a part putting it into a machine then removing it and placing it on the conveyor or on a pallet. I can easily see a robotic arm doing nearly every job in this place.

I can also see every gas station being replaced with a large vending machine and a pay at the pump system. They do make vending machine capable of selling everything you would find in a corner store. Nearly all of your everyday jobs are capable of being automated.

If every job that could be automated was automated something would have to be done or there will be civil unrest and riots in the streets.

Ivan, don't forget the fact that more money leads to more consumption, and more consumption leads to more money from value-added tax, so a good chunk of the money is basically going back to the State.

It has holes, sure, I'm not debating this.

>net income stays the same as before
>Then you destroy people who create businesses
how would it destroy them? it would change literally nothing for everyone making above median wage

>decreased productivity
only for low wage jobs, which will be replaced by machines, which is the reason why we are discussing ubi in the first place

>unconditional sum of money
yes it would be unconditional
but independently of that taxes for everyone above median wage would be raised by the same amount

>niggers on welfare
implying those would otherwise be valuable members of society

The thing that would be done is called mass culling. Unless you think the wealthy are nice enough to give up their money to make sure the poor have an adequate life instead of just gassing them.

NEETs in this thread better hope to god automation doesn't come in their lifetime.

LOL. I love this meme.
K take it all, run the machine for now even another year
Now what?
These idiots need to understand like base level economics. You can't fix scarcity.
Like you said, it would never work unless everything is completely automated, and that won't happen in any of our lifetimes.

Let's hope so

US doesn't have VAT.

>but independently of that taxes for everyone above median wage would be raised by the same amount
This is
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
Not UBI.

What, seriously? That would be the single country in the world which doesn't have it.

That's precisely it

Nope it's never *ever* going to happen. Why give people free money to counter the inflation when there is an actually profitable way to handle the problem aka a global conflict killing around 20% of the population?

you keep saying net income will stay the same, but that doesn't make sense. if you're taxing someone so you can give his money to someone else, how does his net income stay the same? you either have to lower another tax on him by the same amount, or you have to give him his own money back. either way there's no money to redistribute.

Let's punish success and reward failure, that's sure to go over well.

robots. I don't think it's viable for now.

t. Shlomo von Shekelstein

This.
And you have yet to establish how theft is morally justified.

I'm up for a 10 hour work week and mostly automated lifestyle.
IF everything became automated, there would still be plenty of jobs..just pay people an insane bumped up wage/per hour thing and let everyone work a short work week of like 10 hours.
Everyone gets the chance to work more if they want, but if you're earning $200 for an hours work then you wouldnt need to work much. 10 hours at 200 would be £2000. plenty of money to pay for life.

Rather than having a universal income, have better wages.

Since money is printed anyway, it might not be a horrible idea when automation is at such high levels that it becomes necessary.
It won't happen for a very long time though.

What is inflation?

>I can only think in extremes
we don't have to fix scarcity
that's why we wouldn't abandon money

>US doesn't have VAT.
it would still stimulate the economy, also most states do have VAT

>This is
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
>Not UBI.
"Negative income taxes can implement a basic income or supplement a guaranteed minimum income system."
the difference is just semantics

>there's no money to redistribute
we are already redistributing money ($6.9tr for 2017)
a significant part of that ($2.85tr) would be redistributed differently
the goal would be not to increase the overall government budget

...

no thats communism
everyone move to programming

>a significant part of that ($2.85tr) would be redistributed differently
Social security part of federal budget is only $1.28tr. Even this part can't be redistributed freely as UBI. $0.89tr of it is pensions. And pensions are delayed wages. If you cut this part of wage you need to proportionally increase (with adjustment y interest rate) of wage to hold workers on their jobs.

You realize this isn't true right? Communism failed because when everyone was guaranteed "basic needs", an enormous amount of people stopped working. There was no reward to being productive. The pilgrims nearly starved in early years due to collective farms, same with the chinese under Mao. Socieites which adopt economic models where some entity outside of the individual will care for them, always fail. They always fail, because self interest and personal greed is what makes everyone get out of bed and do something productive.

Basic income is just neocommunism. Anyone who doesn't see that is a moron.

/thread

but you aren't explaining how you can cut it in half with some magic tax that will create revenue without increasing taxes