/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.627092]

What's /biz/'s stance on unconditional basic income? I personally think that it's bullshit and can only be brought about by unfairly taxing the wealthy or borrowing unreal sums of money from central banks. What stance do you guys have for or against it?

video for those who don't know about BI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIL_Y9g7Tg0

[Anonymous No.627093]

Free money is for rich people.

[Anonymous No.627100]

If it replaced all social welfare programs it might make sense, but I don't see that happening.

In other words, what do you do if you give people universal income and they STILL end up homeless and starving?

[Anonymous No.627363]

>>627100
In ds9 they had replicators and the maquis still were hungry and starving. Though they apparently eliminated poverty on earth.

[Anonymous No.627486]

>>627100

Yeah this is one of the big problems I have with a basic income or negative income tax. Another Is that advocates presume a post-scarcity world, a post-labor world.

They claim that already because of automation it's impossible to get jobs. In reality, it's just people preferring not to do certain types of work.

I know this because I can't hire a maid for minimum wage to come to my house and clean/cook; outside of areas like Arizona and California.

[Anonymous No.627494]

>>627100
Be alaska

[Anonymous No.627563]

Ideally, I'd be very ok with scrapping every inefficient and convoluted social help program with a simple BI strategy.

But, I know that all of those social programs are kingdoms and the lords of the manor will not want them to just be done away with. So, realistically, what we'd end up with is a giant spaghetti-like program that is cocked-up even worse than anything we could come up with on purpose. It would be inefficient, would likely not hold up any of the tenants of true BI, and worst of all, would not replace any existing program.

Oh, and, we would all have a great time paying for the whole goddamn mess.

[Anonymous No.628638]

>>627100
This would absolutely happen. They'd blow all their money on cigarettes, booze, gambling, etc and have nothing left for rent/food/medical bills. It's like pouring water into a bucket with holes in it. Plenty of people are absolutely terrible with money.

[Anonymous No.628646]

>>628638
it would be monthly though I assume. my family applied for food stamps and got social security after my dad died. we spent just about every penny on groceries gas and medicine because there was barely enough to cover basic needs. From my experience people tend to buy food first when they receive assistance.

[Anonymous No.628648]

>>628638
Why the hell should the few be responsible for everyone else? If they blow it on meth or booze, then they deserve to die. Chances are, most of the recipients will still have a job or not waste it in stupid shit like gambling or drugs.

[Anonymous No.628652]

>>627092

>TEDx

[Anonymous No.628660]

[Anonymous No.628678]

>>627563
This. While unconditional basic income has its merits, it will likely be used more as a political tool rather than improve the overall efficiency of benefits distribution.

[Anonymous No.628682]

It fails to take into account the fact that most poor people are poor due to their own actions, not their socioeconomic class of birth

[Anonymous No.628689]

>>627092

>About 99% of you would keep working if given a monthly stipend.

Yeah, because the audience is predominantly white.

>But when I ask you what other people would do, you think that people are lazy and they won't work.

Yeah, because latinos and black people are lazy and they genuinely don't work. Look at their countries. That's what's coming.

[Anonymous No.628703]

This has been discussed on /pol/ many times.

Someone linked a site where the actual math was done.

If you eliminated every single welfare program, besides social security and medicare because lets face it, those are never ever going away, you'd only be able to give everyone making under $50,000 something like a $300 a month check.

It's economically unfeasible to provide a basic income. Anyone who supports advocates it is arguing on very flawed data or they live in some kind of fantasy world where money is printed even more freely than it is now.

[Anonymous No.628711]

Op is retard... in order for the government to give you $$ on a basic income...

government first has to steal the $300 or Print.

YOU HAVE TO STEAL FROM PETER TO PAY PAUL

[Anonymous No.628727]

I feel like basic income would devalue the dollar tremendously. I know people claim this with raising the minimum wage, but a BI is like raising the minimum wage on a much grander scale.

The most important thing of any economy isn't money but goods/services. If everyone had a livable BI, many people would simply stop working. There are many important low-wage jobs critical to the economy (truck drivers, miners, construction workers, oil drillers, farmers, etc.). If BI was implemented many of these people might stop working, assuming the BI was large enough to live semi-comfortably.

Knowing how government works, they would try to tie BI to inflation. But if BI was the cause of inflation, it could cause runaway inflation. And with so fewer people working, there would be fewer goods and services to go around. So they would cost more. Except for Chinese stuff I suppose.

Maybe it would work in a post-scarcity society. But in a post-scarcity society stuff would cost so little it wouldn't matter anyways.

[Anonymous No.628732]

>>627486
>Another Is that advocates presume a post-scarcity world, a post-labor world.

This. A post-scarcity world is necessarily a post-labor world, but the converse isn't true. A post-labor world might (and probably *won't* be in the next 20 years) a post-scarcity world.

I think the top 0.01% (the top 1% by net worth are still part of the middle class) can afford it. I don't think it's moral that they'll have to pay it. But the trend of the past few years has been that 25% unemployment in the 18-24 age bracket is a BAD BAD THING for the 0.01% that run those countries. Maybe they choose to cough up a few shekels in order to retain control.

At a certain level, money is less about marginal utility and more about keeping score. As long as future tax policy doesn't change the rankings of Soros vs. Koch, Buffet vs. Slim, Gates vs. Ellison, or the 4-way chick fight between Zuck vs. Cook vs. Brin vs. Musk, maybe it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.628740]

I think it is actually a great idea, I would prefer that over some of the other welfare programs we have. I don't know the math on it, I don't know if it would work; but conceptually I like it much more than welfare programs.

[Anonymous No.628774]

>>628652
He's one of the ugliest men I've ever seen. And his voice matches his face perfectly.

[Anonymous No.628799]

BI is certainly the last gasp of civilization and if it were implemented world War 3 and race riots/anarchy would sweep the land.

You can't undermine capitalism but keep all the benefits of the capitalist system.

Fuckin libs.

[Anonymous No.628834]

>>628646
I'm fine with programs that control what it's spent on. My problem with basic income is it just throws $ at peeps and then they get to choose what to spend it on. You'll end up with people blowing it on hookers and blow and have no housing or healthcare etc.

[Anonymous No.628838]

>>628703
If you go on /r/basicincome, you'll find people thinking it's the greatest idea since sliced bread

[Anonymous No.628859]

>>628703
>besides social security and medicare
Are the biggest problems, growing faster every year with no budget limit.

[Anonymous No.628861]

>>628727
>oil drillers
>low wage
I could argue about construction as well.

[Anonymous No.628915]

>>627092
Last time i ran the numbers you could leave taxes alone. Keep medicaid intact (not medicare) and pay every adult over age 21 10k a year by replacing current means tested welfare with a UBI.

Great idea. you couod even increase that by slowly getting rid of social security.

the real question is what would be defined as a "need" in this scenario and the effect of income elasticity of demand

Most naysayers completely ignore any basic economic calculation showing how the velocity of money would have widespread positive effects on the economy. All the trial tests of basic income have unexpectedly positive results.

For the velocity issue , at 10k per adult age 21 and up a year thats 833 bucks a head. Most people would spend it as they now do with every red penny they are given.

Last census showed 21 million adults over age 21. Thats almost 17.5 billion dollars a month in new consumer spending and in my example and we did was give everyone cash instead of just some people food stamps and shit.

Frankly if youre too dumb to handle life when handed cash you deserve to die. We keep medicaid intact because obviously old grannies and the comatose need to be treated civil

[Anonymous No.628918]

>>628648
Except you already pay taxes for programs that could be eliminated so youre argument is invaid if we just fund it without new taxes. The des offices cost money to run. The government is shit at providing means tested assistance. Know what its great at? Writing checks

[Anonymous No.628921]

>>628682
Do you have a source for that claim or are you just a butthurt rich middle class white guy?

[Anonymous No.628922]

>>628727
>what is income elasticity of demand

[Anonymous No.628941]

There are already millions of bucks going to farming subsidies, also oil subsidies and a host of other free money sources going to all kinds of industry. If you managed to fix the tax loop holes and make the companies pay what they owe you, it would probably be possible somewhat.

Because the human workers are being replaced by robots and the robots send off their money to the higher ups since they are owned by them. Thats why richer people are getting richer, the money that is supposed to be for the middle class is going to them and they just store it in overseas tax havens and dont use it at all.

So yea it would be fair to increase taxes on them and to clamp down on them even more.

[Anonymous No.628952]

>>628921

This is real life

When you realize the difference between how the rich and poor spend their time and money, you'll see that poor is a choice.

Stop sucking your jewish philosophy teacher's cock and live in the real world.

[Anonymous No.630176]

>>628952
So your source was to not have a source?

good argument

[Anonymous No.630192]

>>628952

Nothing is truly a choice, anon.

We are shaped entirely by our environment and conditions, and the choices we make are but consequences of those things.

What we have to make sure is to create the right kind of environment for as many as possible.