Universal basic incomes

[NED funded]

I've always wondered if there will be a point in which leisure time>working? (right now we have evidencr suggesting such phenomenon occurs, but nothing set in stone) I assume that a large enough ubi would worsen it

[melodramocracy]

That doesn't remotely follow from either of the above points.

It absolutely does. Currently I work, making money based (theoretically) off the revenue earned by the company I work for. That money when I receive my paycheck, and again when I buy products, when property tax is due, so on and so forth. The rest that is spent becomes revenue for other people indirectly, and the cycle continues.

With UBI, the money I make is not created from capitalistic revenue per se. While it may be taxed similarly after the fact based on consumption, that well is going to eventually run dry. And 'where' it originates from still isn't very clear. So you will either see generated tax revenue go down, or overall consumer consumption go down as well, introducing its own problems of course.

Again, we're dealing with a western society that believes 10% unemployment is a financial crisis situation and that our existing social safety nets not only cannot sustain that over the long term, but shouldn't be asked to because "no one should get a free ride".

Overcoming that mindset is going to prove incredibly challenging.

- - - Updated - - -

And no one here has put forth a legitimate argument as to why that is even a problem.

Do you believe that the current deficit is a problem?

[Barnabas]

http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...widely-sighing
Toughts?

Just fake news to cover for the rent extraction policies corporations won't let go of. If there was any type of mass unemployment because companies decided to do some type of mass capital investments then I'd buy the notion we need UBI. In reality there is no evidence to support it. Just look at overall productivity across industries to see robots aren't any type of threat.

[Daelak]

Do you believe that the current deficit is a problem?

No of course not, and neither is the debt. Global and domestic investors are clamoring for a long-term public investment into breakthrough economic sectors in the 21st century. The longer our political dysfunction lasts due to ideological purity and a vision of a neo-confederacy by the right, the faster we lose the unprecedented status of having an unlimited credit rating and reserve currency status for the entire world.

[Glorious Leader]

No of course not, and neither is the debt. Global and domestic investors are clamoring for a long-term public investment into breakthrough economic sectors in the 21st century. The longer our political dysfunction lasts due to ideological purity and a vision of a neo-confederacy by the right, the faster we lose the unprecedented status of having an unlimited credit rating and reserve currency status for the entire world.

But but but zimbabwe and weimar and hyper inflation!! WE NEED GOLD PEOPLE!!!!!

All kidding aside overcoming the cave people.on the right who call themselves economists will be a huge challenge. Peter schiff the shill was on joe rogans arguing that if space aliens visited theyd be on a gold standard as well!!

[Endus]

It absolutely does. Currently I work, making money based (theoretically) off the revenue earned by the company I work for. That money when I receive my paycheck, and again when I buy products, when property tax is due, so on and so forth. The rest that is spent becomes revenue for other people indirectly, and the cycle continues.

With UBI, the money I make is not created from capitalistic revenue per se. While it may be taxed similarly after the fact based on consumption, that well is going to eventually run dry. And 'where' it originates from still isn't very clear. So you will either see generated tax revenue go down, or overall consumer consumption go down as well, introducing its own problems of course.

All you're doing here is pointing out that you don't understand that things like taxes exist under a UBI.

Which is a pretty damned silly argument. There's no significant loss of employment due to the UBI system, and taxing income more heavily still leaves middle class and below better off, when you add in the UBI stipend to their net income.


So literally nothing you've claimed here would be true, because people would still be working as much as in any other system, and they'd be taxed accordingly.

Again, we're dealing with a western society that believes 10% unemployment is a financial crisis situation and that our existing social safety nets not only cannot sustain that over the long term, but shouldn't be asked to because "no one should get a free ride".

Overcoming that mindset is going to prove incredibly challenging.

Maybe in the USA, specifically, but basic income has broad support across a lot of Western nations.

Do you believe that the current deficit is a problem?

Deficits aren't any more likely under a system with UBI than any other.

[Banshee Prince]

Nobody should be forced to work if they don't want to.

[BannedForViews]

No one will have fucking jobs anyway, fuck dude how many times do you have to be told this?



For profit prisons are actually starting to get shut down in the US.

- - - Updated - - -



Why would them being on welfare cause it to break down? What causes it to break down is when there are no jobs and no one besides the rich has money. Then no one can buy their products or services.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, you're just wrong. Of course it opens up more jobs but the won't be replaced with those new jobs on a 1 to 1 basis, otherwise what the fuck is the point of automation? Just look at the number of people working for the newest tech companies vs the number of people working for some of the older successful companies. They're hiring far far fewer people because they need such fewer people.

You're suggesting we don't start looking for a solution to the problem until it's only a few years away? Do you have any idea how policy and lawmaking works?

Your shit gets so old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Go educate yourself. You seriously want to tell me that we have fewer jobs now than in the past, or that productive output and quality of life is lower because of technology?

Also, policy? Fools look to government to solve their problems. Period. That's all you people know is government. let someone "smarter" than me fix all my woes. It's so pathetic.

There is no need for a UBI. We don't even need to discuss how immoral it is. it's just completely unnecessary. We have never needed it, and we won't. This fantasy that one day there won't be jobs because some rich people who make robots will provide all our needs is just that: fiction. Get over it. Life isn't a crappy sci-fi novel.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody should be forced to work if they don't want to.

And nobody should be forced to sustain their life for the same reasons.

[melodramocracy]

So literally nothing you've claimed here would be true, because people would still be working as much as in any other system, and they'd be taxed accordingly.

No, they wouldn't, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you think the intent of a UBI is.

[Manabomb]

Do it too soon and it could cause problems, delay too long and our societies will buckle under the strain of unemployment. Basic Income seems like one of those things you should do sooner rather than later.

So much thiiiiis. I really don't understand the blue collar conservative rhetoric in the states where "mexicans took mah jurbs" when it was actually automatization and the corporations are the ones reaping the benefits. Why this brown person hate isn't reflected to corporations that abuse automatization in place of actual "american" workers is far beyond understanding.

Ahh wait I know, because they elect representatives that perpetuate their ill sourced beliefs and make a national echo chamber. Cheetoh in Chief being a prime example.

[melodramocracy]

Do you know how much money a company spends on administration costs? Including payroll accountants, managers at various levels, training new employees, making sure everything adheres to safety standards, and a ton of other positions related to dealing with employees? It's a significant amount of their overhead costs that would essentially cease to exist if most of their business is automated. The same goes for all the government employees that do similar tasks. A lot of money is spent simply on administrative procedures that only exist because they have to deal with actual people as employees. That's a ton of money saved if that's no longer the case.

I don't particularly give a shit about how much companies spend on such things, as they're all positions are ones of gainful employment, which is far more of a net gain for society than some random shareholders portfolio. People make money at their jobs and spend it elsewhere. Take them out of the equation, and you wind up with people that have no income, and thus no money to buy your super efficient, robot created goods. Now what?

A high unemployment rate is bad now because that means there are people who aren't getting enough money to cover basic needs. That's the issue that will need to be fixed when unemployment reaches 20-30% or higher. You know, possibly in the next decade.

It's bad now because unemployment benefits have a limited life span, and people complain incessantly about how extending those benefits become a drain on everyone. It will be even worse as numbers go higher, I do agree.

[Endus]

No, they wouldn't, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you think the intent of a UBI is.

So you don't understand how a universal basic income works.

It's funded through taxation. If we're implementing it today, that'd be mostly income taxes, which would increase from where they currently are. Let's say your tax burden now is 25% on a gross income of $35,000/year. Now, let's say everyone gets a UBI stipend of $15,000/year, but your tax rates go up to 50%. That's bad, right?

Nope.

Your net income before was $26,250, once you paid your taxes. With the UBI, your work income is only $17,500, but you get the $15,000 stipend as well, so you're actually making $32,750 in net income.

Now, recognize two things; first is that higher income levels might easily have higher tax brackets than this. The second is that you can start these income taxes at the first dollar earned; you don't get tax breaks the same way. So the first tax brackets might by 40-50%, and scaling up from there.

Between lower-work-income people paying a much larger chunk of taxes, and the wealthy paying a higher percentage with fewer deductions, revenues are MUCH higher, which offsets the increase in spending.


If you want to talk about a hypothetical world with 90%-plus unemployment, then we're talking corporate or sales taxes, because there's nothing else to tax.

[zenkai]

Nobody should be forced to work if they don't want to.

And no one should be forced to feed someone who refuses to work.

[Banshee Prince]

And no one should be forced to feed someone who refuses to work.

Yes they should. People who work are more privileged than those who don't. They should give up a good portion of their privilege to those who lack it.

[melodramocracy]

So you don't understand how a universal basic income works.

It's funded through taxation. If we're implementing it today, that'd be mostly income taxes, which would increase from where they currently are. Let's say your tax burden now is 25% on a gross income of $35,000/year. Now, let's say everyone gets a UBI stipend of $15,000/year, but your tax rates go up to 50%. That's bad, right?

Nope.

Your net income before was $26,250, once you paid your taxes. With the UBI, your work income is only $17,500, but you get the $15,000 stipend as well, so you're actually making $32,750 in net income.

Now, recognize two things; first is that higher income levels might easily have higher tax brackets than this. The second is that you can start these income taxes at the first dollar earned; you don't get tax breaks the same way. So the first tax brackets might by 40-50%, and scaling up from there.

Between lower-work-income people paying a much larger chunk of taxes, and the wealthy paying a higher percentage with fewer deductions, revenues are MUCH higher, which offsets the increase in spending.


If you want to talk about a hypothetical world with 90%-plus unemployment, then we're talking corporate or sales taxes, because there's nothing else to tax.

Yeah, we're on different pages here. I'm discussing UBI's impact on larger %'s of unemployed individuals, you're discussing it as a means of assistance to employed folks. I'd agree with your assessment.

[Coffeh]

It's inevitable. Might as well start now. Want my vote? Pay me off and it's yours.

[zenkai]

Your shit gets so old.



Also, policy? Fools look to government to solve their problems. Period. That's all you people know is government. let someone "smarter" than me fix all my woes. It's so pathetic.

That's what it comes down to, people want the option to sit around and let others do the work.

There is no need for a UBI. We don't even need to discuss how immoral it is. it's just completely unnecessary. We have never needed it, and we won't. This fantasy that one day there won't be jobs because some rich people who make robots will provide all our needs is just that: fiction. Get over it. Life isn't a crappy sci-fi novel.

Currently I agree, if we ever arrived at a time where everything could be automated by machines and there is no need for human interaction for necessities in life, maybe then. A lot of dumbasses think we're there, they will cite robotic plants, but yet I don't see robots fixing toilets. We need people to work. Period.

[melodramocracy]

And no one should be forced to feed someone who refuses to work.

This is a perfect example of the mindset I'm talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

We need people to work. Period.

You will need far fewer of them to work. Period.

[Endus]

Yeah, we're on different pages here. I'm discussing UBI's impact on larger %'s of unemployed individuals, you're discussing it as a means of assistance to employed folks. I'd agree with your assessment.

It's not "a means of assistance to employed folks". Unemployed people get the same stipend. That's the whole point.

If you want to hypothesize about a future super-automated world with massive unemployment, you cannot use modern economic systems as your baseline, because you've already moved well past them by building that hypothetical. In any such setting, with or without a UBI, corporate and/or sales taxes are going to be the primary revenue streams for the government, not income taxes, which will be negligible due to nobody working. You have to start from that before you can get into systems like UBI and whether they "work".

[zenkai]

This is a perfect example of the mindset I'm talking about.

- - - Updated - - -



You will need far fewer of them to work. Period.

Your opinion is bullshit, I deal in reality.