Universal Income = "only solution when robots finally take our jobs"

[Elegiac]

Well it can increase whatever it wants in theory, in reality, even if you ignore the fact that its unfair, then most bigger companies will just go where taxes arent high and you get nothing. Only the middle class will suffer.

Cool story; why aren't said companies moving en masse to Somalia or Pakistan?

Oh, right. Because consumption is what drives economic health; those businesses and the people who acquire wealth from them only exist because of the market demand that a strong consumer class provides.

[Deleted]

Cool story; why aren't said companies moving en masse to Somalia or Pakistan?

Oh, right. Because consumption is what drives economic health; those businesses and the people who acquire wealth from them only exist because of the market demand that a strong consumer class provides.

Cause everything is made in China.. for a reason

[Elegiac]

Cause everything is made in China.. for a reason

Yes, said reason being nothing to do with tax rates but in fact the cost of labor.

[Deleted]

Yes, said reason being nothing to do with tax rates but in fact the cost of labor.

Yep and do we have super high taxes on the 1%? Nope.. so your point is?

[Elegiac]

Yep and do we have super high taxes on the 1%? Nope.. so your point is?

My point is that the whole 'we shouldn't tax the wealthy because businesses will leave the country' line is just wrong. Businesses are here because America has a relatively strong consumer class.

[Deleted]

My point is that the whole 'we shouldn't tax the wealthy because businesses will leave the country' line is just wrong. Businesses are here because America has a relatively strong consumer class.

And also relatively low taxes on the rich.

[Fencers]

If we could reach a point where ALL labor is done by machines, we might not need the concept income at all. Somewhat like Star Trek, we humans would be free to just be and pursue knowledge.

[Army Dreamer]

I'd rather have those people get educations and be useful than to get handouts for being alive and useless.

All true. Just a questions: "Do you have the job for all these educated people?"

[Deleted]

If we could reach a point where ALL labor is done by machines, we might not need the concept income at all. Somewhat like Star Trek, we humans would be free to just be and pursue knowledge.

Well I think the Star Trek system is flawed and idealistic and assumes everyone is a nice, dutiful person. I mean watch the movies, there are obviously cops there.. and people working in labs.. and doing a large number of other boring ass jobs, like sitting in the engine room with Scotty all day. Assuming they dont do it for money if the alternative is to just have fun all day. Well ,you see my point:P

[Kelathos]

I come at it from a "How will it affect me?" perspective. If the basic income is implemented, will everyone get it? If so, who's paying for it?

Current budget is $4 trillion. Basic income easily fits inside that budget, with over a trillion to spare.

[Elegiac]

And also relatively low taxes on the rich.

Yes, which is made evident by how much weaker the American consumer class is becoming by the year.

[Deleted]

Yes, which is made evident by how much weaker the American consumer class is becoming by the year.

You know what, theres no point in arguing with lefties. Lets just agree to disagree.

[Mistame]

seems to be the way of the world

i dont care what is better for everybody, what is better for ME

Why would anyone agree to a system that is a net loss for them?

Current budget is $4 trillion. Basic income easily fits inside that budget, with over a trillion to spare.

Sure, if you can eliminate 3/4 of the rest of the spending.

[Elegiac]

Why would anyone agree to a system that is a net loss for them?

Because the net monetary loss is more than made up for in the net gain from the social and economic benefits of minimum income.

Sure, if you can eliminate 3/4 of the rest of the spending.

Or we can just increase the spending.

[Mistame]

Because the net monetary loss is more than made up for in the net gain from the social and economic benefits of minimum income.

A net loss covers everything. I've no concern for "social and economic benefits" that don't directly affect me.

Or we can just increase the spending.

We're already operating at a deficit.

[Deleted]

You know what, theres no point in arguing with lefties. Lets just agree to disagree.

Right, so basically Large corporations make Billions of dollars in places like America and Europe. You think taxing them a small part of their Billions will suddenly make all these large corporations STOP making their billions by leaving the markets they have profits in?

Sounds like you're just grabbing excuses to suck corporate dick.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Aren't there plenty of professions that CAN'T be filled by robots though? I was watching some House program on TV and they were visiting an old factory where they were producing silk fabrics, and several parts of that production still need human eyes, hands and feelings to work to this day.

Not to mention all the service jobs that require the thought process of a human being and the ability to make decisions based on all variables, not just a code.

[Elegiac]

A net loss covers everything. I've no concern for "social and economic benefits" that don't directly affect me.

Cool, in which case your 'direct detriment' can be ignored when it comes to formulating policy.

We're already operating at a deficit.

It's this wonderful thing called increasing revenues.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't there plenty of professions that CAN'T be filled by robots though? I was watching some House program on TV and they were visiting an old factory where they were producing silk fabrics, and several parts of that production still need human eyes, hands and feelings to work to this day.

Not to mention all the service jobs that require the thought process of a human being and the ability to make decisions based on all variables, not just a code.

For a lot of the 'handicraft' professions, the issue isn't that they "cannot" be automated; the issue is that it isn't remotely cost effective to do so yet. It's likely if not certain that at some point in the future someone might develop an effective array of machines that can produce high quality silk consistently at lower cost than human manufacturers. The same thing goes for service professions; when is the last time you actually had to go to a physical bank teller for anything but the most exceptional of your financial service needs?

There will always be a place for handcrafted products, but that's purely for luxury items.

[Mistame]

Cool, in which case your 'direct detriment' can be ignored when it comes to formulating policy.

Just as I'll "ignore" the detriment to the system should the policy make it more beneficial for me to contribute less. /shrug

It's this wonderful thing called increasing revenues.

And if you'd done more than cherry-pick my comment, you'd have seen that I originally asked where we'd get the increased revenue from and that the comment you quoted was from someone who implied using existing revenues. Pay attention or piss off.

[Elegiac]

And if you'd done more than cherry-pick my comment, you'd have seen that I originally asked where we'd get the increased revenue from and that the comment you quoted was from someone who implied using existing revenues. Pay attention or piss off.

And it was a big assumption on your part that it couldn't be covered by existing discretionary spending since, point in fact, Universal Income would also replace a lot of other public assistance programs like SNAP.