Can someone explain why this would be a good idea at all? Sounds like a mess.
Their reasoning is that it'll "eradicate poverty", but that's literally impossible. I'm no economics student, but I definitely know something here doesn't add up.
it would work but on the other hand it would cause inflation which would make the income useless
Ethan Fisher
>/pols/ economic understanding
Charles Green
Worthless. It means higher wages for workers, but less people in work. Just like lifting nmw.
Lucas Cruz
But how? Wouldn't it just make the people who are reliant on panhandling just reliant on government handouts? It sounds like it's incentivizing niggerism.
Mason Sullivan
no its terrible and would reduce working incentive but the actual effect would be the poor would now have more money to spend which would mean prices would raise because of too much money chasing too few goods and this would continue until inflation had reached a level that the amount of income equals and will be worth nothing
Kevin Ortiz
It depends; the problem with what you're implying is more of what the source of the money is.
If the government were to merely print money, then yes, you'd be right.
But if the money is coming from the already defined taxation in the government budget, then it does not increase the money supply.
For example, instead of having >socialized healthcare >socialized housing/rent controls >Welfare/whatever bullshit
You would replace it with a basic income which would essentially be removed from those who do not need it through tax, and provide the same benefits for those who do need them. Infact, it might actually be better for those same people incentive wise as they can now use the income for purposes other than basic survival.
John Taylor
We are going to try it too. It is more simple than our current social welfare system, as the current system makes people passive and makes "doing nothing" better option. It's harder and harder to find a permanent job, it's mostly part-time stuff with 15 hours/week etc. So the better option is just to live on welfare instead working. I'm welcoming it because anything is better than the current system and basically punishes you for working. It would also remove social workers from jobs where they go through welfare applications and put them to jobs where they can focus more on customer on personal level.
Kayden Green
This - UBI is actually a decent idea if you replace social programs with a handout.
Then it becomes the persons responsibility to manage that money
Isaiah Myers
its a good idea, and necessary due to most people becoming increasingly economically useless due to automation. There are many papers by respected economists exalting its virtues but it is a complicated subject which requires an understanding of economics at that level, otherwise you just get knee jerk idiot responses based on a child's understanding of economics and society like
Landon Long
>Then it becomes the persons responsibility to manage that money R...RR.... RESPONSIBILITY ?? I don't think we can handle that in the western world, dude.
In all seriousness, it's a good idea but niggers will ruin it in one way or another. The first scenario I can think of is a tear jerker story of how Tyrone wasted all his income in one day on alcohol and drugs and now the poor thing has nothing to eat for 29 days! ;_; fucking government man, letting people die like this waaaah
Jack Bailey
Blue = basic income Red = Salary after taxing Green = Taxes from salary
Daniel Williams
How is that any different than just lowering taxes?
Jaxson Clark
On the federal budget? Not much. For the gainfully employed? Not much. For those who had no real income to speak of it? You can't lower taxes on income that isn't taxed.
Jaxson Russell
You guys fail to see the problem with this?
Sup Forums knows the effect welfare has had in the black community.
What will be the purpose of starting a family if this really becomes policy?
Every mother will be a single mother.
Juan Nguyen
Left-wingers have been trying to destroy the Western world and capitalism they hate for several decades, and this is just the last attempt at that. They are cashing in on the fears of millenials who have been alienated from working life and are worried about getting a job.
The proposal itself is... well, the proposals are all over the place. That way when you point out monumental flaws with one proposal, they can go "AHA, but you are not talking about BASIC INCOME version X!". In any discussion about Basic Income that attempts to go into any level of detail there will be multiple highly contradictory assertions of what it means.
Easton Evans
>Socialist Union comes up with a retarded economic policy Wow! Stop the presses!
Asher Jones
It creates more consumers, which is good for their business.
Brandon Richardson
Wow lots of blue pilled people in here, guess it's summer afterall
Basic income is one step closer towards communism, it's to make the population more dependent on the government, which makes you more easily manipulated and vulnerable
Levi Johnson
>The first scenario I can think of is a tear jerker story of how Tyrone wasted all his income in one day on alcohol and drugs and now the poor thing has nothing to eat for 29 days! ;_; fucking government man, letting people die like this waaaah
Indeed.
First you implement this programme under the promise of a massive cost cut of all forms of means testing and investigation of individual circumstances.
Then Tyrone shows up and says he spent all his money on drugs.
You don't have any employees to investigate that claim.
Some leftists would assert that they would let Tyrone die in the streets. This is obviously not what would happen - instead, we would get a welfare apparatus with free money as well.
Ryan Long
>it's to make the population more dependent on the government, which makes you more easily manipulated and vulnerable No it makes you more independent than current system. But I'm not surprised American is shocked with anything that might be related to "communism". American life = wealth, fake, plastic life. No real care for your nation and its people.
Cameron Johnson
Yup. And consuming is not the best for actual growth.
Brody Wright
It's a NEETS wet dream
Nicholas Cox
So best case scenario, we eliminate poverty, and everyone just starts doing better.
I think the worst thing about it for me is theres little to no return in investment. My understanding of government intervention in the economy was to stimulate economic growth. If UBI takes off and even 10% of the workforce drops out, there would be a massive hit to the amount of new money being created.
I feel like a factory town system similar to the one used in the American progressive Era would be more beneficial because although no new money is made within the town, their labor increased the value of the company in a market.
Anthony Gonzalez
Economics student.
Basic income is pretty gud. Removes inefficient bureaucracy from government by removing other social program, less tax on everybody, more economic growth.
Nathan Clark
How does being paid back by a system you pay into make you more independent? Did you mean interdependent?
Noah Scott
Because current system is full of bureaucracy which controls you more. It's also better option for people who want to start a business, and most backing for it comes from enterpreneurs who we need the most right now.
Brandon Nguyen
I think I understand what you're saying now.
So by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other social services, you're lowering taxes, and giving everyone a flat rate. Why is this billed as something that'll help poor people though? It seems like if anything it would destroy them by forcing them to be self sufficient.
Camden Ward
Capitalism was a step for human progress but it has become more and more inefficient at dealing with worlds problems. Countries including the United States is simply drowning in debt and the unsustainable growth economy is slowing down globally. This causes interest rates to flat line and banks to struggle to make any profits, sooner or later it'll be up to government to bail them out at the expense of people.
Technological unemployment is accelerating at scary speed and is now approaching the point where it can replace half of the population. Increasing minium wages will only accelerate this as there's really no incentive in capitalism to keep people employed. If people can't make a living how are they supposed to keep consuming more and more to keep the system a float? Climate change and all the waste and pollution we are producing is also becoming very problematic. You might not think it's a problem as a lot of the waste is hauled to poor countries in Africa causing all sorts of health problems.
Biggest flaw in capitalism is that it benefits from problems, more there are problems the more opportunities for problems there are. Why work on a medicine that could cure a disease like aids when it's a lot more profitable to just keep them buying more and more pills just to stay alive?
Trade unions (the big ones at least) are fucking retarded and exist as political lobbying groups and funding bodies for the Labour party, not to represent the interests of their members.
Anyone who is unironically a member of Unite, Unison, the NUS, the NUT, the BMA, the NFU, the NASUWT or any other 'major' union should top themselves and save the rest of us the trouble of dealing with their shit
James Martinez
Basic income is a step towards something better and something more sustainable as it will simply keep people content with their lives by providing them at least the bare necessities.
Food, water and health.
Charles Jenkins
Only works if you close the borders indefinitely to immigrants who aren't going to get jobs.
Lucas Nelson
It's not not cutting all services, for example housing allowances. Right now it takes time for social workers to count what kind of housing allowance you're allowed to get based on your income and rent, basic income removes this part. But the problematic part is our welfare system that only increases unemployment. It's because more and more people are working part-time, or on temporary/freelance basis. These people are caught in the middle, there is no point in taking even temporary job because it means you lose all your NEETbux for basically nothing. Before unemployment meant temporary periods between long term employment, now it's long term unemployment with some temporary jobs. Our social security system is built based on those times and now it's cracking because times change.
It's a reasonable idea because, if we're being honest, we don't actually need everyone to work a 40 hour week.
Productivity per person is achieved at above the rate needed for one person so you end up with a fairly big surplus, loads of jobs these days are 15 hours of work and 25 hours of bullshit, why not give everyone a basic income and move to part time work instead? Productivity wouldn't suffer, we'd just be admitting what already happens.
Angel Rivera
>implying being dependent on big corporations is better
Noah Carter
First Trump increased the summer Redditor inflow, now we've been flooded by Marxists.
If I wanted /leftypol/ I wouldn't have left 8ch
Hudson Young
Wait so are you saying it's bad now? You just said the social danger outweighs the social cost.
Jayden Roberts
No. I'm talking about our current social security system which is bad.
Nicholas Flores
Don't worry, this will never become a thing in the USA. Finns are not American and Americans are not Finns. We have different values.