Universal Basic Income

More money = less birthrate
more money + less birthrate = less poverty + less poor births
less poverty + less poor births = more redpilling

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QxUzTW5dM4o
youtube.com/watch?v=46xxzqded7o
youtube.com/watch?v=GL0zMBpPHNA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

not all lives matter

Get a job hippy

>less birthrate
>good
In majority white countries the birthrates are already too low. This would encourage the lowlife scum to continue having more babies to get more gibs like they already do.

More money= more birth rate
Basic income=/= less poor
Welfare(current)= basic income
Welfare= more poor births
Welfare= more poverty


Money=/= wealth
Basic income=/= more money
Basic income= inflation
Poor= Still just as poor

>More money = less birthrate
Except it doesn't if you are a mormon or a Islamist.
What do people spend their money on?
Buying up properties to Airbnb those who DONT have universal basic income and shit out 50 kids?
I like the idea but it has to come with responsibilities.

The gretest problem is cultural.
If universities were not indoctrination centers then i would advocate free education.

What is inflation?

If everyone is given say, a free $3000 a month by the government, so they can pay for a place to stay, buy food, and pay their utilities, while allowing the receiver to have a little pocket money for whatever, what do you think would happen to the price of goods and services?

Here's a hint: You end up having more money chasing the same amount of goods and services.

And here's the answer: Inflation. Everything goes up in cost.

Soon, the government has to give everyone $4000 a month just for them to buy the same amount of goods and services. When the government DOES increase the universal basic income, guess what happens then?

Rinse and repeat.

Universal basic income is not the answer. Its a trap to government issuing ration or ration coupons for food, rent, and basic services.

Your paymasters aren't getting their moneys worth if this is the best you can do. The bernout retards who did it for free made a better case than you OP.

>More money = less birthrate
What? Wouldn't this mean more birthrate since the more kids they pop out the more income they get? Or does "universal" only apply to adults?

>There are useless pieces of shit who are happy to live off welfare
>Give them 'basic income instead'
>Give me who works 120 hours a fortnight $3000 a month
>I keep working because $3000 a month lol
>Get taxed higher to pay for more $3000 a month bogans
>Can't complain because OMGLOL BASIC INCOME ITS A HOOMAN RITE!
>The faster we have kids the faster they can hit the minimum age for basic income!
>good idea

>take money away from everyone
>give the money back to everyone

lefty Sup Forums gtfo out of this thread

youtube.com/watch?v=QxUzTW5dM4o

youtube.com/watch?v=46xxzqded7o

Watch this shit you cognitive dissonant fucks

There will be a rise in costs, but that will level out.

Because a new class is being created.
A new class that people will market to.
You will have the upper, middle, and lower class, as well as the new no-income class.

Say, for instance, the price of good quality bread, which is marketed towards the middle class, would go up in priceonce UBI is implemented.
But a business would still profit from marketing their shitastic low quality bread to people with no income.

People will market to the no income class.

The food they can afford will be of the lowest quality, but at least they aren't starving.
The housing they can afford would be of the lowest quality, but at least they aren't out on the streets.

reddit pawn detected

Free money = jobless slobs
Jobless slobs = sluts = more births (but only kids guaranteed to grow up to be more jobless slobs\sluts
Positive feedback until collapse

fucking commie.

youtube.com/watch?v=QxUzTW5dM4o

>Everyone is guaranteed $2,000 a month!
>OMG why is soda $900 a can?!

UBI is interesting because its a rather right wing solution to the social safety net problem.

It can be argued that the current system of welfare is very left wing because it treats people differently based on their income.

However, UBI is a system that treats everyone the same no matter what their income is.
When you combine UBI with flat tax, you end up with a system that is completely blind to status. It doesn't "punish" the rich and "reward" the poor.

I think that's why both sides of the political spectrum find the idea fascinating.
It's popular among leftist thinkers because it cares for the most vulnerable citizens, and its popular among rightist thinkers because of that aforementioned fairness.

But not all of the poor are humble. A lot of them would still try to live beyond their means. Even with universal income, they would still complain about being poor.

Of course they would.
But the point is, they wouldn't be on the streets.
They wouldn't be starving.

I think that even if UBI didn't erradicate homelessness, it would help the cause.
Private charitable organizations that want to set up a homeless shelter could charge people $50 a night and make a profit helping people, rather than just relying on donations.

Who pays the income?

>The food they can afford will be of the lowest quality, but at least they aren't starving.
Nobody is starving in the US. We haven't had a single person, not even homeless, die of starvation in decades.

>tries explaining economics
>doesn't know what inflation means

1/10

that pic
kek

That is solely due to the current welfare system though.

Without it, there would be starvation.

Yes, lets pay people for doing nothing. What could possibly go wrong?

Wrong. We have massive amounts of charity work and food drives to ensure nobody goes hungry. We produce so much food we have an insane surplus.

What happens when you post this on facebook?

Fuck off shareblue
Its a thinly disguised slide directly into communism

Garbage concept that would never work in reality, and which the mere consideration of betrays an extreme deficit in understanding.

That said, if I got that extra $3k just once, it would completely change my life, and those of several others.

>mfw

So it's basically the government paying trashtier companies indirectly?

I'm still not convinced.
Maybe you're right.

But food drives can only go so far.
It still doesn't fix the problem of shelter.
Or transport, which is important for getting back into the workforce.

Nice post.

I quite like UBI because it seems like the first step towards phasing out income tax entirely (via flat tax) in favour of land- and consumption-based taxes.

>But food drives can only go so far.
Far enough that nobody starves.
>It still doesn't fix the problem of shelter.
You're right, a removal of the welfare state and massive reduction in government interference in all markets would.
Obviously not for the majority of those currently on welfare but the damage has already been done thanks to the liberal party. Those people will never contribute again.
>Or transport
There's a crazy amount of expenditure on public transport. You can take a bus cross country for pocket change. Not an issue.

I do think it could work, but you'd need to scrap pretty much all other social programs and make it a pretty low amount. You can't have people living comfortably on it even if it covers the basics.

It won't mean a thing because whatever amount it is just becomes the new $0.

I would defintely vote for Basic Income

That's only true if you eliminate welfare at the same time. Otherwise, it's totally a handout, i.e., leftist.

Also, who the fuck are you quoting? sage

Basic income teaches people that they get what they need for living for nothing. No logical person would think that this is a good idea, life is not a utopia where you sit around in togas listening to harp music and eating grapes all day.

I think basic income will make a lot of sense if/when technology advances enough that scarcity is not a real issue and there is not meaningful work for most of the population to do.

We're not really at that point yet though.

>You're right, a removal of the welfare state and massive reduction in government interference in all markets would.

Yeah, well, I think this libertarian solution is the main rival to UBI.
And we have no idea which one would work better. We can only make conjecture.

That's not how it works. The money is not "free", it's generated from the taxes if others. If you buy groceries for $100 out of the free money, the grocery store still makes $100. It's not like new money is printed, the amount of money in the system remains the same.

>And we have no idea which one would work better
We had the free market system for a very long time and it worked extremely well.
Then we went full retard around 1920 and never recovered.

>everyone is happy with the minimum

lmao you're a special kid.

>If you buy groceries for $100 out of the free money, the grocery store still makes $100
Which is then taxed and redistributed to them.
>It's not like new money is printed, the amount of money in the system remains the same.
As if we could be printing money any faster.

you are special as well, you would have lost wars if you didn't abandon gold standard.

As companies use more robots tax the company profits more and distribute to the now liberated humanity.

Regarding babies/wealth:

There is a ~100 year cycle. Its basis is demographics caused by the baby boom/bust. We cycle between left and right philosophy in this cycle. The left is "emotion > logic", the right is "logic > emotion". when society is younger it is more left due to lack of experience, when society is older it is more right due to experience. Women are more left because they have less neurons in the cerebral cortex than men. Women voting swings society more left.
When the baby boom causes a subsequent economy boom governments collect more tax and get more in debt because they assume every economic problem is fixed and past problems wont return. The boom creates wealth and the faith in wealth protecting their old age stops dependency on children as a safety net for old age. Contraception and abortion etc rises.
The lack of children causes economic decline. Governments "solve" this with immigration. The continual economic decline increases immigration until it disrupts society. Tensions rise, international tensions rise as countries fight over debt, dwindling markets and resources. Governments start propaganda about all internal problems are caused by external agencies. This propaganda eventually is believed. Wars happen. Infrastructure destruction and wealth destruction resets the economies, building and baby making start again. Economic expansion occurs, baby making stops, eventual decline happens again.
100 year cycle. We are at approx 1917 in the cycle. You can now see the future and why nationalism is rising and why Trump is seen as Hitler. We are just reactions in this repeating cycle.
We just passed peak left, now we head right until about 2050.

>you would have lost wars
You mean like those 2 world wars before dropping the gold standard, you dunce?

>gibs me dat

That's why so many libs fight for 15 instead of fighting for a better job, right?

>Which is then taxed and redistributed to them
Yeah, but this doesn't mean that it's zero. They still make a hundred bucks off of the deal, the amount of money being spent is the same and no new money is being added into the system (okay I mean it is now, but ideally it wouldn't be).

UBI would preferably not give everyone the equivalent of $15 an hour full-time work. I'd think it would be somewhere in the $1000 a month area, which equates to around $6 or $7 an hour, which is technically liveable if you're willing to go to a small city, get a bachelor apartment, and not go out to eat.

No fuck off
It will create dependancy on the state which is bad

A higher tax rate due to UBI nonsense would lead to less financial capital for businesses to invest in others as well as an inflation in price to compensate. What this means is that the new number is the same as the old one.
Not only that, but the money is doing this:
People -> Government -> People -> Business -> Government -(...)
None of the money from UBI is being reinvested in the economy because it's being taxed straight back out after being spent. As such it's essentially a wasteful currency that hurts our economy even more in the long-run.

Forward to what end?

>spend all ""gold"" on wars
>remove gold standard
>???
>profit

>so many libs
>everyone
Fucking hell do you even read what you type?

>spend all ""gold"" on wars
Should've heeded your aposematism. Won't be replying further to bold-faced lies.

To the people saying "Oh, if living off basic income is an option, why would anyone get a job at all"

You're wrong. The majority of people will always want a job. The majority of people will always want more than the absolute bare minimum.
The best motivator for working isn't the threat of starvation or homelessness. It's wanting more for yourself and your family. It's wanting to feel worthwhile and not like you are stagnating. No one aspires to live in a sharehouse for the rest of their lives. Nor do they want to live paycheck to paycheck. If UBI was implemented, employment would still be seen as something desirable and the majority of people would still work.

My country, Australia, proves this.

If you think the welfare system in your country is too permissive or generous, you wouldn't believe what we have in Australia.
We have this thing called "Newstart Allowance", which, unlike other forms of welfare around the world, isn't temporary or time limited. You can be on it indefinately. You can get up to $1200 a month, and all you have to do is, every week, submit a list of jobs you applied to to the social service office, which no one even checks.
And yet people here are still getting jobs. Our unemployment is only 5.6%. Pretty average for a western nation. Despite the rediculous system, 95% of people want jobs, and our businesses aren't hurting for employees. How much of that 5.6% do you think are voluntarily unemployed?

People will still get jobs.

>companies taxed like 50% to pay for free shit
>company costs increase, labour costs increase, productivity decreases
>people now have more demand for good and services because they have more free money
>higher demand + reduced supply = higher market value of goods and services


the UBI is just socialism and it will inevitably lead to the same thing socialism always leads to - poverty and state control

Well ideally I'd get rid of social security and pretty much everything like that and just say "tough luck" if you die, but few others want that so I think this is a better option.

UBI suffers from the same problems as any social assistance in that you're right that the money is largely useless besides providing people a baseline amount of money, but that's already happening. If you scrapped healthcare and all welfare as well as getting rid of a lot of bureaucrats trying to manage everyone's welfare I imagine you'd come up with a lot of money to use. Sure, probably not completely enough to give everyone money, but there is a lot of waste there that would be eliminated and this would be a completely fair distribution of resources.

>Majority
We already have a large enough minority living off my tax dollar. Fuck off.

>say stupid shit
>get called out
>no arguments

Let me guess, you are just a dumb nigger?

It should be low enough to force people into some form of part time work and high enough to pay for the bare minimum people need to survive

>Well ideally I'd get rid of social security
>If you scrapped healthcare and all welfare as well as getting rid of a lot of bureaucrats trying to manage everyone's welfare I imagine you'd come up with a lot of money to use.
At least we agree there, but I think the solution is a rolling back of this dopey legislation and not some potentially worse replacement that'll be even harder to beat out of people's minds. If it's already this hard to convince people that the government spending their hard-earned cash on forever unemployed niggers is bad, imagine how hard it would be if everyone was getting that cash.

>We already have a large enough minority living off my tax dollar.

Can you show proof of your tax returns and how much of your money has actually gone to anyone?

I am legit interested in your YYUUGE contribution in taxes.

Only 5% of the US is unemployed.

And again, how many of them do you think are voluntarily unemployed?
Half if you're being generous.

But that's the thing, if everyone gets paid they can't complain. Actually, yes they probably will, but I hope it would get rid of some of that. Retarded programs funnelling tons of money into "at-risk" groups would be met with the rebuttal that they all get the same basic amount of money, and once it's working people could role it back or remove it without all this guilt. Compressing everything into one would make the argument a lot easier too, now we'd only be arguing over one issue. I'd also hope it would open up the government to lower or remove the minimum wage, since now everyone is already getting something. Personally, I don't think it's a perfect solution, but I do think it's better than the current situation and it could free up the market and be good for the future.

The unemployed aren't the only ones receiving benefits, though ideally 0% would be.
UBI is only going to exacerbate that number and a return to free market capitalism and not this moronic economy we have going right now would lead to a much greater pool of available work as no-skill niggers are no longer priced out of the job market entirely.

what is this math equation you are trying to shill? It's like anti-logic 101. It makes no sense at all, stoner.

There is nothing right wing or fair about stealing money from productive people to pay for useless people to jack off and smoke weed all day because they have no incentive to be functional.

>and once it's working people could role it back or remove it without all this guilt. Compressing everything into one would make the argument a lot easier too, now we'd only be arguing over one issue.
I think that it would just become the new minimum wage argument where it always comes down to "how high should it be" and never " should it exist".
While it may become just "one argument" I think that feasibly it would end up costing us more in the long-run than our current stupid programs that we can at the very least chip away at bit by bit to lighten the load over time.

Didn't you see this documentary?

youtube.com/watch?v=GL0zMBpPHNA

Well if its such a great idea, you can set up a voluntary charity and pay out of that instead of funding it by stealing the money from people who disagree with you. I think it could be a fantastic idea but why dont you put your own money on that bet before forcing others to subsidize your fantasies?

Actually if you are on Newstart Allowance for too long and also are of a certain age you will be forced to work for slave wages.

The problem is its the responsible, esucated, employed people that arent breeding, because they worry about money and security.

The shit-thick retards, welfare queens and muslims continue to breed like rats because they have their gibsmedats.

It might I suppose, but I don't see the current ones being chipped down. At least over here in leafland they're just getting more and more regulated. Hopefully Trump does something for you guys over there, and maybe we'll finally get a decent Prime Minister, but for now it seems that it's just getting higher and higher even when you have a Republican in office.