What does society owe those who are “unwilling to work”

[Monster Hunter]

Of course we are talking about homeless people if you discontinue support for lazy people, where do they live? What do they eat? So:

You don't want to support lazy aka. unwilling to work people. The result of this cut off is being homeless and left to starve. The solution to not starve/freeze to death is work. To get work you can't be homeless. That's basic logic right there. In other words, you let murderers have an option to become part of society again, but refuse to give that privilege to lazy people.

i repeat

nobody's talking about homeless people. you become homeless. every one starts in a home because of child protective services. homelessness is the result not the cause in the modern world.

also in the Uk we provide houses to the homeless,
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housi...uncil_for_help

the only permanently homeless in England are due to anti-social behavior and passing the "last straw",choosing to be or not knowing where to get help.

most homeless you meet on the london streets have homes and beg because it good money. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/64...t-not-homeless

naive people like you are easy to milk for cash.

at any point they can start applying for a job at maccy'D (actually a good job so i don't know why people keep slating it and using it as an example of a bad job)

[Najnaj]

What are your numbers on this 175 B a year for all US citizens to be put on UBI? I did 30 k x 330 million - came out to 9.9 Trillion. So how much is this living wage UBI going to be?

Basic income is not 30k a year. The 175B is calculated at around 500-800 a month ( I can not remember the actual exact details, sry) and then remove all the increased taxes and costs of current social systems that will be eliminated. The math was done by an economist recently and I have not seen anyone question them. They are presented in a TED talk by the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman who is a proponent of UBI but is still using very conservative figures.

[Qnubi]

i repeat

nobody's talking about homeless people. you become homeless. every one starts in a home because of child protective services. homelessness is the result not the cause in the modern world.

also in the Uk we provide houses to the homeless,
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housi...uncil_for_help

the only permanently homeless in England are due to anti-social behavior and passing the "last straw",choosing to be or not knowing where to get help.

most homeless you meet on the london streets have homes and beg because it good money. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/64...t-not-homeless

naive people like you are easy to milk for cash.

at any point they can start applying for a job at maccy'D (actually a good job so i don't know why people keep slating it and using it as an example of a bad job)

Nobody talks about homeless people but there are dozen of posts that claim that lazy people should not have food or shelter and literally freeze to death. Do you freeze to death with a home? Are you kidding me? And cherry picking one "successful" beggar does not mean that every beggar is 1) not homeless and 2) earns "good money".

[Thelyron]

I am 100% convinced that all those that hate "lazy" people and want them to be homeless and "die in the snow" are just perpetually angry sadbags that really "work hard" and thus have absolutely no time for anything that is fun and actually furthers their enjoyment of life.

[Monster Hunter]

Nobody talks about homeless people but there are dozen of posts that claim that lazy people should not have food or shelter and literally freeze to death. Do you freeze to death with a home? Are you kidding me? And cherry picking one "successful" beggar does not mean that every beggar is 1) not homeless and 2) earns "good money".

https://www.google.com/search?client...earn+in+the+uk

pages of them pick which ever ones you want.

there are only 370,000 are classed as homeless or in inadequate homes int he whole UK and of that only 24,000 people sleep rough, 90% have drink and drug problems they refuse to get treated. if you literally choose to be that by refusing point blank to work thats on you not my responsibility, or society's we provide every possible avenue for them to get out of it through free housing, government schemes and charity's. but its up to them to take it and work up.

[Najnaj]

and its alot less in the UK that has these system's im advocating. i mean Christ we spend more to reduce poverty in other country's than we do our own. because we give just what you need to bounce back, provide free health care tons and tons of services all with the aim to get you back in work, you may not like your job, but news flash barley any one does but its necessary so grandma doesn't die in agony needing a hip replacement.

and those the say fuck that and choose not to help carry the load, do not deserve to benefit from the perks, thats how we do it. and for that teeny tiny number who absolutely refuse and choose homelessness not because of mental illness or drugs for which we provide free help for. they need to fix there attitude then we can talk. and this is a system where we only have 320,000 homeless people in our whole nation. cared for by charity's. america has that in one city.

Actually, the UK has higher crime rates than the US. Partially due to 3 strikes but still... The UK also has some of the highest levels of inequality in Western Europe and quite a bit of child poverty. Ignoring health care, it is very comparable to the US.

Also, stop telling me how angry you are about people who are abusing the system...I don't care. I am not interested in punishing individuals who may or may not be behaving badly if it is going to cost me a small fortune. That trap to catch the odd A-hole is so hugely expensive and ensnares so many people that just needs a bit of help that it is simply not worth it.

[Monster Hunter]

I am 100% convinced that all those that hate "lazy" people and want them to be homeless and "die in the snow" are just perpetually angry sadbags that really "work hard" and thus have absolutely no time for anything that is fun and actually furthers their enjoyment of life.

what people want is them to stop being lazy, get or at least look for a job and pay there way, like the rest of us. how would you feel about paying my medical expenses as a smoker if i moved to the US ?

[Jehct]

Basic income is not 30k a year. The 175B is calculated at around 500-800 a month ( I can not remember the actual exact details, sry) and then remove all the increased taxes and costs of current social systems that will be eliminated. The math was done by an economist recently and I have not seen anyone question them. They are presented in a TED talk by the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman who is a proponent of UBI but is still using very conservative figures.

ok. Sorry but nobody can live off 500-800 bucks a month. That covers only rent maybe. If rent and food is just covered by the government in this UBI plan and the 500-800 is spent in leisure. What happens when that money runs out? What do you think those people will do?

[Monster Hunter]

Actually, the UK has higher crime rates than the US. Partially due to 3 strikes but still... The UK also has some of the highest levels of inequality in Western Europe and quite a bit of child poverty. Ignoring health care, it is very comparable to the US.

Also, stop telling me how angry you are about people who are abusing the system...I don't care. I am not interested in punishing individuals who may or may not be behaving badly if it is going to cost me a small fortune. That trap to catch the odd A-hole is so hugely expensive and ensnares so many people that just needs a bit of help that it is simply not worth it.

im not angry at them, our system has them sown up. im angry at people like you, trying to tell me that being lazy is a life style choice i have to support and society has to support at the expense of people who actually need it, try to tell me not helping them costs more when there not a single figure shown to prove that, and the UBI is a magic bullet when the math's either leaves the poor poorer or the costs higher than the current system, just the so the middle class can also cash a free check.

its fucking snake oil if ever there was some.

[Jerot]

We benefit as a society when we take care of each other in times of need. That is the reason systems like these exist.

When people cannot provide for their family or themselves, regardless of the reason (Physically or mentally) it creates problems for everyone. There is more crime, responding to medical situations is usually more expensive than preventative medicine. And they are not able to participate in the economy and contribute to demand that drives job creation.

The reality is that technology is outpacing our ability to adapt to it as a society. We see it in outdated laws, in conflicts over privacy, information, and telecoms companies, large corporations. Things that would not be possible without modern technology. We're able to do things now that people just a few decades ago could only dream of, we basically walk around with the sum of human knowledge available to us in our pockets. Depending on the field of course, one worker today could be responsible for the work it took 5-10 workers to do a couple decades ago. We're automating more jobs every year, increasing efficiency to drive profits and supply to meet modern demands.


Population growth and immigration aren't whats hurting the job market, those workers are also increasing the demand of goods and services. But we're not accounting for technological advancement at all. Oversimplified, but what if the work of 50 people is enough to fulfill all the needs of 100 people, what would drive the demand to create jobs for the other 50?

Intentionally or not, we're pushing ourselves slowly into a post-scarcity economy. We want to live in a Star Trek society with replicators and sex resort planets. Obviously its just fiction, and we have a LONG way to go to get anywhere near that. But I don't forsee people stopping the pursuit of efficiency any time soon, and the results of which are unignorable.

If you don't take care of the people, we're going to see a steady decline of living conditions for everyone. The workforce continues to grow, driving demand down for workers, wages decrease, benefits are lost. People start needing extra work to pay the bills, they get over worked and stressed, they start putting in the minimum effort for multiple jobs (even less jobs for others) just to get by. People can't afford more than the basics, so industries suffer. (Re: Millenials are killing X) So we lose even more jobs, more workers on the market, less reason to pay people a living wage, etc.

If you don't support any form of welfare, then start coming up with meaningful counter-proposals, unless you're okay seeing increased deaths and crime. Can we all agree people deserve a chance to live? Healthy, educated, and with fair opportunity to explore their passions and ideas? Okay. How do we pay for it? Taxation isn't popular, but think of it as a fee for a service. The reason we tax the wealthy more is because they stand to benefit more from that service. They're in the best position to take advantage of a healthy market and make even more money back. If you want to reap the benefits of a wealthy society where people can afford to pay you to provide goods and services, and you aren't willing to pay workers a fair wage or benefits...

The solution is simple, close tax havens and loop holes. Increase corporate taxes but with incentives for meaningful job creation to encourage a healthy wage and benefits through tax breaks. Some of which already exist, but it shouldn't be to the point where a company as large as Amazon pays $0.

Get over this idea of "freeloaders", or you won't have anyone to turn to for sympathy when your job is lost to automation, or you're made redundant through efficiency improvements. We're not at a point where there aren't enough jobs for everyone yet, but we are running out of meaningful jobs that can provide a living wage. And it seems like the proposed solution is let the market decide who lives and who dies, leave it to natural selection, the most qualified workers will survive.

If you don't tax the rich, whats the incentive to put the money back in to the economy? We have increasingly more people who own more money than they will ever spend, they don't have to work another day in their lives, and neither do their children, or grandchildren. We can't just keep printing more money into oblivion and creating more millionaires and billionaires while the average persons quality of life declines. There is no way to create incentives for people to put money back into the economy. It would be great if there was a fair way to say, "hey, you're supporting these businesses by spending all this money, we'll take some of this out of your taxes so you pay less", but good luck creating a system that isn't immediately abused by people paying themselves.

[Jehct]

like always the source of the number is likely from professor sigmoid colon......

the whole thing doesn't add up. either UBI leaves the poor with substantially less money, or ends up costing the country substantially more money.

the real motive behind UBI is it gives rich white boys a bigger weekly allowance to top up what daddy gives them, thats why they like it.

I am going to highly highly doubt that anyone making over 50 k per year will qualify for this UBI. "Rich" people will not receive any benefit from this plan. It just doesn't make sense lol. It seems to me like lazy cunts that want to take take take and want to sit at home playing video games or watching TV all day want a UBI to pay for their laziness. No incentive to work or make something of yourself isn't a good plan especially when there are still many jobs out there and machines haven't taken over most jobs.

[Najnaj]

ok. Sorry but nobody can live off 500-800 bucks a month. That covers only rent maybe. If rent and food is just covered by the government in this UBI plan and the 500-800 is spent in leisure. What happens when that money runs out? What do you think those people will do?

It isn't supposed to give you a comfy life. It is supposed to lift the poorest of the poor out of abject poverty. It is also supposed to allow people to study or perhaps experiment with a business.... anything you want really. It is supposed to make you feel like you have a small measure of safety basically. It is also supposed to remove huge administrative costs around current welfare systems.

[Monster Hunter]

We benefit as a society when we take care of each other in times of need. That is the reason systems like these exist.

When people cannot provide for their family or themselves, regardless of the reason (Physically or mentally) it creates problems for everyone. There is more crime, responding to medical situations is usually more expensive than preventative medicine. And they are not able to participate in the economy and contribute to demand that drives job creation.

The reality is that technology is outpacing our ability to adapt to it as a society. We see it in outdated laws, in conflicts over privacy, information, and telecoms companies, large corporations. Things that would not be possible without modern technology. We're able to do things now that people just a few decades ago could only dream of, we basically walk around with the sum of human knowledge available to us in our pockets. Depending on the field of course, one worker today could be responsible for the work it took 5-10 workers to do a couple decades ago. We're automating more jobs every year, increasing efficiency to drive profits and supply to meet modern demands.


Population growth and immigration aren't whats hurting the job market, those workers are also increasing the demand of goods and services. But we're not accounting for technological advancement at all. Oversimplified, but what if the work of 50 people is enough to fulfill all the needs of 100 people, what would drive the demand to create jobs for the other 50?

Intentionally or not, we're pushing ourselves slowly into a post-scarcity economy. We want to live in a Star Trek society with replicators and sex resort planets. Obviously its just fiction, and we have a LONG way to go to get anywhere near that. But I don't forsee people stopping the pursuit of efficiency any time soon, and the results of which are unignorable.

If you don't take care of the people, we're going to see a steady decline of living conditions for everyone. The workforce continues to grow, driving demand down for workers, wages decrease, benefits are lost. People start needing extra work to pay the bills, they get over worked and stressed, they start putting in the minimum effort for multiple jobs (even less jobs for others) just to get by. People can't afford more than the basics, so industries suffer. (Re: Millenials are killing X) So we lose even more jobs, more workers on the market, less reason to pay people a living wage, etc.

If you don't support any form of welfare, then start coming up with meaningful counter-proposals, unless you're okay seeing increased deaths and crime. Can we all agree people deserve a chance to live? Healthy, educated, and with fair opportunity to explore their passions and ideas? Okay. How do we pay for it? Taxation isn't popular, but think of it as a fee for a service. The reason we tax the wealthy more is because they stand to benefit more from that service. They're in the best position to take advantage of a healthy market and make even more money back. If you want to reap the benefits of a wealthy society where people can afford to pay you to provide goods and services, and you aren't willing to pay workers a fair wage or benefits...

The solution is simple, close tax havens and loop holes. Increase corporate taxes but with incentives for meaningful job creation to encourage a healthy wage and benefits through tax breaks. Some of which already exist, but it shouldn't be to the point where a company as large as Amazon pays $0.

Get over this idea of "freeloaders", or you won't have anyone to turn to for sympathy when your job is lost to automation, or you're made redundant through efficiency improvements. We're not at a point where there aren't enough jobs for everyone yet, but we are running out of meaningful jobs that can provide a living wage.

i agree but the argument isn't about welfare or no welfare, its about should people who choose not to work even if there able bodied and qualified be allowed the same benefits as people who cant work or are looking for a job.

[Najnaj]

im not angry at them, our system has them sown up. im angry at people like you, trying to tell me that being lazy is a life style choice i have to support and society has to support at the expense of people who actually need it, try to tell me not helping them costs more when there not a single figure shown to prove that, and the UBI is a magic bullet when the math's either leaves the poor poorer or the costs higher than the current system, just the so the middle class can also cash a free check.

its fucking snake oil if ever there was some.

YOU ARE ALREADY SUPPORTING IT!

The model I am suggesting will make you pay LESS.

[Monster Hunter]

I am going to highly highly doubt that anyone making over 50 k per year will qualify for this UBI. "Rich" people will not receive any benefit from this plan. It just doesn't make sense lol. It seems to me like lazy cunts that want to take take take and want to sit at home playing video games or watching TV all day want a UBI to pay for their laziness. No incentive to work or make something of yourself isn't a good plan especially when there are still many jobs out there and machines haven't taken over most jobs.

thats exactly what the Finland report has concluded from the experiment. it made them happier (no shit free money makes any one happy) but didn't have any other benefit over the current system in incentivizing getting a job.

the advocates cant even make there numbers add up, its like the whole things been invented by Dian Abbot.

total and complete snake oil.

[Azadina]

Get over this idea of "freeloaders", or you won't have anyone to turn to for sympathy when your job is lost to automation, or you're made redundant through efficiency improvements. We're not at a point where there aren't enough jobs for everyone yet, but we are running out of meaningful jobs that can provide a living wage.

Depends on a country. In many western countries it's already a case. Some with 10-30% youth unemployment. Unemployment because there aren't enough jobs for all of the people entering workforce. That before we even get to the meaningful job that provides living wage part.

i agree but the argument isn't about welfare or no welfare, its about should people who choose not to work even if there able bodied and qualified be allowed the same benefits as people who cant work or are looking for a job.

Given how the disabled and job seekers are given an absolute pittance to live on, while searching for job, or living on disability, I'd say yes. The unwilling should get the pittance at least. Now, the disabled and the job seekers in my opinion should get a little more than just a pittance.

[Monster Hunter]

YOU ARE ALREADY SUPPORTING IT!

The model I am suggesting will make you pay LESS.

because it makes the poor get less

[Jehct]

It isn't supposed to give you a comfy life. It is supposed to lift the poorest of the poor out of abject poverty. It is also supposed to allow people to study or perhaps experiment with a business.... anything you want really. It is supposed to make you feel like you have a small measure of safety basically. It is also supposed to remove huge administrative costs around current welfare systems.

What you are saying is basically a very small stimulus package every month. UBI is more of an actual living income. UBI came from the idea of " no jobs left because machines have taken over most human jobs" that in turn would leave most people without work and be totally poor. That would leave companies with shit tons of saved money from not having to pay the machine and thus be taxed a bit more so that money could be paid to citizens. I don't see this idea working for another 20 years when many many jobs have been taken by machines.

[Najnaj]

I am going to highly highly doubt that anyone making over 50 k per year will qualify for this UBI. "Rich" people will not receive any benefit from this plan. It just doesn't make sense lol. It seems to me like lazy cunts that want to take take take and want to sit at home playing video games or watching TV all day want a UBI to pay for their laziness. No incentive to work or make something of yourself isn't a good plan especially when there are still many jobs out there and machines haven't taken over most jobs.

Well, kinda sorta...

Everyone gets UBI but it is added on to your income so if you make too much you just pay it back in tax.

- - - Updated - - -

because it makes the poor get less

no they would not...ffs, just stop.

YO have been running in circles for 20 pages now.

[Arkthugal]

because it makes the poor get less

no it doesn't.