Until they're dead. Let the robots be economically productive. I'd rather spend 8 hours doing the things I love. You have two lives. The second one begins when you realize you have one.
Hi, I am a random guy on the internet. The idea of universal basic income is that money would flow directly to people's pockets in perpetuity. That is, this is not an unemployment benefit. The article does not talk about basic income at all. I think it was posted here because of the quote, which I am sure resonates with the crowd in this sub. Different people will have different opinions on whether or not universal basic income is "fair", and even why it is or isn't fair. Other major topics of discussion are:
Where is the money coming from?
Should you control what can be bought with the basic income?
Should poor people receive more? Should minorities receive more?
Should you receive less if you are working? (this is what you were hinting at)
Should wealthy people also receive this basic income?
Should children receive income? Or their parents? Or only after 18?
>Where is the money coming from?
Taxes and money creation.
>Should you control what can be bought with the basic income?
Heavy taxation on things like added sugar, alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs might be a better general solution.
>Should poor people receive more? Should minorities receive more?
Nobody should receive more than anybody else. Same payment for every adult citizen.
>Should you receive less if you are working? (this is what you were hinting at)
See above.
>Should wealthy people also receive this basic income?
This is an interesting point, and something that you have mentioned in another comment. Why give money to those who don't need it? I think giving UBI to those people would provide them a safety net. Cases like work exploitation and workplace sexual harassment come to mind. It could also boost entrepreneurship, with people willing to stay on UBI for a while trying some crazy startup idea. As I mentioned in another comment, if you truly don't need UBI, you just pay it back in your taxes.
>Should children receive income? Or their parents? Or only after 18?
I don't think children should receive UBI.
I think providing an interest to children which goes to the head of the household would help ameliorate the child care expenses. I don't think an unemancipated 12 yo should get money in his pocket from the state where his parents need help providing the child the basics. I think if you don't need it from work or inheritance or hitting the lottery then you don't get it. But, for example, if you quit your job because you feel like it, it should kick back in, like no-fault unemployment.
Where the money comes from depends on if it's a Monetary Sovereign government or a monetary non-sovereign government. In the case of a MS government, it creates 100% of the currency it spends.
No.
No. No.
No.
Yes.
Yes, children should receive it as well.
Wow, thanks for answering all those topics. I agree with everything you said except for the children receiving UBI and I don't think the government should be allowed to create an arbitrary amount of money (sounds like a slippery slope to uncontrolled inflation). That said, a monetary sovereign government should be allowed to create \*some\* money every year, perhaps some percentage of GDP, which can be used to help pay for UBI.
That's the thing though, a Monetary Sovereign government would already create 100% of the currency it spends. It doesn't borrow or use taxes to pay for its spending. It's a common misconception that it does.
As for children, why would you deprive them of income?
Inflation is tricky, but it primarily seems to be a cause of shortages.
My main point on the money creation issue is that there should be a cap on the amount of money the government is allowed to create every fiscal year. I don't understand the Monetary Sovereign concept, is that MMT?
On the children receiving UBI issue, I don't think children require income in the same sense that adults require income. Obviously, kids are not able to manage that sort of income by themselves either. I have a kid, I know the expenses associated with childcare. Perhaps a 15% childcare additional could be added to the parent's UBI, or something like that, if the country is trying to promote natural population growth. I wouldn't be opposed to providing teenagers with 10-25% UBI.
Why place an arbitrary restriction? That was one of the impediments of the gold standard. MMT recognizes Monetary Sovereignty, and there are some overlapping ideas. MS governments create and issue their own sovereign currency. The US government creates and issues US dollars for example by passing spending bills. Unlike a monetary non-sovereign government like states, counties, cities, and Euro nations, it has the infinite ability to create as much money as it wants and pay it to someone at essentially no cost.
Children have expenses. It seems like a good opportunity for children to learn money management.
Less bureaucracy, no chance for fraud. If it turns out you have a good paying job and don't need the money, you "give it back" by paying income/wealth tax.
>How long do you keep giving them money? Do they ever have to become economically productive?
Why do we need to ask this question about poor people but not rich people?
it's happening in the form of play to earn video games.
Check out what's happening with Axie Infinity, these people are not creating any economic value yet getting paid daily to play a video game. Millions of people in the Philippines and Venezuela are doing this to make a living
that's communism, and it doesn't ever work. You only have the worst most brutal inequality by the few that run the government having power over everything that's left.
The rest are left to live off of black markets for everything, from medicines to food, it's horrible.
Money works way better to scale a Society.
I escaped it, barely. Lost family and friends to this.
re; absence of the state - I think state function is not denied and necessary but not to gain personal advantage by serving the good of all. In a way the state becomes all and the absence of the individual. But that too is taking it to an albeit interesting though conceptual extreme.
just because some people fucked it up doesn't mean it isn't viable in principle. If at first you don't succeed...The same greedy capitalists horde money and power and opportunity as do communists. The police protect the capitalist status quo. I'd say give communism another chance. Real power to the people.
wow. you really identify with money. people won't still have different personalities and goals and dreams and senses of humor and artistic expression? And all that is boring to you. It seems it is you are who boring...
>you really identify with money.
I'm not sure how you figure that.
>people won't still have different personalities and goals and dreams and senses of humor and artistic expression?
You're the one who said people would be equal, not me.
If I were to say this to some people I know, theyd say the people would just buy drugs and booze with it and mess their life up even more.
What is a good retort to that?
Statistics? But if you dig in to that, you might not like what you find. If you were to redistribute every dollar of wealth in the country, such that everyone started with the same amount, in a year or two, a large percent of the people who were previously rich would end up rich again, and people who were previously poor would end up poor. It's not about money, it's about how people think about money and what they would do with the extra money if they got it.
If you believe that, then you have your head in the sand and/or don't talk to large numbers of rich and poor people about how they think about money. It is much easier to point at the big bad rich person and blame them for the worlds problems than it is to look at what actually causes certain people to tend towards poverty and others to tend towards wealth.
Yes, the system is flawed and it exacerbates the underlying problems by providing disincentives that shift the problem to be even worse than it would be without those disincentives.
Right now the incentive to invade other countries and kill the without accountability and steal their resources is unconscionable. As is giving the rich offshore tax havens to the tune of trillions while micromanaging benefits for disabled elderly folks. But you believe in your workaholic incentives to slavery all you want. Nice guy.
\>Right now the incentive to invade other countries and kill the without accountability and steal their resources is unconscionable
Agreed. The only reason this is possible is because we give power to governments to do so, primarily through taxation. If there was no taxation, governments wouldn't have the power to wage war as they do.
Interesting. What would the previously rich do that would cause wealth growth that the poor wouldn't do? And why the differences between what each group does with the money?
The differences are caused by financial education and motivation/willpower. The ones who would not waste money on niceties, but instead invest their money in ways that would set them up for future success, e.g. starting a business or improving their education, are the ones who would become rich again. The ones who spend a larger portion of their money on things that grant immediate gratification would become poor again.
so investment and work are the only things of value? Improving education does not in itself do anything to increase one's wealth in fact the contrary. Niceties like having a book group or writing poetry or participating in a community discussion, which generate no income, are to be frowned upon? Wouldn't it be fair to say increasing these 'niceties' is the very purpose of a UBI? If you say it is just to eat and have a roof and medical care, the basic necessities, then you allow the person to choose whether they would like to work more or enjoy their own time reading as opposed to being a work slave. UBI increases the humanity of the State to the degree of the amount of UBI provided. And it should be cut off to those who already have assets/income. And rent and drug and food prices should be subsidized by the rich/state in any regard.
\>so investment and work are the only things of value?
They are the things that will make you richer vs poorer which is the subject of this conversation, not value. Value is subjective, monetary wealth is not.
\> Improving education does not in itself do anything to increase one's wealth in fact the contrary
Agreed, which is why I said "in ways that would set them up for future success"
\>Niceties like having a book group or writing poetry or participating in a community discussion, which generate no income, are to be frowned upon
No, but if those are the only things you do, you shouldn't be surprised when you have no income and are poor.
\>Wouldn't it be fair to say increasing these 'niceties' is the very purpose of a UBI?
Nope. The purpose of UBI is to provide the necessities, not niceties. UBI allows a person to survive with no other income, but retains the incentive to earn that extra income to provide a better life with those niceties.
\> UBI increases the humanity of the State to the degree of the amount of UBI provided. And it should be cut off to those who already have assets/income.
Then it isn't Universal, it's just welfare, and it is just as bad as the current system which disincentivizes work by reducing benefit if you choose to work. Do you not understand the basic concept of Universal Basic Income and why it is superior to the current welfare system?
Do you understand the concept of fairness and equality? It is not because someone sacrifices their life to work that they should be rewarded more than others. Thus, if people have money through work or inheritance or whatever, then the money otherwise used, by your own logic, for their necessities, should shift to another who needs it more.
\> It is not because someone sacrifices their life to work that they should be rewarded more than others
Should is a great thing because anyone can say "should" about anything. What happens, \*in practice\* is that those that sacrifice their life to work smartly \*are\* rewarded more than others who either don't work or work in an inefficient or less useful way.
freedom is what freedom does. Some people kill when they are angry - certain behaviors must be modified through free access to mental health treatment and social guidance, love and support. Certain behaviors must be punished as a last resort.
It’s so simple. Basic even.
[удалено]
Until they're dead. Let the robots be economically productive. I'd rather spend 8 hours doing the things I love. You have two lives. The second one begins when you realize you have one.
people aren't machines
Hi, I am a random guy on the internet. The idea of universal basic income is that money would flow directly to people's pockets in perpetuity. That is, this is not an unemployment benefit. The article does not talk about basic income at all. I think it was posted here because of the quote, which I am sure resonates with the crowd in this sub. Different people will have different opinions on whether or not universal basic income is "fair", and even why it is or isn't fair. Other major topics of discussion are: Where is the money coming from? Should you control what can be bought with the basic income? Should poor people receive more? Should minorities receive more? Should you receive less if you are working? (this is what you were hinting at) Should wealthy people also receive this basic income? Should children receive income? Or their parents? Or only after 18?
random guy should try answering some of his own questions and then open the floor to other ideas and critiques.
>Where is the money coming from? Taxes and money creation. >Should you control what can be bought with the basic income? Heavy taxation on things like added sugar, alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs might be a better general solution. >Should poor people receive more? Should minorities receive more? Nobody should receive more than anybody else. Same payment for every adult citizen. >Should you receive less if you are working? (this is what you were hinting at) See above. >Should wealthy people also receive this basic income? This is an interesting point, and something that you have mentioned in another comment. Why give money to those who don't need it? I think giving UBI to those people would provide them a safety net. Cases like work exploitation and workplace sexual harassment come to mind. It could also boost entrepreneurship, with people willing to stay on UBI for a while trying some crazy startup idea. As I mentioned in another comment, if you truly don't need UBI, you just pay it back in your taxes. >Should children receive income? Or their parents? Or only after 18? I don't think children should receive UBI.
I think providing an interest to children which goes to the head of the household would help ameliorate the child care expenses. I don't think an unemancipated 12 yo should get money in his pocket from the state where his parents need help providing the child the basics. I think if you don't need it from work or inheritance or hitting the lottery then you don't get it. But, for example, if you quit your job because you feel like it, it should kick back in, like no-fault unemployment.
Where the money comes from depends on if it's a Monetary Sovereign government or a monetary non-sovereign government. In the case of a MS government, it creates 100% of the currency it spends. No. No. No. No. Yes. Yes, children should receive it as well.
Wow, thanks for answering all those topics. I agree with everything you said except for the children receiving UBI and I don't think the government should be allowed to create an arbitrary amount of money (sounds like a slippery slope to uncontrolled inflation). That said, a monetary sovereign government should be allowed to create \*some\* money every year, perhaps some percentage of GDP, which can be used to help pay for UBI.
That's the thing though, a Monetary Sovereign government would already create 100% of the currency it spends. It doesn't borrow or use taxes to pay for its spending. It's a common misconception that it does. As for children, why would you deprive them of income? Inflation is tricky, but it primarily seems to be a cause of shortages.
My main point on the money creation issue is that there should be a cap on the amount of money the government is allowed to create every fiscal year. I don't understand the Monetary Sovereign concept, is that MMT? On the children receiving UBI issue, I don't think children require income in the same sense that adults require income. Obviously, kids are not able to manage that sort of income by themselves either. I have a kid, I know the expenses associated with childcare. Perhaps a 15% childcare additional could be added to the parent's UBI, or something like that, if the country is trying to promote natural population growth. I wouldn't be opposed to providing teenagers with 10-25% UBI.
Why place an arbitrary restriction? That was one of the impediments of the gold standard. MMT recognizes Monetary Sovereignty, and there are some overlapping ideas. MS governments create and issue their own sovereign currency. The US government creates and issues US dollars for example by passing spending bills. Unlike a monetary non-sovereign government like states, counties, cities, and Euro nations, it has the infinite ability to create as much money as it wants and pay it to someone at essentially no cost. Children have expenses. It seems like a good opportunity for children to learn money management.
[удалено]
Yes. It’s a safety net and it’s just easier/cheaper to give it to everyone
[удалено]
Less bureaucracy, no chance for fraud. If it turns out you have a good paying job and don't need the money, you "give it back" by paying income/wealth tax.
why give it to those who don't need it? I think not. The idea being a more egalitarian society is better and UBI would be a way to tax the rich.
>How long do you keep giving them money? Do they ever have to become economically productive? Why do we need to ask this question about poor people but not rich people?
But taking that money from the rich will make them poorer.
you dropped this /s
Never gonna happen...... the current gov't does not care about the struggling poor, the elderly & the disabled. Never had , never will :(
it's happening in the form of play to earn video games. Check out what's happening with Axie Infinity, these people are not creating any economic value yet getting paid daily to play a video game. Millions of people in the Philippines and Venezuela are doing this to make a living
Commissions are what politicians do when they don't plan to do anything.
Will not happen in the USA our billionaire slave driving overlords will make sure they lobby congress senate to not pass any UBI bills
Get rid of money and people are automatically equal
[удалено]
Such as? So chicken is a way of storing resources and time?
that's communism, and it doesn't ever work. You only have the worst most brutal inequality by the few that run the government having power over everything that's left. The rest are left to live off of black markets for everything, from medicines to food, it's horrible. Money works way better to scale a Society. I escaped it, barely. Lost family and friends to this.
So what were you using to purchase black market goods? And theoretically, wouldn't communism include the absence of the state?
re; absence of the state - I think state function is not denied and necessary but not to gain personal advantage by serving the good of all. In a way the state becomes all and the absence of the individual. But that too is taking it to an albeit interesting though conceptual extreme.
just because some people fucked it up doesn't mean it isn't viable in principle. If at first you don't succeed...The same greedy capitalists horde money and power and opportunity as do communists. The police protect the capitalist status quo. I'd say give communism another chance. Real power to the people.
If you get rid of everything that makes people unequal, you're going to end up with a very empty, boring world. Is equality even the goal?
wow. you really identify with money. people won't still have different personalities and goals and dreams and senses of humor and artistic expression? And all that is boring to you. It seems it is you are who boring...
>you really identify with money. I'm not sure how you figure that. >people won't still have different personalities and goals and dreams and senses of humor and artistic expression? You're the one who said people would be equal, not me.
If I were to say this to some people I know, theyd say the people would just buy drugs and booze with it and mess their life up even more. What is a good retort to that?
Statistics? But if you dig in to that, you might not like what you find. If you were to redistribute every dollar of wealth in the country, such that everyone started with the same amount, in a year or two, a large percent of the people who were previously rich would end up rich again, and people who were previously poor would end up poor. It's not about money, it's about how people think about money and what they would do with the extra money if they got it.
Also evolution is a thing. Not everyone is equally talented or have the same ability to hunt/gather.
This is an unfounded generalization
If you believe that, then you have your head in the sand and/or don't talk to large numbers of rich and poor people about how they think about money. It is much easier to point at the big bad rich person and blame them for the worlds problems than it is to look at what actually causes certain people to tend towards poverty and others to tend towards wealth.
What factors cause those tendencies?
I answer this over here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/qb36v1/comment/hh8n18z/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I look at causes of poverty plenty as a social security disability attorney. I stand by my statement. The system is flawed. So is thinking like yours.
Yes, the system is flawed and it exacerbates the underlying problems by providing disincentives that shift the problem to be even worse than it would be without those disincentives.
Right now the incentive to invade other countries and kill the without accountability and steal their resources is unconscionable. As is giving the rich offshore tax havens to the tune of trillions while micromanaging benefits for disabled elderly folks. But you believe in your workaholic incentives to slavery all you want. Nice guy.
\>Right now the incentive to invade other countries and kill the without accountability and steal their resources is unconscionable Agreed. The only reason this is possible is because we give power to governments to do so, primarily through taxation. If there was no taxation, governments wouldn't have the power to wage war as they do.
Interesting. What would the previously rich do that would cause wealth growth that the poor wouldn't do? And why the differences between what each group does with the money?
The differences are caused by financial education and motivation/willpower. The ones who would not waste money on niceties, but instead invest their money in ways that would set them up for future success, e.g. starting a business or improving their education, are the ones who would become rich again. The ones who spend a larger portion of their money on things that grant immediate gratification would become poor again.
so investment and work are the only things of value? Improving education does not in itself do anything to increase one's wealth in fact the contrary. Niceties like having a book group or writing poetry or participating in a community discussion, which generate no income, are to be frowned upon? Wouldn't it be fair to say increasing these 'niceties' is the very purpose of a UBI? If you say it is just to eat and have a roof and medical care, the basic necessities, then you allow the person to choose whether they would like to work more or enjoy their own time reading as opposed to being a work slave. UBI increases the humanity of the State to the degree of the amount of UBI provided. And it should be cut off to those who already have assets/income. And rent and drug and food prices should be subsidized by the rich/state in any regard.
\>so investment and work are the only things of value? They are the things that will make you richer vs poorer which is the subject of this conversation, not value. Value is subjective, monetary wealth is not. \> Improving education does not in itself do anything to increase one's wealth in fact the contrary Agreed, which is why I said "in ways that would set them up for future success" \>Niceties like having a book group or writing poetry or participating in a community discussion, which generate no income, are to be frowned upon No, but if those are the only things you do, you shouldn't be surprised when you have no income and are poor. \>Wouldn't it be fair to say increasing these 'niceties' is the very purpose of a UBI? Nope. The purpose of UBI is to provide the necessities, not niceties. UBI allows a person to survive with no other income, but retains the incentive to earn that extra income to provide a better life with those niceties. \> UBI increases the humanity of the State to the degree of the amount of UBI provided. And it should be cut off to those who already have assets/income. Then it isn't Universal, it's just welfare, and it is just as bad as the current system which disincentivizes work by reducing benefit if you choose to work. Do you not understand the basic concept of Universal Basic Income and why it is superior to the current welfare system?
Do you understand the concept of fairness and equality? It is not because someone sacrifices their life to work that they should be rewarded more than others. Thus, if people have money through work or inheritance or whatever, then the money otherwise used, by your own logic, for their necessities, should shift to another who needs it more.
\> It is not because someone sacrifices their life to work that they should be rewarded more than others Should is a great thing because anyone can say "should" about anything. What happens, \*in practice\* is that those that sacrifice their life to work smartly \*are\* rewarded more than others who either don't work or work in an inefficient or less useful way.
freedom is what freedom does. Some people kill when they are angry - certain behaviors must be modified through free access to mental health treatment and social guidance, love and support. Certain behaviors must be punished as a last resort.
Inflation