Basic Income

Redpill me on basic income Sup Forums

It seems like a really good idea, but at the same time isn't it just giving them some of their taxes back? Why not just implement tax cuts?

Other urls found in this thread:

crookedtimber.org/2009/06/02/the-basic-income-grant-experiment-in-namibia/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nobody has any comments?

I feel like this could be the next big liberal idea. It's worth discussing.

Because Tax cuts would imply that the people getting basic income had jobs with which they earn money.

Also, granting basic income and taxing it is a way for the government to expand their "tax base" and improve their credit rating, even though it doesn't actually, you know, do anything.

If Universal Basic Income meant not having to pay for anymore programs, it'd be fine, but once some retard pisses their entire income away and starts bitching about starving then they'll have the same programs as before, but with even more money being pissed away.

>Why not just implement tax cuts?

because they want to give the money to people who don't pay taxes too

this means a government willing to print money forever with no real backing and hand it out like it matters

or

lots of taxes to the point where working does not equal advancement anymore since you'll make basically the same as the guy who does not because your taxes pay him too

/thread

>once some retard pisses their entire income away and starts bitching about starving then they'll have the same programs as before, but with even more money being pissed away.
I'm not sure that this is guaranteed at all. Conservatives still exist and have political pushing power.

this is just slavery with a makeover

we work so 3rd worlders can eat

>"AND JUST LET THEM DIE!??!"
If you implement UBI, you're going to end up having to pay for programs anyway.
In-kind-aid will remain the only efficient way of not letting impoverished people die in the streets.

I can't as easily trade 4 packets of instant mashed potatoes for crack as I can $10.

I can't as easily drink away $1000 of job training as I can $1000.

You get me? The issue is with the people who piss the money away. Not with the people who'd spend it responsibly.

Seems like a poor idea, that requires stealing from the rich and giving to the lazy.

>"AND JUST LET THEM DIE!??!"
"we aren't letting them die, we are literally giving hem money"

Another marxist trick promoted by left liberals.

And when they run out of the money? Drugs and alcohol are expensive.

stupid marxist pipedream of morrons who think that "just give everyone money lmao xDDD" somehow would be a good idea.

>Why not just implement tax cuts?
One of the ways BI could be implemented is AS a negative tax rate.

>Be dindu
>Receive $3500 neetbux on 1st may
>Legit starving to death on 9th may, $ spent on hoes, crack and "investments"
>Actually, there 64 like me in this town

Your move
Ubi-fag

A basic income could work in a society with closed boarders, and a government that stopped companies from leaving the United States or penalized them for it. You can't have open boarders and a welfare state though.

Basic income has already been tried. The Romans had something close to it with free grain for the citizens of Rome (shipped in from Egypt). It didn't improve the lives of the plebs. It didn't increase the productivity of the plebs. It didn't do much of anything other than placate them while the Roman state became more and more decadent and corrupt.

The premise of basic income is that the people will make good use of the money and pay for food and rent. But if they need dem programs then they won't make good use of it anyway, so they'll blow money on useless shit.

Also you're forcing others to work/pay for other people's lifestyle without their consent, which is pretty much the definition of slavery.

Like that old Greek quote, some philosopher saying no one should work, all food should be free and people should have a roof, then another asks then who's going to provide the food and goods? And the first guy replies "Well the slaves of course."

Meme made of NEET dreams
This is correct

No one on this board knows 2 fucks about economics, it's like this canacuck:

Murray proposes that "every American citizen age 21 and older would get" $10,000 per year "deposited electronically into a bank account in monthly installments." along with essentially a $3,000 per year health insurance voucher.

The most important part of Murray's proposal: UBI completely replaces
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare.

There is a lot to commend this idea. First, it would reduce the dramatic waste in the current system:
Under my UBI plan, the entire bureaucratic apparatus of government social workers would disappear
Moreover, the bulk of government spending now does not go to people who are really poor. SSI and medicare go to old people, many of whom are quite well off. Housing subsidies such as the mortgage interest deduction go to people with big mortgages and big tax rates -- nor poor people. Murray doesn't really emphasize this point, but his proposal is far more progressive than the current transfer system.

Second, it would reduce the very high disincentives of the current system, which traps people.
Under the current system, taking a job makes you ineligible for many welfare benefits or makes them subject to extremely high marginal tax rates. Under my version of the UBI, taking a job is pure profit with no downside until you reach $30,000—at which point you’re bringing home way too much ($40,000 net) to be deterred from work by the imposition of a surtax.

>cont

If I read Murray correctly, he takes away $3,500 of the benefit between $30,000 and $60,000, which is an 11.6% surtax. That applies on top of the Federal 25% marginal rate, 16% payroll tax, state income and payroll taxes and so forth. So not zero, but it is a lot less disincentive than many current programs.

Both considerations place the proposal not in the "perfect world" category, but "how can we do what we're trying to do now a lot more effectively." So, evaluate it as such.

The biggest problem in the argument is the biggest selling point: We trade a check -- even much more than $10,000 -- for complete elimination of everything else.
A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. If the guaranteed income is an add-on to the existing system, it will be as destructive as its critics fear.
There are a lot of these "big trades" on the table, and there should be more. A big carbon tax, in return for complete elimination of all the regulatory nudges and crony energy related subsidies. A VAT in return for complete elimination of income, corporate, estate, and other taxes. Lots of infrastructure money in return for elimination of Davis-Bacon, endless legal challenges EPA reviews, and other regulations, strict cost-benefit analysis rather than subsidized anachronisms, and so on.

>cont

In all these much simpler cases, the deal doesn't get off the ground. Will the "right" allow a big enough carbon tax? Will the "left" really get rid of their subsidies? Will the "right" really allow a large enough VAT? Will the "left" really not just pile all the other taxes back on top? Making these deals is hard enough even when both sides admit the deal would be good.

That case is going to be even harder here. The "left" has not even thought about the deal, let alone agreed in principle with only trust issues remaining! The Swiss referendum [sad aside on media: it was really hard to find the actual text!] made no mention at all of a swap -- it was pure basic income on top of other social programs.

Programs will remain tempting, because a flat basic income is not close to the "perfect world" social insurance system, or even common sense. We want to give more help to people who need more help. That lets us be more generous to those who do need help, and contains moral hazard that people who don't really need help should be working and paying taxes to supply help. Social security goes to old people, because old people objectively are less able to work. Disability goes to disabled people, because it's harder for them to work as well. Unemployment insurance goes to people who just lost jobs, we know they are more likely to have suffered a bad shock. Insurance payments go to people whose houses have burned down.

>cont

These social insurance programs are indeed ineffective, bureaucratically bloated, and do a terrible job of picking who really needs help from who doesn't. But UBI takes a pretty extreme view that the project is completely hopeless, and the Government should do no conditioning at all, other than reported income:
Government agencies are the worst of all mechanisms for dealing with human needs. They are necessarily bound by rules applied uniformly to people who have the same problems on paper but who will respond differently to different forms of help.
Well, ok, but the call of the better world will be hard to resist, and the "left" has far from accepted that bureaucracies are "the worst" mechanism for sorting the needy from the less needy.

There will still be unfortunate people, they will still need help, and our electorate will still demand programs to help them. Disability: Ok, it's grown out of control, but some people really are disabled. You're only going to give them $10,000 and turn your back? What about the guy who takes his check, blows it all on a weekend of meth and beer, and now is lying in the gutter, his children homeless?
Some people will still behave irresponsibly and be in need before that deposit arrives, but the UBI will radically change the social framework within which they seek help: Everybody will know that everybody else has an income stream. It will be possible to say to the irresponsible what can’t be said now: “We won’t let you starve before you get your next deposit, but it’s time for you to get your act together. Don’t try to tell us you’re helpless, because we know you aren’t.”
He goes on to extol the virtues of private charities. I don't think our electorate is ready to completely forswear all bureaucratic help. And the vine grows back.

>cont

Eliminating housing subsidies? Agricultural subsidies? "Corporate welfare?" These are all great ideas on their own. If we could do that, our economy would be in a lot better shape than it is.

A bit of paternalism is pretty ingrained in social policies, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm happier paying taxes to support food, clothes and school for the kids, and basic housing than I am to subsidize a beer and meth weekend. Murray already gives in, by restricting the first $3,000 to a health insurance voucher. If he's going to get rid of social security, he should restrict the next $1,000 to a forced savings plan. If we're going to get rid of all housing programs (a great idea) the next $2,000 is a rent/mortgage voucher.

Some paternalism is justified as a pre-commitment. We know if they blow the money, we'll enact social programs to help them after the fact.

There is a deeper problem -- and I have a constructive solution.

>paying people for simply existing
wew

You basically privatize everything (Health, transportation etc) and instead of funding those every citizen gets money.

>cont

In fact, Americans use far fewer benefits than they are eligible for. Many programs have 2% take up rates. Lots of people eligible for medicare, Obamacare subsidies, disability food stamps, welfare, home heating subsidies, and so on and so on all the way down to Palo Alto's income-based parking permit system don't take advantage of the benefits. If each American took advantage of every subsidy and social program to which he or she is entitled, the country would be bankrupt in about 10 minutes.

Why not? Well filling out the forms is a pain. And, more importantly, most people really do use social programs for a limited time. Call it a stubborn independence ethic or some remaining shame to taking assistance, it's there. For now. I fear that welfare states fall apart when the social stigma of taking the money fades.

For now, both act to limit moral hazard. If it takes a few hours and trips down to an unpleasant bureaucracy to get help, then only people who really need it are likely to ask. If there is some remaining social stigma to getting help, then only people who really need it are likely to ask -- and likely to get out as fast as possible.

>cont

Before I get howls of comments on how heartless this view is, remember the objective -- money is limited, we want to use it to help people who really need it, and if we can do something to keep out people who don't, we can be a lot more generous to those who do. If we impose some cost on people to get help, we get them to reveal who really needs it, and we can help them a lot more.

So, my major suggestion -- please, don't automatically send the check to every American the minute they turn 21! Don't send it to my kids! At least, make people go down to a dull and dirty office, stand in line, fill out a long form, and repeat once a year.

Murray limits the benefit once you get to $30,000 per year, introducing a surtax above that level. I've been mulling over a different way to limit benefits and thereby make them more generous: Limit by time, not by income. You can have an additional (say) $10,000 per year, for 5 years, at any point in your life. Most people using social programs do in fact use them to get out of trouble and back on track. Let's make that the expectation. This is not permanent income support, this is help to get out of trouble. That lets us be more generous, without blowing the budget, and without inducing as large a marginal tax rate to working.

>cont

Murray has a lot of speculation on how society will adapt to $10,000 per year check and NO other social programs.
the entire bureaucratic apparatus of government social workers would disappear, but Americans would still possess their historic sympathy and social concern. And the wealth in private hands would be greater than ever before. It is no pipe dream to imagine the restoration, on an unprecedented scale, of a great American tradition of voluntary efforts to meet human needs.
Trust private charity, with an ever-larger share of income in plutocratic hands? I don't see Bernie Sanders supporters signing on to the deal on that basis.
The known presence of an income stream would transform a wide range of social and personal interactions. The unemployed guy living with his girlfriend will be told that he has to start paying part of the rent or move out, changing the dynamics of their relationship for the better. The guy who does have a low-income job can think about marriage differently if his new family’s income will be at least $35,000 a year instead of just his own earned $15,000.
Or consider the unemployed young man who fathers a child.

Because in the US and Canada people under a certain income level pay virtually zero taxes.

Everyone pays a little bit to social security.

Anyways, why they don't do it as a tax cut has two answers, the aforementioned, that some people don't pay taxes, and also that people can change income level really fast and treating everyone the same means that people who become unemployed don't have to go to a government office and do paperwork to change their status or the online equivalent.

I'm in favor of UBI as long as it means cutting all non veteran, non disability programs.

> cont

Maybe. Maybe not. We do have some experience with corners of societies that live off government checks. We have more experience with places where lots of people don't work. Welfare neighborhoods in the 70s to mid-90s. Europeans living on the dole. Molenbeek. Saudi Arabia. By and large, places where most people live on government checks or large numbers don't work are not happy places.

One can also speculate in contrary ways. Labor markets are more and more regulated and restricted. Well, if people can all get $10,000 from the government, why fight for lower minimum wages for entry level workers, looser occupational restrictions, and so forth?

Murray also confuses the issue, and substantially weakens the case, I think, by wandering off into a soliloquy on once robots do everything there won't be any more jobs.
We are approaching a labor market in which entire trades and professions will be mere shadows of what they once were... the jobs (now numbering 4 million) that taxi drivers and truck drivers will lose when driverless vehicles take over... Advances in 3-D printing and “contour craft” technology will put at risk the jobs of many of the 14 million people now employed in production and construction...The list goes on, and it also includes millions of white-collar jobs formerly thought to be safe..
... as many as 47% of American jobs are at risk...it will need to be possible, within a few decades, for a life well lived in the U.S. not to involve a job as traditionally defined.

It is going to be a massive government controlled shit-fest, taxation will increase, people will stop working and you will degenerate the society

>cont

I think this is wrong. Murray acknowledges

I’m familiar with the retort: People have been worried about technology destroying jobs since the Luddites, and they have always been wrong.

Indeed they have. The invention of the tractor was way worse than the invention of the self-driving car for the jobs of about 70% of Americans and about 99% of everybody else at the turn of the 20th century -- farm labor. Murray writes
It takes a better imagination than mine to come up with new blue-collar occupations that will replace more than a fraction of the jobs..
It's a good thing that every time in the past we did not rely on policy writers' imaginations to come up with occupations for people. I think the answer is pretty clear: services. When robots make everything for us, then people make money supplying services to each other.

But I don't have to be right either. The deeper problem with this line of argument, common on the left, is how utterly hopeless it is, and how it contradicts Murray's case.

Hopeless: Really? Your vision for the future is that 47% of working-age Americans will be living on a $10,000 per year check from the government, doing nothing? $10,000 is not a lot of money, barely sustaining a life on the margins in pockets of poor rural america. It buys a used trailer and a six pack of beer in a place with little hope.

it's just communism lite.

it already failed btw.

some random place tried to implement it and 50% of the budget when to the government itself and the other 50% went to actual basic income.

>cont

We can do better than that! And we can. We're talking about a several decade shift in the labor force here. If services are the answer, we need to fix schools and other barriers that keep people from getting the skills needed to earn money in the service economy. We need to fix labor markets to make it easier to hire people in flexible ways and help them to develop skills on the job.

Contradictory: Murray's numbers work out (I think, I haven't checked, but it seems plausible) in today's America. But if half our labor force, and all our retired or non-working people, are living off a government check, the cost would explode past what the country could possibly support with any level of taxation.

So set this apart, recognize that adapting to automation will require getting people skills not sending them checks. And that is going to mean keeping the price system alive. It has to be crystal clear that computer programming pays more than goof off majors.

Bottom line, most of the Murray's social changes and adaptation to robot workforce is, I think, a mistake and a distraction.

A Big Deal -- along with the others -- remains attractive: Substantial cash grants and vouchers in place of many current programs -- could offer substantially more help to people who need it, with far fewer distortions. In place of middle class subsidies -- housing, college, etc. -- and corporate subsidies even better. But let's not pretend it will cure social ills, or save us from confronting labor market distortions.

The difference is in the global computer age we don't need plebs, we can rent chinese plebs and build robots.

>money is limited

False, it worked on every occasion the only problem is a succesfull village doesn't necessarily mean a succesfull macro-economy. Thus we don't know the implications on a macro-level

Basic income: another government program that will fail

You don't understand government at all. Programs don't die, they are just given more money and expanded, PARTICULARLY when they are a failure.

UBI is the nightmare of a BIG governement.

Jews don't want you to have it

Literally just the redistribution of wealth at the expense of the middle class (because the very wealthy themselves do not pay taxes).

>Don't need job to live
>I think I'll just take the NEETbux
>Actually I'll get a job
>Get job
>Get paid the same but have to work
>wtf.jpeg
>quit job

>taxpayers have to support you, slowly the bar goes up as the economy crashes and more people drop out
>Society crashes and everyone dies

If you don't understand economics then yes, it is a good idea

>it worked on every occasion
le proof chicken

If your mathematics can work for 2+2 but not something more complicated then it's no good. Either it works, either it doesn't.

You get UBI above your salary so for just working a shop clerk job you'd have a net income of 2033 dollars.

Let alone if you'd get a decent job with a wage of 1800 dollars resulting in a net income of 2600 dollars

So then what you're proposing is human storage? Just keep the plebs fed and entertained and ignore them. They deserve fulfilling lives as much as anyone, and if you can achieve that without working for it, the impetus for being productive vanishes for the vast majority of people. There will still be productive people, some people are hard-wired that way, but most will fall to the level of leeches that contribute nothing. It isn't even their fault, it's simply what the system incentivizes.

It's literally free money. That's as blue pilled as it gets.

kys commi

"we are giving them enough money to survive, if they waste it, that's on them"

crookedtimber.org/2009/06/02/the-basic-income-grant-experiment-in-namibia/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

In my country we get a basic income, all we need to do is to work

Would only work in a post scarcity society with a fully automated workforce.

So giving free money to unemployed people is bad, so we should instead give free money to everyone?

you're not reading between the lines.

All those niggers and subhumans can't survive if we let all those programs go. If you'd just give them money they'd waste it in 5 days.

Let them starve to death while we reap the spoils

>namibia
>random african country with basic income
>this retard thinks it worked
good try waffle

I have basic income.
Parents pay for everything that I need.
That's why I'm a fucking NEET.
Basic income=NEET factory

It's ethically immoral because people will exist as consumer cattle.

Basic income is alinsky welfare tactic

Why are you quoting the Namibia thing? That's not government basic income, it literally says
>where in 2004a coalitionof churches, trade unions, NGOs andAIDSorganisations decided to run a pilot project

So the only we know from that is that a private charity worked.

It's a Marxists idea trough and trough.
You will have some people doing the hard work and unwanted work being robed by people that "follow their dreams".
You should never be forced to pay anything or receive anything.

As automation makes unskilled and low skilled labor obsolete, something like this will be needed. Or we will have millions of angry, unemployable people causing all sorts of problems for society. It will happen in our lifetime. The question is how to best implement such a thing. I would be in favor of somehow putting such folks to work in some form for the good of society, just not sure how that would work

When the agricultural revolution happened, did the mass of unemployed and unemployable people revolt? No more work at the farms, left to starve. Did the government need to give out food?

No, they found jobs in the cities and then the industrial revolution happened. Same now, no more manufacturing in the west, so now people go for other types of jobs.

If you want 100% employment rate just destroy all agricultural manichery and books, tons of people will need to work in the fields then and everyone will be employed.

>It seems like a really good idea

It's not, and you need to learn about how economics work before you'll understand that.

It comes from a lack of understanding the difference between VALUE and PRICE.

Value is inherent to something and doesn't change, for example people might want to buy tires for their car, these have inherent value because they can be used to do useful things like move cars and transport goods.

The PRICE of something is how much you pay for it in whatever denomination of currency you're currently dealing with, that depends on how much money is in circulation, how much is held in assets, what the GDP is and a bunch of other factors which change reguarly.

When people say "well just give that person more money" what you're doing is the wrong thing. That person wants to be able to afford more things and have a better standard of living, but merely giving them that money doesn't achieve that, because the market re-balances and adjust the value of the currency.

What these people really need is more VALUE, they need to be educated and taught skills that allow them to produce goods and services which have real world value to other people and hence get paid money which in turn gives them more purchasing power.

Min wage just fucks people over, it drives up the entire wage band because who doing something hard for $15 an hour will continue doing a hard thing when min wage makes all the low paid jobs $15 an hour. Thus relatively wages have to increase and if wages increase so does the cost to produce products and so does the cost of living and hence all the VALUE remains the same but the costs just get shuffled around and the poor people are just as bad off, if not worse.

Yeah, when the agricultural revolution happened, the jndustrial revolution was also happening, providing for employment for unskilled/low skill workers.

When the automation revolution really takes off, ALL such labor will become obsolete.

Its not the same here. Hopefully, there will be some other labor revolution for such workers that cant be easily automated, but there is nothing obvious that fits that bill. The good news is that it should make for a huge increase of the standard of living. I'm a capitalist through and through, but i believe if we dont make sure everyone sees benefit from this automation revolution, it could be very destructive and could undermine the foundations of society.

All the labor you can think of. I'm sure the people in the medieval farms couldn't imagine the type of work in the factories, even less in offices and computers.

>I'm a capitalist
If you claim to be a capitalist but are in favor of government intervention I'm not sure you really understand the meaning of the word. The market will fix itself, maybe the few jobs that aren't automated will pay enough for women and teenagers to focus on family and school rather than find a job. Maybe new types of jobs will open up. But the reality is neither you nor I knows what's going to happen and making plans to control a situation we know nothing about isn't going to work.

Why not simply give everyone ability to print money? People would just print as much as they need to buy everything they need and everyone would be happy. We could even abolish all the banks, taxation, payroll - all this bullshit paperwork would become unnecessary and save everyone a lot of time.

People want your taxes to live on whilst doing nothing.
It's economic and cultural suicide.

Basic income is rebranded communism

The sad truth is that so many of our unskilled and low skilled workers today have only basic literacy. Millions would be totally disfunctional in office jobs or really any job that isnt mindless. Hate to sound like an elitist cunt, but thems the facts.

Education is very fucking important, and if we make sure future generations are trained in skills that cant be easily automated, the problem will be a short term one. But in the meantime, what happens to these millions of people that dont have the skills to be meaningfully productive when robots replace manual labor. I surely would rather give them a handout then have them rioting and stealing. But even better would be to put them to work in some way. I just dont know what sort of work that would be.

>paying only niggers and spics for simply existing
>wonders why whites are dying off
lad

Exactly this. It's why the phrase"making money" is important. If everyone has 10k, 10k isn't return that much. When someone makes something or provides a service they are creating value that did not exist before. Wealth redistribution creates no new value

Guy A
>works 160 hours, makes $2,000 a month
>is taxed $1,000 a month
>is given $600 a month in UBI
>is left over with $1600

Guy B
>works 30 hours, makes $400 a month
>is taxed $200 a month
>is given $600 a month in UBI
>is left over with $1000

Why would guy A work more than five times as much so he can earn a little more?

Could have the same back then, those uneducated farmers wouldn't know how to operate machinery, better give them handouts.
And how do you think automation will happen? Overnight mass of people unemployed? It'll take time and people will adjust. Just like with the agricultural and industrial revolution. Just think of lawyers and petroleum engineers. Two decades ago lawyers were very well paid, people went massively into it, supply increased, price/salary fell, people stopped going much into it, now petroleum engineering has started to drop and people don't go into it as much. People do learn to adapt to new conditions without rioting, unless they're spoiled brats like in France in which case spoiling them more with bigger handouts will worsen the matter.

I guess a true capitslist would say let such people starve and die off. But not only is that totally heartless, it would make for a shitty society filled with crime and unrest

>People do learn to adapt to new conditions without rioting
99% of people don't get this. Even college grads. They expect to be trained to work in a field and never have to expand once demand dies in that field.

Leaving taxes aside and politics, the problem with universal income is that it would actully work when implemented as a privilege and not right
But most people wouldnt want that because you would have to do something to earn it

Oh, its already happening brah. Together with globalization, which has only benefited part of society, its why we have extreme candidates like Bernie and Trump. But its going to get more extreme very quickly. Driverless cars will displace millions of jobs in the next 15 years. And many more such advances are coming too.

It's worse than that: Guy B wouldn't be taxed at all, so he would have $1200 at the end

What can you do for people who refuse to maintain, grow, and educate themselves with evey opportunity? Is it just to subsidize their existence when their ignorance and lack of will is the only thing keeping them down?

Right now, no. It's more about entitlement and not wanting to work for the lifestyle demands people think they should have.

But there should be plans getting started for when robots/AI automate most jobs.

what's preventing someone from keeping a false residency/citizenship in a basic income country, while living in a 3rd world shithole and having the money wired to you?

i'm aware basic income/mincome is coming eventually to canada. just wonder if its feasible to live outside while still collecting.

If goods are produced so easily with automation then it'll be more affordable and they won't starve, same for shelter, machines will build it cheaply and poor people will be able to afford, your whole premise just died off, or as I said in my two previous guesses, maybe one person will be enough to earn a family's income or maybe new jobs will arrive, but you don't know the future, so you can't say.

And you're heartless, you want some people to work and provide for others without their consent, that's slavery.

You forget one important thing of automation, same as the guy above. Automation makes things cheaper. Uber is destroying taxis jobs but more people can afford transportion now, driverless cars will make it even cheaper. When the agricultural revolution happened, food wasn't more scarce, it was cheaper and more available. Same with the industrial revolution what was before a luxury item is in everyone's pockets and homes. Why do you people always think goods being produced more and less expensively will make them unaffordable?

If you read Fate of Empires by John Glubb he talks about how education is only seen as the means to money at the end of empires rather than for knowledge's sake. And it's reflected in universities where people do learn just to get a job rather than really learn or look for other opportunities. It's pretty sad.

Why would they need fake papers? I saw some news article a few months ago about Moroccans going for seasonal work in the Netherlands then when they're unemployed they get welfare and it goes directly to their household in morocco and even after the guy left the Netherlands the welfare payments continue to Morocco.

Welp, now I have a great argument for this thanks user.

/thread

While at uni I saw people who were showered in free grant money to the point that they were buying gaming pcs and new consoles because they had that much to spare.

Meanwhile the middle class has to pay in full.

And these are the people who made it to college. Imagine how bad the others are.

...

There will never be enough dats to gibs.
No amount of basic income will stop ghetto poverty.

Yes automation will make for lower prices but if millions and millions are without any income or any hope for employment, things could get real hairy. Obviously none of us knows the future but in such a scenario that i'm talking shout, i think ubi makes sense and is a better solution than just letting millions subsist on food stamps and welfare. All I'm sayin

Why do you presume millions and millions will go unemployed overnight? None of the previous great changes, agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, computers, none happened that quickly, it happened at varying speeds and people learned to adapt to new conditions, for the better. Because more productivity makes for better lives, not worse ones.

>what's preventing someone from keeping a false residency/citizenship in a basic income country, while living in a 3rd world shithole and having the money wired to you?

Nothing probably unless they keep track of all money transfers. Even then cash could be used to buy bitcoins from a seller who transfers them to you. As long as there's a guy who can convert buttcoins into your local vacation spot's currency. If there's no evidence of you leaving your home country you can probably get away with it.

Pretty good summary there.

I generally agree with basic income, but I'm also worried that they're going to implement social programs once they realize that some retards are still throwing their money away. I think it would be ideal if we just took away all social assistance and cut a lot of free shit out.

the trick is that UBI should replace aid programs currently in place.

The only basic income I support is a universal consumption tax that includes a refund to a certain amount. Of course this includes establishment of all other taxes.

>Of course this includes establishment of all other taxes.
Fug, I mean abolishment

It's socialism, dude.

because those previous labor revolutions (which were very painful for many workers btw), did not involve a total displacement of all unskilled labor. I understand that it wont happen overnight and believe it is already happening and already causing problems for unskilled workers. People complain about the great decline of american manufacturing. That is totally bogus, US industrial output is increasing and is the highest its ever been. Those factiry jobs have been mostly replaced by lower paying, shitty service jobs for the most part and people are leaving the labor market. But theres a limit to how much those things can absorb.

This is retarded. If basic income is guaranteed, why should I work? Why should anyone do anything at all?

Basic income is ethically degenerate. It allows people to get paid for doing nothing. A society full of people doing nothing and still getting paid is a society that cannot function and will destroy itself.

Basic Income is not viable economically. Literally everyone would have to pay really high taxes. This would destroy the economy. This would also destroy the incentives for people taking risks since there would no longer be any financial gain. It will be diminished with huge taxes. Why should someone spend all their effort, say inventing something, when they won't get anything more from it than they would just doing nothing.

This is how I feel as well. UBI doesn't make sense to me if it's just an additional welfare program. Streamlining the whole process is supposed to be the big get from switching to UBI.

>because those previous labor revolutions (which were very painful for many workers btw)
Getting rid of an addiction is painful, doesn't mean it's bad.

>did not involve a total displacement of all unskilled labor.
Do you even know how much the agricultural revolution displaced people? And again you're contradicting yourself, if you agree it won't happen overnight then it won't be a total displacement. It'll be bits here, more bits in the future and so on. So you've nothing to worry about.