is Universal Basic Income possible?

[Anonymous No.9959974]

i'm falling for the UBI meme, /sci/
is there any general principled scientific/mathematical reason why UBI can't work? (i don't care about particular countries' politics)

[Anonymous No.9959981]

>>9959974

What's the amount of money going to be given? Why not double it? Economics is a soft science fundamentally coming from ordinal preferences of individuals, so science and maths has little to do with it.

[Anonymous No.9959982]

the UBI movement in my country has a website saying
>If economists and politicians claim that society can't afford basic income, then don't believe them, because society CAN afford it.
>Firstly, it's already a fact that everyone in a modern society is assured a minimum of existence (although on other conditions than an unconditional basic income),
>and secondly, the economic models that the politicians rely on are not laws of nature. They are made by humans based on certain principles and viewpoints. If the economists wanted, they could use their technical skill to develop other economic models based on other principles.

[Anonymous No.9959983]

>>9959981
you're saying there couldn't be a "general principled scientific/mathematical reason" making UBI impossible, because econ is a soft science?

[Anonymous No.9959984]

>>9959982

Jesus that is atrocious

[Anonymous No.9959987]

>>9959983

No im saying you're looking at the wrong place for an answer

[Anonymous No.9959988]

>>9959984
explain

[Anonymous No.9959990]

productivity falls, no one wants to do shitty job like cleaning toilets etc. because they already have enough for rent and food so you have to pay people way more to do those shitty, necessary jobs .

any potential gains do not offset these downsides.

[Anonymous No.9959992]

Of course it is. Humans have created thousands of rockets, skyscrapers, bridges, millions of cars and likely more telephones than mouths to talk.

Providing everyone with water, food and shelter is not only possible but should be the first goal of every civilised country.

[Anonymous No.9959994]

>>9959974
Who is going to do dangerous jobs like skyscraper window cleaning, delivering mails in a ghetto or working in a mine when everyone can just live off UBI instead?

[Anonymous No.9959997]

>>9959994
>dangerous jobs

We should not have those, or at least minimise them. We should not design things if they are a potential thread to people by themself.

[Anonymous No.9959998]

>>9959994
>>9959990
this is extremely naive logic. all that will happen is the salary for such jobs will increase. this incentivizes automation of undesirable jobs in the long run, which would be great.

[Anonymous No.9959999]

>>9959998
There is the money for the increased wages coming from?

[Anonymous No.9960000]

>>9959988

They have a fundamental mksunderstanding of what 'laws of economics' are. They are not the like the laws of physics, they are based on logical axioms and what this person is saying is to change the goalposts because they dont lile where they fall. Economics in one lesson by henry hazlitt is a good short book to read. It wont give you the answer to this but it will get your brain working to think about the subject under the correct framework

[Anonymous No.9960008]

>>9959987
economics is a science that uses maths though

[Anonymous No.9960009]

>>9959999

Typical idiot capitalist rhetoric question. Most corporations and individuals in wealth today are sitting upon millions and millions of dollars, along with luxury cars, private jets, villas. In fact, they lack loyal people to hire, not money to spend.

[Anonymous No.9960012]

>>9960000
ok ty for your opinion and no offense but you sound like a pseud

[Anonymous No.9960013]

>>9959999
I dunno, CEO pay? there's plenty more money available for those salaries than is currently used, making it more difficult to afford incentivizes innovation, like I said

[Anonymous No.9960014]

>>9960008
Using maths does not imply being correct. Mathematical results can be nonphysical, and applying math in a wrong way will give you wrong conclusions.

[Anonymous No.9960016]

>>9959999
>>9960000

[Anonymous No.9960019]

>>9960014
that's all well and good and a lot of economics is a crock of shit but >>9959982 is still complete nonsense

[Anonymous No.9960020]

>>9960014
i was just responding to the idea that this question is inappropriate for /sci/ because it's economics

[Anonymous No.9960021]

The maths is very easy to do. Current government spending in the UK is around 700 billion a year. UBI would cost around 400 billion (multiply the annual amount of ubi by the receiving population). So either they need to double the tax take, or make massive cuts everywhere else.
I don't see how it's feasible, neither option will work

[Anonymous No.9960024]

>>9959974

"Basic income" is already a reality in most of the developed world, it is just in the form of various complicated welfare schemes, instead of a simple system. So certain rather low basic income is possible. But basic income on the level of a minimum wage or more? There is no money for that.

[Anonymous No.9960025]

>Taxpayers pay an absurd amount of money so the government gives it back to them
wow 10/10

[Anonymous No.9960027]

I'm not an economist so someone correct me if I'm wrong.
So I took Switzerland as an example and it's supposedly considered 2600$/month.
Wikipedia's estimate for Switzerland's population in 2016 is 8.4 million people.
So with the help of a calculator we see this translates to 21,842,912,000 USD, monthly.
Or a little over 262 Billion yearly, which is between a third and a half of Switzerland's very respectable GPD.
Again, I'm no economist, so I don't think "an outrageous fuckwad of money" is the correct term, but I think it's good enough to describe it.

Now, let's ASSUME Switzerland just has this money lying about not doing anything (which it doesn't) and we go through with this plan, what would the incentive for work be?
If I, as a citizen under this system, want a new smartphone, or a computer, or to go to University, I would need to work A LOT LESS to get the necessary sum if necessities don't take a bite out of my income, so this would mean I just need a temporary, part-time job and save up, why would anyone do any more than that? why would anyone get a full time job? or a career? or even own a business to employ those part time legions?
A naive person might say "they'd do it to keep themselves busy or do what they love", but come on now, that's barely enough to make up for the lost work force.
Again, I'm no expert in the field, but I think it's safe to estimate that less than a fifth or even a tenth of people do their job because they truly love it and would keep doing it if they wouldn't get paid for it.
"But they would get paid for it!" I hear you ask, but why bother?
Why would, say, an accountant go to work every day when he really doesn't need it? how much passion do you think accountants have for their job? I'd bet my left eye not enough to do it despite not needing to financially.

[Anonymous No.9960028]

so when the interest rate is 0 percent, we're already doing this, except for banks instead of human beings

[Anonymous No.9960029]

>>9960021
Well you're forgetting one important part - UBI is supposed to be a better welfare, i.e you cut every form of welfare and directly hand the money to the people to let them do whatever the fuck they want by buying the services from the private sector according to their needs. It's good because it both cuts a large portion of the inefficient bureaucratic mess and also indirectly subsidizes the private sectors that replaces it, like healthcare, since people will be spending the majority of their UBI there. So basically cut about 400bil in expenditure, put it as local business subsidies and then rename it to "UBI" while giving out the subsidies to every person so they can choose the healthiest companies instead of giving them directly to the companies, all the while making them think that they're the ones receiving free welfare

[Anonymous No.9960032]

>>9960027
accountants already go through schooling and even take on debt to avoid being restricted to minimum wage work. UBI might reduce incentives, but it wouldn't eliminate them

[Anonymous No.9960035]

>>9960029
of course the problem with this is then many welfare industries (healthcare?) are unregulated and charge more than their fair share

[Anonymous No.9960037]

>>9960029
>basically cut about 400bil
From where? You can see from the chart current welfare is 200 billion. So we scrap all of that, find an extra 200 billion and pay everyone their ubi each month. That small amount won't cover rent, and we've just scrapped housing benefit, so now we have families living on the street. It won't work. Either ubi needs to be in addition to the current benefit system or we need to accept indian levels of squalor and poverty.

[Anonymous No.9960043]

>>9960032
So why would they go be an accountant at all?
Why wouldn't lazy people just not work? or work once in a while to pay for luxuries?
Why would the people who would found the companies in which these accountants work even bother with founding it?

[Anonymous No.9960046]

>>9959974
Wouldn't inflation render it useless?
If the landlord knows everybody will have extra money to spend, he will just raise the rent.
I would expect to see a price increase in everything that poor people buy with their ubi.

[Anonymous No.9960049]

>>9960027
> let's ASSUME Switzerland just has this money lying about not doing anything (which it doesn't)
the money doesn't have to be "lying around," UBI involves restructuring existing public spending
the rest of your post is sloppy sociopsychological speculation

[Anonymous No.9960051]

>>9960019

Why is that nonsense? Take the soviet union as an example. We do not even factor in the destruction and human loss after WW2. Somewhere around 1970-1980.

> a salary was around 120 rubbles for almost any kind of job
> a meal was 1 rubble
> average waiting time for a guaranteed, free flat was around 10 years (roughly the time it takes to plan, build and arrange a new house)
> same waiting time for a guaranteed piece of your own land to cultivate, build something etc.
> food has been available everywhere despite the ocassional shortages
> luxury items (cars, electronics) were rare and expensive, but still available. Public transportation was worldclass.

Now if it were not for the cold war arms race, space race craze etc, unfair economic isolation, it would be the most prosperous nation on earth today, as it did not focus human power on useless luxury items, bourgeois palaces and villas for the elites, toys and gadgets, endless political campaings, religious worship and cathedrals, mass media indoctrination, countless advertisements, and so on.

Ofc it still had many problems, but I fail to see how "I have money and guns so I own you." is morally superior to "Hey lets all work together so noone needs to suffer as much and we can all live peacefully."

[Anonymous No.9960054]

Wouldn't that drive up the prices of absolutely everything?
If people have more money that means companies can raise prices, so then that initial UBI money is worth less and might not even be enough for the necessities it was meant to fund, so people would end up working just as much as before except now the money they had before UBI is worth less.
You could try and increase the UBI but then you'd go through the same process again, inflation would skyrocket and the money people already have would lose it's value even further.

I'll accept I might be missing something, I'm far from being knowledgeable on the topic, but it sure SOUNDS like a more complicated version of "what do you mean we don't have enough money? just print more money".

[Anonymous No.9960055]

>>9960051

[Anonymous No.9960056]

>>9960046
>I would expect to see a price increase in everything
Then people would simply buy everything in another nation that doesn't have UBI while officially having a small shed in Switzerland as their main residence in to keep receiving the money.

[Anonymous No.9960060]

>>9960037
>From where?
You said a random 400bil sum so I repeated it, but I highly doubt that it's actually 400bil. When we're talking about UBI we aren't talking about thousands of dollars per family member per month, we're talking about just some 600-700 that are enough to live on in minimal conditions - universal BASIC income. You need a good PC, a new car, or are afraid that you cannot fund a cancer treatment if you ever get one? Well you go to fucking work, you know, just like it is right now.

>That small amount won't cover rent
Did you think before saying that? What kind of people are the ones who rent? They're either workers who moved to a place with a better opportunity and therefor have to rent there, or kids forced out of their home by their parents so they find a job. In both cases, the extra income from the job covers the rent and you're not supposed to randomly move out and rent when UBI is your only income

>and we've just scrapped housing benefit, so now we have families living on the street
Well I don't know how exactly does the UK work but there are many countries in the world where the citizens all manage to afford a home without housing benefits, and then if they actually can't you can always just mortgage and, you know, work.

Judging from your arguments you seem to forget that UBI isn't designed to outlaw all jobs, and you can always find a job if you lack the money just like in the pre-UBI world. Again, UBI is just decentralized welfare while acting as a decentralized subsidy to the nation's economy

[Anonymous No.9960061]

>>9960027
>how much passion do you think accountants have for their job?

But this is the whole point, we need to get rid of jobs that enslave people for the benefit of others as much as is physically possible. The reason work exists is so that us humans have to do less to survive. The only logical conclusion that may follow is that eventually, no human will ever have to work for his survival.

The invention of tools, engines, automation etc, all help humans achieve more for working less.

The goal is not to have jobs for the sake of having jobs, or a social class for the sake of having a social class, or education for the sake of education, but to make life easier and to guarantee all humans survival under no conditions.

[Anonymous No.9960063]

>>9960049
>the money doesn't have to be "lying around," UBI involves restructuring existing public spending
Wouldn't UBI be MUCH more expensive even if we don't consider how it would cause disastrous levels of inflation?
It's not just about how much money people have, it's about how much money they have relative to other people, if everyone gets the same amount of money than that added sum doesn't change much, prices will adjust to take this extra money into consideration.
>the rest of your post is sloppy sociopsychological speculation
Sure, why not, but what specifically from what I wrote doesn't make sense?
They're speculations all right, but I think they're very reasonable.

[Anonymous No.9960064]

>>9960063
>it would cause disastrous levels of inflation
proof?

[Anonymous No.9960067]

>>9960055

Are you allergic towards reality?

[Anonymous No.9960068]

>>9960064
Just look at what happened to Venezuela. They might not had an UBI but they had huge minimum wages and unemployed benefits.

[Anonymous No.9960069]

>>9960060
>600-700 that are enough to live on in minimal conditions - universal BASIC income
Do the math. Multiply that by 12 then by the population of UK. You'll get quite a high number.
>What kind of people are the ones who rent?
Around 40% of the population.
I'm not talking about people with well paying jobs. I'm talking about the people, working and non working, who are currently dependent on benefits. A ubi system will see them destitute, as the amount they receive will plummet.
>and you can always find a job if you lack the money
Ok you might be an idiot. You lose your job. UBI doesn't pay enough to pay rent or mortgage. What happens? Either ubi needs to cover the cost of living, in which case it will be even higher, or we accept third world poverty returning.

[Anonymous No.9960070]

>>9960055

[Anonymous No.9960074]

>>9960068
here's a more rigorous empirical example that actually involves something equivalent to UBI: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/467_The-Price-Effect-of-Cash-versus-In-kind-Transfers_July%202017.pdf
villages were given cash aid, no inflation happened

[Anonymous No.9960076]

>>9960064
see >>9960054.
More money in the hands of the population means the prices of everything can rise, if the prices of everything rise that means the currency is worth less than it did before UBI, because it has a lower buying power.
That also means that the money you saved up, hid under a mattress or invested somewhere will have less value.
That is called inflation.

[Anonymous No.9960077]

>>9960074
I lightly skimmed this PDF and I assume this speaks about giving money to a specific part of the population? as opposed to giving money to absolutely everyone?

[Anonymous No.9960078]

>>9959974
The second people get UBI, they will fuck your mom all the time. That's billions of dicks being thrown into the bottomless pit.

Yeah, it could work.

[Anonymous No.9960079]

>>9960055

Such "brutal dictatorships". In dire need of cola, burgers, debt for 15 years, patriot strikes and drug gangs fighting on the streets, aka "freedom".

[Anonymous No.9960080]

>>9960025
>gives it back to "them"
Not even that, it takes money (resources) from the productive people and gives it to the less productive people. It's the worst kind of dysgenics we have pulled of so far in the history.

[Anonymous No.9960082]

>>9960069
>Do the math.
Fine, I will. So contrary to what you said, welfare in the UK isn't actually 200bil, it's 650bil, of which Pensions (165), Health Care (145), Education (42), Public Transport(21) and General Welfare (60) is supposed to be cut instantly with UBI introduction, or just above 400bil. There you go.

>Around 40% of the population.
Another false statistic, it's actually 20% and it is mainly around industrial and business areas like London, meaning that it is job seekers who constitute the majority of renters, or basically what I explained a post above

>Ok you might be an idiot. You lose your job. UBI doesn't pay enough to pay rent or mortgage. What happens? Either ubi needs to cover the cost of living, in which case it will be even higher, or we accept third world poverty returning.
And how the fuck do you do that right now when there isn't even an UBI you colossal retard?

[Anonymous No.9960085]

>>9960082
Oh by the way when talking about welfare I didn't even include the local authority welfare you see in the pic, just the central

[Anonymous No.9960090]

>>9960082
>And how the fuck do you do that right now when there isn't even an UBI you colossal retard?
Housing benefit you colossal retard. Which your plan involves axing. Along with free schools, healthcare and pensions. UBI will not pay for those things for 90% of the population, so we have third world poverty again.
>62.9% – were owner-occupiers in 2015-16.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/02/home-ownership-in-england-at-a-30-year-low-official-figures-show
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9960092]

>>9960051
>There are actual commies in /sci/ now, posting shit like this
This is about as unscientific as it gets. Completely ignoring the facts and reality while pretty much claiming that the opposite is true.

[Anonymous No.9960093]

>>9959974
>is Universal Basic Income possible?
Yes, but its a huge money sink and leads to less productivity and higher inflation
You would want your handouts to be coupled to the inflationrate.
More handouts -> more inflation -> more handouts -> ...

[Anonymous No.9960096]

>>9960056
Other nations can impose tariffs and change the exchange rate of currencies.

[Anonymous No.9960099]

>>9960051

Fuck you seriously. Soviet Union was a stagnating shithole and it could not economically compete with the West at all. I say it as a citizen of a post-communist country who lived through that shit, not some pampered western idiot like you. You can a welfare state without destroying entire private sphere of the economy.

[Anonymous No.9960100]

>>9960092
> Pictures are unscientific
> photons from that time hitting screens from that time of cities from that time are unscientific
> the option of a human that has not even lived been alive then is scientific

Do you also believe that gender is fluid, or that gravity is a human concept?

[Anonymous No.9960102]

>>9960051
oh dear

[Anonymous No.9960103]

>>9960070
>>9960079

looks like a shithole all right

[Anonymous No.9960108]

Anyone who wants successful people to give their hard-earned money to gender studies graduates and crack addicts should kill themselves as parasites. Fuck all commies to death.

[Anonymous No.9960110]

>>9960099
Well I happen to be born in the soviet union, and it only went to shit in the 90s, when under the пepecтpoйкa entire sectors of manufacturing previously under peoples power were sold to the highest bidder, usually some corrupt state clerk or wester "businessesman" after decades of wealth and stability. They turned a superpower into a gas station. No wonder дepьмoкpaтия (shitocracy, play of words) is a term.

And "stagnation" means they had no blue jeans or walkmen, and could not visit Paris, which is arguably the most idiotic reason for a revolution.

[Anonymous No.9960122]

>>9960103
Comparing a roachinfested, vapid, attentionwhoring, cancerous nightmare of a town to an intelligent, planned, free and egalitarian society based on human dignity.

[Anonymous No.9960160]

UBI can work, but needs really steep taxation.
Pic related: effective marginal tax percentages in Finland by welfare class. UBI has estimated average 62% marginal tax, and other systems have up to 70%. Hence UBI reduces income traps.
I should remark that effective marginal tax is not related to income tax. Tax rates in Finland are 8-40% for 97% of the people.

[Anonymous No.9960216]

>postcards and illustrations are proof of how good life was in the USSR

[Anonymous No.9960244]

>>9959974
The only "UBI" an economist would agree to is a negative income tax. Or something based on the EITC (Earned income tax credit)

[Anonymous No.9960249]

>>9960244
For those who don't know what a negative income tax is: It's basically a flat tax that everyone needs to pay, but the government gives everyone a refund equal to the amount of money needed to live on fundamental resources.
If done right, the poor receives a substantial income boost (a "living wage"), the middle class doesn't pay taxes, and the amount the rich have to pay is less inefficient than our current tax system.

[Anonymous No.9960260]

>>9960216

>muh capitalism

[Anonymous No.9960270]

>>9960056
of course /sci/ has no idea how exchange rates work.

[Anonymous No.9960277]

>>9960054
Just force businesses to keep the prices high enough yo not get bankrupt at the very most.

[Anonymous No.9960284]

>>9960260
ah yes, 110th worldwide, just under real winners like Egypt, Bolivia and N. Korea.

[Anonymous No.9960481]

>>9960108
This isn't about want but about necessity. They claim that we're reaching a point where automation is increasingly replacing a larger number of jobs. Huge numbers of people will need to be retrained (on debt or someone else's dime most likely). In the absolute worst case, there will be less jobs overall. In any case, there's going to be more people on the streets. Yes, that probably means more crack addicts ironically. Worsening conditions for the working class will probably move more people to studying Marxism. Probably worse than gender studies, don't you agree? It's all probably going to go down like this unless the businesses and governments do something.

[Anonymous No.9960495]

>>9960043
>So why would they go be an accountant at all?
to give themselves a significantly higher quality of life. why do people go to law school when they could just work minimum wage their whole life?

[Anonymous No.9960498]

>>9960110
It’s fucking amazing that people think the Soviet Union was hell but ignore the precipitous decline in living standards for most Russians since a free market was implemented.

[Anonymous No.9960500]

>>9960108
Normal opinions from normal people.

>we live in a society

[Anonymous No.9960511]

>tfw UBI is literally supply-side economics

[Anonymous No.9960521]

>>9959974
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDkHLPanjkQ

[Anonymous No.9960528]

>>9959974
>is there any general principled scientific/mathematical reason why UBI can't work
nope, there isn't. there's more than enough money to go around.

we just have to grow a spine and tax the rich. personally i think there should be a hard cap on income but aggressive taxation is fine too.

[Anonymous No.9960538]

>>9959994
Those jobs pay exceptionally well and require a substantial amount of fortitude. Desperate people don’t do them, ambitious people do.

[Anonymous No.9960544]

>>9960498
It's fucking amazing that people think Vladimir Putin is an amazing leader that can do no wrong.

[Anonymous No.9960547]

>>9960538
>Desperate people don’t do them, ambitious people do.
Or maybe desperate people too.

[Anonymous No.9960556]

>>9960027
People would have the same incentive to work they have now, and that is to afford expensive goods and services beyond basic needs, as well as self-fulfillment. If they can have 5.000$ from UBI + part time jobs and 7.000$ from UBI + full time job, most people are going to work full time, because they would have a considerably larger income.

Also, your calculation regarding the financial side is completely wrong. First, children and minors would get no income or a reduced income. Second, people living on state pensions, social welfare and comparable programs would get their pensions replaced by UBI. There are around 2 million households in Switzerland. Suppose they get 20.000 UBI a year on average. That's 40 billion for a country like switzerland. Now consider that Switzerland is already spending 30 billion a year on social welfare, and suddenly it's certainly not hard to finance. You would have to increase the overall government income by roughly 10%, which is not easy, but certainly doable. Especially considering that it would stimulate the economy.

[Anonymous No.9960572]

>>9959974
DUDE GIVE MONEY TO FREELOADERS AND CRIMINALS, AND THEN INVITE IN THE ENTIRE 3RD WORLD WITH NO BORDERS.

Liberals should be fucking murdered. Every last one of you ought to be hunted and murdered.

[Anonymous No.9960589]

>>9959974
It's possible but would cause a lot of other problems

[Anonymous No.9960591]

>>9960547
you don't just jump into those kinds of jobs, you are vetted to make sure you aren't going to endanger yourself or others. more importantly, it takes some grand kind of financial pressure to over ride a persons reptilian brain sufficiently enough to make it through a work day in those kinds of fields.

t. lineman

[Anonymous No.9960595]

>>9960591
>some grand kind of financial pressure to over ride a persons reptilian brain sufficiently
This must be what they call desperation.

[Anonymous No.9960603]

>>9960595
my point was financial desperation doesn't really trigger the immediate fight or flight response that say, heights, does. its an abstract pressure with entirely different trigger points.

[Anonymous No.9960607]

>>9960067
>>9960070
>>9960079

>Cherry-picked postcards are an accurate depiction of reality

[Anonymous No.9960617]

>>9960572
>>DUDE GIVE MONEY TO FREELOADERS AND CRIMINALS, AND THEN INVITE IN THE ENTIRE 3RD WORLD WITH NO BORDERS.

Can we not? I agree that welfare is bad but for different reasons that's borderlining accelerationism. This dysfunctional system needs to be called out for it's lack of clothes. At this rate, will become plain obvious that the working class needs to take their own destiny in their hands rather than beg the business and governments for handouts. There isn't anything left to for the American welfare state. It's run it's course and trying to pump it back up will detract from other essential pillars such as military which won't slow the collapse down.

[Anonymous No.9960647]

>>9959974
It's not feasible. The current quality of life, in terms of infrastructure and organization are functioning at this level due to the budget they have now. If UBI cuts into those budgets, you have to be prepared for lower quality due to compensating for budget cuts. The planning is also a nightmare too. What age would UBI start being provided? When will it end? Not only would you need enough money to supply the already eligible population, you'll need money for the incoming eligible population, as well as the sheer magnitude of immigrants that'll flock over once they catch wind that "x government is giving their citizens free money". And how long could they possibly keep that up for?

[Anonymous No.9960653]

>>9959974
ubi itself isn't enough but it is one if several things that in tandem help a country a fucking.

Idiots just sperg out and hyper ficus in it solely.

[Anonymous No.9960655]

>>9960647
>but just increase taxes
>tax the rich more
There's more than a handful of people, rich or not, that refuse to lose their hard earned money, to let NEET basement gremlins leech money they work 40+ hours a week to get. Some would fight tooth and claw not to do that. Which begs the question, how else are they going to get that unprecedented amount of money?

[Anonymous No.9960664]

>>9960655
You think people are gonna neet off it?

[Anonymous No.9960668]

>UBI: Absurd.
>Billionaires with fleets of yachts and million dollar cars made by subsidiaries of billion dollar companies with swarms of millionaire lawyers from billion dollar law firms with nice big books full of every tax loophole that some suspiciously wealthy congressman wrote in some nice big books: Status quo.

[Anonymous No.9960669]

>>9960664
More people will than you think.

[Anonymous No.9960671]

>>9959974
The only ones against are americans, they are fucked in the head, brainwashed to work their ass for their boss and anything who dares to propose another way of life is a communist.

The rest of the world agrees that people should have a decent life as a baseline just for being a citizen

[Anonymous No.9960672]

>>9959974
increasing wages in certain low wage jobs is feasible, but doing this across the board without regard to the work done will definitely hurt the ability for corporations to maintain/increase revenue which will lead to much higher unemployment. you can tax the rich directly to a higher degree, but forcing them to pay their low skill employees more will never work.

[Anonymous No.9960689]

>>9960668
>Imagine being so retarded that you believe being against UBI means you automatically favor the status quo.
Fuck off with your nigger tier IQ.

[Anonymous No.9960691]

>>9960669
The people who are gonna neet it already are neets. the eons that aren't will still work.

[Anonymous No.9960697]

>>9960671
>The rest of the world agrees that people should have a decent life as a baseline just for being a citizen

Zanzibar gave it's elderly a small pension and it help families a fuckton because the elderly invested it back into their families and business.

[Anonymous No.9960715]

>>9959974
Guys, why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $1000 per hour?

[Anonymous No.9960730]

>>9960689
If you can't read the post in question means that the status quo is in fact so much more absurd than UBI that calling the UBI absurd is absurd in and of itself.
Also it would seem that the nominal conservative position would be to maintain status quo hence 'conservative'. It seems you may be schizophrenic I advise that you cull yourself.

[Anonymous No.9960731]

>>9960691
Some people can't get away with being neet at this point.

[Anonymous No.9960733]

>>9960715
Guys, why don't we just lower the minimum wage to $-1000 per hour? That way companies will have unlimited power and they will innovate at unprecedented levels. Infact why not have people work 24/7 it's just more time for work and the companies make more money

[Anonymous No.9960734]

>>9960731
So just a marginal few?

[Anonymous No.9960758]

>>9960027
>why would anyone get a full time job? or a career? or even own a business to employ those part time legions?
Status. A very small fraction of people in any well-paying job got there because of greed. Most have a very strong drive to be seen as "successful", which means choosing from a set of full-time careers which are considered respectable.
The glorification of work in western countries means that your average normie has an extremely low opinion of unemployed people. Get on any urban bus and you can talk to some 40-something white trash loser working at McDonald's who will still gladly tell you how much better she is than those deadbeats without a job because she Works Hard.

[Anonymous No.9960775]

UBI's a bad idea. Don't turn even more people into NEET potatoes.

[Anonymous No.9960798]

>>9960775
Y I K E S

[Anonymous No.9960801]

>>9960671
this.

[Anonymous No.9960823]

>>9960080
t. rand

[Anonymous No.9960835]

>>9960046
i think that the idea is that although ultimately prices will rise, they will not rise so much so as to make, say, bread, unaffordable. So in essence, you minimise people dying of hunger or equivalents

[Anonymous No.9960841]

>>9960671
The French economy is tanking as all the rich renounce their citizenship, but I'm sure every thing will be fine.

[Anonymous No.9960843]

>>9959974
UBI already exists you brainlet. Your definition was "money given by nation to citizen to sustain himself". Nations offer free schools, free markets, free people, peace and laws, free communication, and free infrastructure.

The benefits I get from my nation for free OVERWHELMINGLY exceed any meager benefits like "salary" and "personal property". I would work for free here if I had to choose between living here as a citizen or in shitholes as a citizen. Im part of this great system that maintains life and I'm goddamn proud citizen.

Useless millenials like you place too much value on money. Money is nothing compared to security, health, friends, love and family.

[Anonymous No.9960848]

>>9959974
Can anyone explain to me why UBI is better than simply taking the same money and distributing it to the poorest people in the country (minimum income instead of universal income).

[Anonymous No.9960855]

>>9960691
>the people who would be NEETs already are
Absolutely not, the only people who can get away with being a NEET (and I mean full time, full fledged NEETs, not someone who's taking a long-ish break between studying and/or work, with no intent of changing it) are those who either have enough money to support it (an insane inheritance or some form of trust fund) or those who manage to leech off their parents, you have plenty of would-be NEETs who are working because they have no choice, and if given the choice they would retire to the comforting tomb of NEETdom.

[Anonymous No.9960863]

>>9960848
I think it's just a matter of presentation, because there are two issues with the method you describe that would make it very hard to sell to people.
One is that people (this is worst in America) don't like the idea of their money being given to somebody else. If you set up a system that looks like a one-way cash flow you will meet heavy resistance. People need the appearance that they're also benefiting from it.
Another is that middle-class people fucking hate poor people, and it would be difficult to convince them to give them free money. But if it's phrased in a manner that doesn't emphasize that it's designed to help poor people they're less resistant.

[Anonymous No.9960875]

>>9960848

end result is the same anyway, you just pay more in taxes

[Anonymous No.9960877]

>>9960843
See how the secure American system works for you when you have no money, rights for a penniless hobo in america are pretty slim I could drive down to a bridge a night with a lead pipe and beat a homeless man to death go home a forget about it the next day I won't here a thing from law enforcement; we are both citizens the difference is I have money.

[Anonymous No.9960878]

>>9960863
A depressing reality.

[Anonymous No.9960892]

>>9960877
If you have no money, go get a job through work ministry or yourself.

If there is difficulty in getting job, educate yourself.

If there is difficulty in learning, go to healthcare station to check your brain.

[Anonymous No.9960922]

>>9960892
There is no such thing in the USA.
Homeless are banned from libraries in the USA.
"Here is your bill cash or kidney?"

[Anonymous No.9960937]

>>9960922
A lie or incorrect statement.
A lie or incorrect statement.
If you cant pay, a payment plan will be arranged for you but you arent denied treatment.

Fucking fat brainlet

[Anonymous No.9960952]

>>9959974
I like how they make the guy in this pic fat, really says it all.

[Anonymous No.9960962]

>give free money
>everything costs more
>companies receive the free money instead

[Anonymous No.9960967]

>>9960672
Paying a higher minimum wage is not UBI, fucjtard

[Anonymous No.9960968]

>>9960051
The Soviet Union wasn't communist. It was communism for the poor and powerless and capitalism for the rich and powerfull.

[Anonymous No.9960972]

>>9960691
Not all people meet the requirements for welfare, which means they are forced to work (which they will quit after UBI)

[Anonymous No.9960976]

>>9959974
Only with mandatory mathematics questions that work like encryption that you must break to get your credits, society breaks codes, education becomes necessary, high IQ proliferates. Correct answers generate the UBI credits.

[Anonymous No.9960977]

>>9960734
More than you think

[Anonymous No.9960981]

>>9960863
People aren't that stupid, they realize that this is a transfer of wealth.

[Anonymous No.9960986]

>>9960892

>go learn
>no money for tuition and debt is already high, so student loans would only make the problem worse

>go to healthcare station to check brain
>no money or health insurance

Thank god I’m not an Amerifat, so for me those steps would be easier if I happened to be poor, but it’s a reality in the US

[Anonymous No.9960987]

The middle class are the only ones who pay taxes. Not a cent that goes into government programs comes from the wealthy. UBI is stealing from the poor and giving it to the criminals.

[Anonymous No.9960991]

Don't listen to the siren song of socialism.
It kills the culture and soul of a nation and its people.

[Anonymous No.9961000]

>>9960952

I like how Murica is the fastest country of the world yet one of the worst when it come to social policies.

[Anonymous No.9961011]

If you like Scandi-socialism, move there.

[Anonymous No.9961039]

>>9960937
Ok in california caljobs.ca.gov do the homeless have internet? Ok take a quick stroll to the library oh no you have been asked to leave ok just one sec i'm looking at caljobs *que fastest police response time in the area* "GET ON THE GROUND STOPRESISTING BRAA STOP RESISTINGGGGG!!!!!!" *BANGBANG* *dies*

>If you cant pay, a payment plan will be arranged for you but you arent denied treatment.
Who are you responding to I wrote "Here is your bill cash or kidney?"

[Anonymous No.9961044]

>>9960991
Nice strawmeme

[Anonymous No.9961045]

>>9961011
>facebook
you need to go back

[Anonymous No.9961056]

>>9961044

[Anonymous No.9961058]

>>9961045

[Anonymous No.9961062]

You are misunderstanding the real intention behind UBI. It is not about defeating poverty, it is about defeating tax evasion. The concentration of the wealth also lead to more and more tax evasion happens, as very rich people have capabilities to do so that normal people don't have. You give the middle class 20.000$ or more per household, not so they can conume it, but so they can invest it and pay taxes on investment. The concentration of wealth is becoming a bigger and bigger issue for the taxation capabilities of states, so they will start doing something about it.

[Anonymous No.9961072]

>>9961056
>everyone rides bicycles
>exercise is good for health
>people don't need to go to the doctor as much
>healthcare can cost less ultimately

[Anonymous No.9961074]

>>9959974
Many of the people who need a lot of social services have mental issues that would prevent them from using their UBI to meet their basic needs. It's a great system if the poor are really temporarily impoverished aristocrats, but if they are actually schizophrenic heroin addicts, UBI will not be at all helpful for them.

That's why it's a poor replacement for welfare programs that provide healthcare, housing, or food. If you really are just interested in wholesale wealth redistribution, it's effectiveness will depend on the tax scheme used to pay for it.

[Anonymous No.9961077]

>>9959974
It might work if we automate nearly everything, but it doesn't mean it's the best solution.
Once we reach that level of automation, everything will be so cheap you won't have to earn much to get food and utilities. One person could sustain large family and some companies like shopping malls might give food for free just like banks give you coffee to encourage you to come and talk with an salesman.
I don't really see why UBI would be needed. When production costs decrease, prices go down as well. That's how capitalism works.

>>9959982
That's not how economy works.

>>9960009
>>9960013
Not every company is corporation. Majority of people do not work for corporation.
This kind of reasoning is the reason why monopolies are so powerful. You assume every company has unlimited money and create policy that will kill all kind of small business and free corporations from competition.

[Anonymous No.9961089]

>>9961062
>implement UBI
>taxes go up on the poor but stay the same on the rich
>???
>Profit!

[Anonymous No.9961093]

>>9960013
Why would anyone want to be a CEO if they got taxed 80%?
People would prefer other positions, or find tax loopholes.

[Anonymous No.9961099]

>>9961093
>Why would anyone want to be a CEO if they got taxed 80%?
Because you are still richer than everyone else.

[Anonymous No.9961103]

[Anonymous No.9961105]

[Anonymous No.9961106]

>>9960054
the fundamental basis of UBI is a consolidation and streamlining of the social welfare system. the overall amount of wealth redistribution is the same, you just change how it gets from point A to B.

i did the calculation once and if you liquidated both state and federal welfare programs (all 124 of them) and redistributed those monies via EBT, each US citizen over the age of 18 would receive ~$9000 a year.

[Anonymous No.9961108]

>>9960014
Quit being a faggot and speculate or join a different thread

[Anonymous No.9961110]

>>9961056
A car is and should be a luxury in Copenhagen as its population density is about the same as a New York City but its size is much smaller only 33.6 sq miles giving the longest possible diagonal of 8.16 miles maybe an hour

[Anonymous No.9961114]

>>9961103
The u.s. dosen't import food

[Anonymous No.9961117]

>>9961103
Godamn that's woke

[Anonymous No.9961120]

>>9961117
SO wOke THe US DOSEnT GroW ENougH FooD It IMPORts It From tHE FAiryLand

[Anonymous No.9961121]

>>9961114
We do, but just the luxury shit like spices.
Still tho, all that's being shipped round on someone's dime.

[Anonymous No.9961125]

>>9961120
See >>9961121
Cities used to be surrounded by fields of wheat. We'll have to regress to that without money for interstate transport. Cities as we know it will be disbanded.

[Anonymous No.9961127]

[Anonymous No.9961129]

[Anonymous No.9961130]

>>9960061
Whats the purpose of Life then? This is why people are so depressed and more depressed in the future

[Anonymous No.9961147]

>>9961130
The purpose of life is simple: melt down into tang and throw seeds of life into space.

[Anonymous No.9961161]

>>9960538
Do you think of a highly ambitious person when you think of a miner? All of the miners around here do it because their dad did, who did it because their dad did, who did it because t........

[Anonymous No.9961219]

>>9959974
>why don't we give everyone back some of the money we took from them in taxes?

It's almost like they're on to something.

[Anonymous No.9961249]

If you’re poor to the point of not being able to eat in a 1st world nation you probably deserve it. Even in America we have a huge welfare net, charity is common, and minimum wage jobs are easy to find and hold on to if you aren’t a complete idiot.

>T. Thrown out at 18 and homeless for a few months

For the a huge amount of people money is the only reason for working, if you remove that incentive you’ll just create a bunch of NEET leaches.

[Anonymous No.9961266]

>>9959974
Honestly, to me it sounds very simply that there are two conditions if we want to have sustenance UBI financed through VAT (which is arguably the most logical, realistic and straightforward way):

- VAT should not be easy or economical to evade. I.e. large countries like the US will have less problems with people just going over their border to buy their stuff compared to a country like a Belgium where most inhabitants can drive abroad in more or less an hour.

- There should be enough of a consumerist culture that people would want to go work and use the extra money to actually buy "luxury" goods on a reasonable scale. Again, this condition is probably met in the US, maybe even in all Western countries. But Japanese people and other Buddhist peoples might just be content and thus ironically create financial problems.

So all in all I think it depends on your country's geographical size and how materialistic its people are. I believe it would work great in the US, France, Germany, Sweden etc. but not so much in countries like the Netherlands or Belgium.

[Anonymous No.9961267]

>>9961161
it has nothing to do with the $70k a year right out of high school?

[Anonymous No.9961272]

>>9961266
>9961266
Also, let's not perpetuate the idea that an idea that was embraced by minds such as Hayek and Friedman is a communist idea. There was no Universal Basic Income under communism, only Universal Basic Suffering.

[Anonymous No.9961274]

>>9961272
Lastly, if your country's consumerist enough people will still do dirty jobs. I'm pretty sure where I live there are enough people who'd clean toilets for a fancy car.

[Anonymous No.9961290]

>>9961249
>Even in America we have a huge welfare net, charity is common, and minimum wage jobs are easy to find and hold on to

Don't all these things just clash with each other? I don't agree that the US has a huge safety net, but putting that aside, if we did have a huge safety net, the commonplace of charity wouldn't be necessary. For example, if there was guaranteed healthcare, then people wouldn't have to go through a gofundme webpage to buy diabetes medication. I think charity is a telling sign about the size of poor. If there are more beggars on the street, then having more charity is not a proper solution nor is being charitable something to be proud of.

[Anonymous No.9961387]

[Anonymous No.9961391]

[Anonymous No.9961402]

>>9961387
But if you help people who need it, you get harassed for being racist.

[Anonymous No.9961445]

>>9961387
I love how out of touch with reality some libertarians are. If you actually work hard 50 hours a week or more (e.g. you have a business) then you don't have the time and energy for volunteering for charity. Also, if I vote for more tax I too actually pay more tax, not just other people. Finally, most private charities are shady scams. In the first world, governments are sporadically corrupt at best and corrupt government officials can be brought to trial. You can't sue officials of for instance Amnesty International giving themselves fat checks out of your charity money.

And I'm not mentioning that without government intervention a lot more people that need help don't get it. Or that if your taxes were lowered your employer is going to rethink the evolution of your salary in the future because he can now give you less while you can still have the same purchasing power. You don't win as an employee, we learned exactly that in Europe after 30 years of right wing governments.

[Anonymous No.9961451]

Insurance done properly covers everything productive that charities are suppose to do.

[Anonymous No.9961458]

>>9961387
lol
>charity is about feeling good about yourself, not helping people

[Anonymous No.9961462]

>>9961458
correct

[Anonymous No.9961475]

>>9961458
Charity is about throwing money everywhere and hoping that somebody who isn't a useless piece of shit gets some of it.

[Anonymous No.9961478]

>>9960843

Do you legit live in the US? The US is a "shithole" in comparison to every other 1st world country when it comes to any of this.

[Anonymous No.9961490]

>>9961478
>not having enough gibs is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.9961506]

>>9959997
Yeah, everyone should just sit at home on their hands! Why have progress when you could have safety instead?

Like seriously dude, what's your line? Don't you risk running over a pedestrian everytime you drive? Do you think just cause you accelerate slowly and stay under the speed limit your at an acceptable risk level? Fuck you for risking it at all right? Just stay home. It's just a job and meaningless trinkets. You don't need to hang out in real life. Just get welfare and snapchat and sit on your hands everyday and you'll arrive nice and neat and pretty into your little grave.

[Anonymous No.9961519]

>>9961506
lol what's your job?

[Anonymous No.9961522]

[Anonymous No.9961526]

[Anonymous No.9961540]

>>9960521
Is this supposed to make the side arguing against UBI look retarded?

[Anonymous No.9961552]

>>9961526
Oddly, that's exactly why they are doing that there.

I suspect a troll with a sense of irony made that image.

[Anonymous No.9961556]

>>9961077
>Not every company is corporation. Majority of people do not work for corporation.
I agree with your point but the fact is over 70% of all companies in America are registered as corporations. Even tiny mom and pop stores registered as corporations.

[Anonymous No.9961561]

>>9960538
>Those jobs pay exceptionally well
No they actually don't.
t. delivers mail in the ghetto

[Anonymous No.9961571]

>>9959974
UBI is just a re-branding of the failed Keynesian meme of the 40s and 50s. Shit didn't work then and it wont work now.

[Anonymous No.9961573]

>>9961561
Just go on strike lol

[Anonymous No.9961579]

>>9961478
US property rights are far stronger than in yurope, and our police are far more effective. Yurope is more peaceful not because the police are more effective but because the people are better behaved. Hence why crime has skyrocketed in yurope once all the muslims invaded. You are seriously delusional if you think the US markets aren't more free than in any other first world country.

[Anonymous No.9961659]

>>9960977
and it will help much more people overall. Especially the people who have to take on extra work due to financial issues which leads to less parent-child interaction which is very vital. That and more free time which helps reduce stress.

[Anonymous No.9961663]

>>9960009
>sitting upon millions and millions of dollars
In capital assets. Good luck liquidating all that.

[Anonymous No.9961665]

What's with this guy spamming shit pics?

[Anonymous No.9961672]

>>9961579
> Hence why crime has skyrocketed in yurope once all the muslims invaded.

Wrong you idiot. It's still low as fuck.

[Pedo hunter No.9961725]

>>9959982
Lol, I’m an Econ major and that’s funny af (yes I know econ is retarded most of the time)

[Pedo hunter No.9961728]

>>9960012
You sound like a fucking brainlet, now fuck off

[Pedo hunter No.9961737]

>>9960051
Ugh, fucking get out

[Anonymous No.9961747]

>>9960572
WE NEED MORE WOMEN AND BROWN PEOPLE IN X SOCIETAL POSITION SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE WHITE MEN IN IT

>Should we create better incentives to encourage a wider variety of people to seek the experience and education for the position?
>Should we "sell" the position better, and make the education for it more available to all groups?
>Perhaps we should be making the education-career pathway for the position more visible so that more people can see and know how to get it, and why they may want to, instead of being unaware of it?

NAH

LET'S JUST PUT MORE WOMEN AND BROWN PEOPLE IN THERE. ANY OF THEM, DOESN'T MATTER. THEY'LL GET THE HANG OF THINGS EVENTUALLY PROBABLY, IT'S ONLY A POSITION THAT REQUIRES AN IN-DEPTH VARIETY OF EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE TO QUALIFY.

[Anonymous No.9961767]

>>9959974
>is there any general principled scientific/mathematical reason why UBI can't work?

Market proportions.

Our current prices and cost of living are based on the fact that there is a portion of the population that does not make any recordable income at all. Once EVERYONE makes a certain amount of proven income without having to contribute anything in return, the prices of everything increase accordingly, since now selling something for a couple bucks is the equivalent of giving it away for free, and the franchise owner won't make a profit.

Suddenly, the cost of living has gone up, the people who were supposed to be given a basic livable income can't live on it any more, and we're back to square one.

But hey, why fix what isn't completely, absolutely broken yet? We can just keep piling band-aid on top of band-aid until the limb underneath becomes so weighed-down we just amputate it. Here in Canada, our economy got so fucked that it eventually cost more than 10 cents to mint a single 1-cent coin (penny). Instead of having to hunker down and reboot the economy, we just made pennies obsolete and ceased circulation. PROBLEM TOTALLY SOLVED FOREVER, NOW STOP ASKING WHY WE START COUNTING MONEY WITH 5.

[Anonymous No.9961768]

>>9960009
Yeah, and when you'll try to tax them, they'll just move to another country and transfer their assets to a foreign bank, leaving you in a worse state than you were in before, as now you no longer have large companies to produce wealth, and rich people to make investments in you economy. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.9961771]

>>9961768
The communist answer to that problem is to crash the entire world so that the rich have nowhere to run.

[Anonymous No.9961790]

>>9959974
Even just $100/mo would be nice desu

[Anonymous No.9961792]

professional 4chan hjaclker

[Anonymous No.9961892]

>>9961089
This is more or less exactly it. It is very hard to make a rich guy pay his taxes, but very easy to make middle and poor guys pay theirs.

[Anonymous No.9961900]

>>9961768
If their assets can be moved as easy as that, they probably had no real value anyway. A factory can't be moved just like that, for example. Now factories can be moved, but that is a slower process the state can react to. Putting tariffs on companies instead of countries is a hot idea right now in economics.

[Anonymous No.9961935]

>>9961900

>a factory can't be moved
Have you ever heard of outsourcing? They don't haul the factory up from the ground and move it out of the country, they just close down and pay some third worlders 10 cents an hour to do the job in their country.

[Anonymous No.9961941]

>>9961556
That doesn't change my point.
I'm not American, I don't know how you do it there.
Here we use corporation to describe large international company with hundreds or rather thousands of people. Small shops with 5 employees is a small business, even if they are registered as corporation.

[Anonymous No.9961948]

>>9961935
Are you fucking retarded? You literally dropped the second half of the sentence that gives the whole thing a completely different meaning. Just read the post again you moron.

[Anonymous No.9961953]

>>9961948

I'm sure all the workers who lost their factory job will be able to pay their mortgage and put food on the table and gas in their car with the tariffs placed on their former employer.

[Anonymous No.9962040]

[Anonymous No.9962067]

https://www.businessinsider.com/kenya-village-disproving-biggest-myth-about-basic-income-2017-12

[Anonymous No.9962071]

[Anonymous No.9962073]

[Anonymous No.9962086]

>>9959974
Probably inevitable.
A lot of jobs today are just padding, they produce nothing, and could be smoothed over and eliminated. They basically amount to a form of UBI.

[Anonymous No.9962087]

UBI can only work if people sign away their freedom and work as free labor when required by the government. Anyone else suggesting otherwise is a delusional commie leech parasite. Welfare cripples a person's mindset, you can see it every time you look at a welfare line.

People must be made to work and produce. If they do not do it of their own free will and earn their wage, they can be given an UBI, they will just have to accept relinquishing their freedom fully. An UBI already is slavery anyway, anyone who depends on it is no longer independent.

[Anonymous No.9962095]

We already have problems with growing welfare states in most of the West. UBI has the potential for cancerous levels of growth.

Imagine demagogue politicians promising more and more UBI for votes. They already do it with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid - even the political right considers those sacred cows, and they have to constantly reassure people there won’t be cuts to those programs.

UBI would grow and grow and grow, and we’d run out of other peoples’ money to fund it.

[Anonymous No.9962100]

>>9962071
Thats not adjusted for inflation. Nice try though.

[Anonymous No.9962121]

Funland had some intentions to give it a shot, but the current government buried it and went stricter on unemployment benefits instead.

But we already have something that amounts to more or less the same. If you're a broke nigger, the government will basically pay your rent and give you money to live on. Not enough to do anything fancy, but enough that you won't starve.

The reason the UBI proposal got some traction here was that it would greatly simplify the welfare system. And the current system already enables leeching, so it's not like much would change in that regard.

So if this system works (not fully sure that it does), then I don't see why UBI wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.9962834]

>>9961458
>charity is about feeling good about yourself, not helping people
Yes. Correct.
If the goal of individuals were to donate due to self sacrifice, then the ways in which they are donating are incredibly foolish.
For those who have some form of budget associated to donations, the tendency for them to donate is to do so to a handful of charities they wish to contribute.
However there is very little reason (no matter how large of a donation budget they have) to believe that their individual contribution to the problem is going to actually resolve the issue. So if there concern is due to self-sacrifice rather than self-gratification, then they would NOT choose to donate to a handful of charities. Rather they would choose to devote ALL of their donation money towards one charity they personally find to be the most pressing charity to resolve.
They DON'T do this, instead they donate "a little here, a little there", so a person cannot reliably say that the method of donation is motivated entirely by self-sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.9962855]

>>9962087
Why the fucking hell you assume people will sign away their work and freedom?

>An UBI already is slavery anyway, anyone who depends on it is no longer independent.

So is person who relies on the education system no longer independent?

[Anonymous No.9962856]

>>9961272
>an idea that was embraced by minds such as Hayek and Friedman


Friedman didn't "embrace" UBI, that's a propagandist lie, he only said that UBI would be better than welfare services (i.e. universal public healthcare, education, etc.). It would be a method of REPLACING them, not something to add up to the tax payers' burden, which is what closeted communist idiots want.

[Anonymous No.9962873]

>>9959974
Where does that money come from. Nothing is free OP. The money is either taken from others via taxing and/or said countries have to print more money which means the value of the money goes down. If everyone has more money to spend then prices for everything will go up as well while maintaining the same supply. In other words, you’ll eventually hit a point where the UBI won’t be that effective.

[Anonymous No.9962882]

>>9962873
Inflation actually isn't that much of an issue with UBI.

[Anonymous No.9962891]

>>9962882
as mentioned earlier ITT, it's not just about having money, but rather about how much money you have relative to other people.
If EVERYONE gets a certain amount of money, prices will go up accordingly, because people have more money they can spend on those products.
That means the coin's value will be lowered and you'd need more money to get the same purchasing power as before UBI, this is exactly inflation.
Such a process doesn't happen when you give money for certain specific groups as opposed to everyone.

[Anonymous No.9963012]

>>9962891
>If EVERYONE gets a certain amount of money, prices will go up accordingly, because people have more money they can spend on those products.

But everyone will still go out and seek the lower prices thus putting pressure on others to lower prices/maintain them.

[Anonymous No.9963020]

>>9962891
Most people aren't unemployed and normally can cover their life expenditures already with their salary. UBI is more supposed to a. guarantee everybody can cover basic needs and b. give people with low-wage-jobs an opportunity to save money and become financially more stable.

There has been several "field tests" with UBI and all are in line with these two goals. No field test ended with people turning into lazy fatties that live off UBI and surf the internet all day.

[Anonymous No.9963034]

>>9963012
famous last words prior to hyperinflation

[Anonymous No.9963037]

>>9963020
>No field test ended with people turning into lazy fatties that live off UBI and surf the internet all day.
and actually it seems like high-stress low-satisfaction work environments keep people on the couch when they go home

[Anonymous No.9963039]

>>9962873
UBI doesn't mean everyone gets the money, it means there's a floor of how much you get, so if the BI is 20k/year and you earn 15k/year working, you'd receive additional 5k/year from government/taxes. I'm against it by the way, just explaining.

[Anonymous No.9963053]

>>9963020
>>9963037
they were shitty tests then because that's exactly what will fucking happen, just look at Greece

[Anonymous No.9963059]

>>9963053
Frankly, it's more important to provide some minimum social programs if you're looking to do what UBI is supposed to do.

UBI is for frightened libertarians who aren't stupid enough to believe in full employment, but too brainwashed by muh models freshwater economics to consider any welfare system that's not somehow based on giving poor people consumer power.

But like this anon, I'm almost certain that any UBI program would result in massive increases in most prices.

[Anonymous No.9963060]

>>9963053
The Greek government was corrupt and mismanaged and plagued by all sorts of problems including tax evasion, that's just a ridiculous analogy.

[Anonymous No.9963065]

>>9963059
>Frankly, it's more important to provide some minimum social programs if you're looking to do what UBI is supposed to do.
agreed, any viable UBI system would need to spend a fortune on regulation anyway

[Anonymous No.9963335]

>>9961458
>>>charity is about feeling good about yourself, not helping people
>I-I'm not doing this to help you or anything! I'm only doing this because it wouldn't feel right not to.

very tsundere attitude senpai

[Anonymous No.9963342]

lmao at all ya'll who want to be just and responsible with charity

if a dude at the center line walks up to my car door and wants a dollar to buy a 40 or some weed, ill give him some money

[Anonymous No.9963372]

>>9959974
please explain to me how a society where a majority of the country does literally nothing and leeches off of the minority that produces things is going to function

[Anonymous No.9963379]

>>9963060

[Anonymous No.9963383]

>>9963372
dude spread the wealth lmao

[Anonymous No.9963386]

>>9963379
What a dumb meme. Just use the Soviet Union if you want an example of failure. Venezuela has a very large private sector.

[Anonymous No.9963394]

>>9963386
it's just cause Venezuela's the most recent example

[Anonymous No.9963402]

>>9963372
The idea is that do to automation (AI, robots, etc.), there just isn't enough jobs and shit for everybody to do everything. So, we give everyone enough to scrape by with the basics. If you work, well, then you have enough money to buy luxuries like a vacation, nice tv, nice car, etc. So, there are still strong incentives to work.

[Anonymous No.9963407]

>>9959974
I've always thought that UBI will hasten the decline of Earth's natural resources but i might be wrong though.

Economically, a country implementing UBI will have to make adjustments for unforeseen consequences of giving people money (e.g. purchasing power of currency falling, improper reaction to increased inflation, unemployment rate rising, etc.)

[Anonymous No.9963408]

>>9963372

It won't, which is why the (((elites))) have a plan to reduce the population once automation takes away enough jobs.

[Anonymous No.9963409]

>>9963383
>>dude spread the wealth lmao
There will be no more wealth (profit) to spread at that point. The only way out at that point is to have mass cullings or seize the factories, warehouses, and office buildings

[Anonymous No.9963415]

>>9963408
>guide reproduction wisely - improve diversity
why would you care about diversity if you were going to do eugenics holy shit

[Anonymous No.9963416]

>>9963415

They probably mean the "diverse genes" definition of diversity, not the "hordes of nonwhites" definition of diversity.

[Anonymous No.9963423]

>>9960521
He's completely right. Repeated himself a bit too much for my liking, but all his points are completely accurate.

It's bad enough with the welfare system. So many lazy degenerates having 5 kids and getting more government subsidies for each one they squeeze out.

Need to let nature take its course, and kill off the weak or at least hinder them from reproducing, so that the species can improve and progress into the future.

[Anonymous No.9963426]

>>9963423
>>Need to let nature take its course, and kill off the weak or at least hinder them from reproducing, so that the species can improve and progress into the future.
>t.56%

[Anonymous No.9963434]

>>9963423
this, incentivizing kids is absolutely retarded

[Anonymous No.9963440]

>>9963434
>>this, incentivizing kids is absolutely retarded
First world countries are already in a state where having kids are disincentivized. For example, in the US, there's laws that make it hard utilize child labor, and the cost of raising them is extremely expensive. Now once you remove welfare and labor laws, then we revert to conditions that resemble earlier, traditional times where people had more children to compensate for lack of medical care, poor quality of life, and a lack of secure retirement (other than your surviving adult children). Talk about counter-productive.

[Anonymous No.9963443]

>>9963440
you're saying lower class americans will start having even more kids if we took welfare away?

[Anonymous No.9963453]

>>9963440

In America it's terrible how having kids is punished/incentivized. If you are responsible and work hard you have to pay a ton of money to raise your 1-2 kids since you can only afford to have 1 or 2 kids. If you're a worthless piece of shit the government effectively gives you money for each additional kid you pop out and will pay for housing, food, healthcare etc - many significant childraising expenses for people who aren't dependent on handouts to survive. The hardworking family must support themselves and the leaches.

[Anonymous No.9963455]

>>9959974
Just tax the robots/machines

[Anonymous No.9963457]

>>9959974
Because scarcity and free will exist.

[Anonymous No.9963465]

>>9963443
Most likely. We can already see what the family looks like before the modern welfare state. Or if you want a more recent example, you can look at many of the poorer countries where large families are considered a sign of prosperity and blessings. In both cases, children are used for work, they serve as social safety nets that have been supplanted by the modern welfare state. You also had a lot of children in those days because of the lack of modern medicine and poor quality of life. The contraction of the welfare state could push society back in this direction, not entirely but still. I'm wondering at this point how people at the margins are going to make ends meet? Maybe another round of looser labor laws might come in the form of freer child labor laws?

[Anonymous No.9963466]

>>9963455
I mean if AI starts generally running the country they'll probably all be owned by the government, who will get all the proceedings

[Anonymous No.9963468]

>>9959974
I appreciate that the dude in that picture is fat as fuck. He's very prepared for the resource scarcity that will happen when half of the people in the workforce drop out due to UBI

[Anonymous No.9963472]

>>9963465
I was just talking about communities that particularly depend on welfare, not the whole country, they get extra money for having more kids which perpetuates the problem

[Anonymous No.9963486]

>>9963466
The government will NEVER use AI because AI reduces the number of jobs. No policy that reduces the number of people on government payroll will ever receive any kind of approval.

[Anonymous No.9963503]

>>9963486
Never say never. The same argument that machines will replace jobs has always stood, but despite that argument, that hasn't stopped them from using computers, automobiles, and telephones. What's keeping up the US government, in particular, is their slow and inept bureaucracy.

[Anonymous No.9963507]

>>9963408
>maintain humanity udner 500,000,000
BUT I'M A DUMB INBRED HICK/NIG/ABO LIVING ON WELFARE, I NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST SIX CHILDREN WITH EACH GIRLFRIEND! IT'S MY RIGHT AND PURPOSE AS A HUMAN BEING TO REPRODUCE AS MUCH AS I WANT NO MATTER IF I CAN SUPPORT EVEN ONE CHILD!

The "doomsday clock scientists" even made an announcement later last year saying the same shit as always. Paraphrased: We can still stick around for a little while longer as long as we fix our shit with greenhouse gas emissions, cease fossil fuel usage and start relying on renewable/electrical energy, and above all, HAVE LESS FUCKING CHILDREN ALREADY, keep it to 1 child for each person.

As long as you're just replacing yourself and your partner, no harm done. The problem is when globally, the rate of healthy births is far outreaching the rate of human deaths, which spells trouble when our planet is already getting a little crowded for what it can provide.

[Anonymous No.9963517]

>>9963457
>free will exists

Literally everything that you or I do is predetermined by an interlocking web of actions 14 billion years in the making.

[Anonymous No.9963544]

>>9963486

>what are drones

[Anonymous No.9963550]

>>9963517
free will exists at a functional level you autist

[Anonymous No.9963570]

>>9963012
>But everyone will still go out and seek the lower prices thus putting pressure on others to lower prices/maintain them.
The average person seeks out the lower price less than you seem to think.
They average person is willing to pay more for a certain brand of bread and milk because those are his favorite or he considers them the most trustworthy, he will stick with it even if it gets a little more expensive.
Even if it gets so much more expensive that he switches brands, what's to stop THOSE brands from raising prices?
I don't know what it's like in the USA, but in most places the number of brands for very basic products like milk and bread are very small, and it's not unheard of for them to talk and coordinate price increases.
Companies charge as much as profitable and as much as they can get away with, and you seem to underestimate just how much they can get away with.

[Anonymous No.9963607]

>>9959974
It'll only be viable later either this century or the next when automation reaches its peak and puts most people out of work whilst producing a glut of shit that needs to be consumed.

It'll be a combination of a cultural revolution and the beginning of some bizarre Brave New World style shit.

[Anonymous No.9963621]

>>9961000
>social policies

[Anonymous No.9963624]

>>9963517
>compatibilism

But it's a stupid argument, anyways.

Fun fact for economists: You're not mathematicians. You're scientists. You should probably find out whether or not your models correspond to reality.

[Anonymous No.9963744]

>>9961771
Oh yeah, that's a great idea

[Anonymous No.9963917]

>>9963607

I've thought about ubi a lot and have come to the conclusion that it's a trash idea even in a fully-automated civilization. Once you've hit the point where you think you need ubi to act as a bandaid, you should just ditch the entire economic system because it's just becoming invalidated by reality. On the most basic level, money is an abstraction of work, but in an automated future nobody is really working, so why even bother with it? Just saying you need it because that's the only way you know of distributing your consumerist shit is just a cop-out, an inability to accept reality and let go of antiquated ideas. Instead of using some dumbass bandaid, we'd need to actually come up with viable alternatives to the current system.

just skip ubi and go straight for star-trek imo

[Anonymous No.9963922]

>>9959974
dumbasses.
In your own picture "is a fixed amount" and "at a level sufficient for subsistence" are contradictory to one another
You cannot have a fixed amount and have it be at a level sufficient for subsistence because the level "sufficient for subsistence" is a variable that depends on the market, and it CANNOT BE a fixed amount. So you either have a variable amount, or it's not at a level of subsistence.

[Anonymous No.9963924]

You faggot nerds and your scifi fantasy automation bullshit. You're like little children being faux dramatis for attention. Your little nerd future isn't coming. By the time a fourth of this shit comes true, it'll take AGI for half of the rest and guess what, all you Kurzweill wannabes, when that happens UBI won't fucking matter. Get over it

[Anonymous No.9963941]

>>9960027
ideally, in terms of actual expenditure, the money you're giving out just gets spent within the country, and it doesn't cause any net loss.
You know that 60+% of it is going straight to foreign goods though.
UBI is literally something that is only reasonable it in an isolationist state.

[Anonymous No.9964065]

>>9959990
>productivity falls
Actually no, go look at any of the research done on the topic including case studies of individual towns.
> downsides
Paying people liveable, reasonably comfortable wages for their labour is not a downside.

[Anonymous No.9964072]

>>9960617
Jfc lad you need to read a book. America is systemically rigged to an incredible degree to the working class and below.

[Anonymous No.9964074]

>>9960841
Not that anon but this is non sequtiur af

[Anonymous No.9964076]

>>9961249
>
For the a huge amount of people money is the only reason for working, if you remove that incentive you’ll just create a bunch of NEET leaches.
No you wont, read the relevant literature. People desire function and dignity in their lives.

[Anonymous No.9964079]

>>9963550
Free will cannot exist at functional level if you dont think it does on a macro level.

[Anonymous No.9964087]

>>9962891
>>9963034
Isn't bad inflation more about the TOTAL amount of money? Like when countries start printing money. UBI wouldn't be like that.

[Anonymous No.9964163]

>>9960122

>human dignity

kek

[Anonymous No.9964180]

>>9959974
The main reason it wouldn't work is that governments have and always will be run by sociopaths. UBI sounds nice on paper, but it would be quickly exploited into another means for subjugating the public. By "providing" everyone with a yearly income (which is in actuality just the redistribution of stolen wealth), you turn everyone into a employee of the government. Or perhaps, more candidly, a property of the government.

[Anonymous No.9964198]

socialism doesn't work for fucks sake. You can't just cover wealth redistribution with a pretty name and ship it out.

[Anonymous No.9964218]

>>9964087
Not necessarily, a coin can lose it's value in many other ways.

[Anonymous No.9964313]

>>9960082
>So contrary to what you said, welfare in the UK isn't actually 200bil, it's 650bil, of which Pensions (165), Health Care (145), Education (42), Public Transport(21) and General Welfare (60) is supposed to be cut instantly with UBI introduction, or just above 400bil.
lol, healthcare, education and public transport can't be replaced by UBI.
UBI won't build schools, buy new busses, install railway lines or pay for radiologists, you dummy.

[Anonymous No.9964317]

>>9964198
there's plenty of countries in the world right now with socialist policies who are doing just fine

also wealth redistribution is a good thing

[Anonymous No.9964352]

>>9964317
like venesuela?
nordic countries have largely free economies. they are not socialist. You can balance some socialist policies with capitalism whilst not beoming socialist. Note some, not many. All the best performing countries in the world have open markets.
america is 18th btw.

[Anonymous No.9964357]

>>9964317
Having some light socialist policies is fine, unemployment and welfare under certain conditions, very good even, that doesn't mean EVERY socialist policy is good, many of them are woefully misguided and can crash a country.

[Anonymous No.9964448]

>>9964352
You guys just say the name "venezuela" and "socialism" but do you guys even know what is it that they did. I mean name the things instead of just saying "socialism"

[Anonymous No.9964480]

>>9960521
I love this dude's channel, especially his thoughts on women.

[Anonymous No.9964482]

>>9964352
venezuela is shit because the world stopped buying their only export. that could happen in any economic system, straight-up free capitalism included

>nordic countries have largely free economies. they are not socialist.
that's why i was careful to say socialist policies

>>9964357
of fucking course not every policy is going to land well. that doesn't mean

[Anonymous No.9964484]

NIT is more flexible and easier to digest. A UBI is a special case of the NIT. Overall they're both probably ok ideas if they can remove existing welfare cliffs. Administrative costs would also be lower although its less significant.

T. Economist

[Anonymous No.9964487]

>>9964482
woop i forgot to finish. meant to write "that doesn't mean we should discount everything even remotely associated with them"

[Anonymous No.9964499]

>>9964352
>economic freedom index

What a bunch of bullshit.

Venezuela has a larger private sector economy than plenty of other countries doing better than it.

Anyways, most of the people here are arguing for social programs, meaning welfare capitalism, meaning the countries listed. That includes policies that function, essentially, like wealth redistribution. This is the perfect example of weird right-wing rhetorical shifting. EFI or not, social programs do not spell doom for an economy.

[Anonymous No.9964513]

>>9964487
I never said we should disregard anything just because it's socialist, however we should definitely disregard UBI for being a stupid idea fueled by wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.9964519]

>UBI established
>vast majority of population immediately quits their job
>not enough tax money to fund 90% of the population
>people forced to get a job anyway
>now there's enough people working to fund those that aren't
>people start quitting again
>wild economic rollercoaster for decades

[Anonymous No.9964523]

>>9960668
>Tax the rich people! Make them pay for everything!
>Rich people take their capital and flee to tax-havens

[Anonymous No.9964554]

>>9961767
We recently did the same in norway with the 50ore coin

[Anonymous No.9964557]

>>9964523
that's their right
They're just never allowed to return. Thus, there are less greedy rich people over time.

[Anonymous No.9964566]

>>9964523

The commie solution to that is to build a wall to keep people in because borders absolutely exist when people don't want to give the state all their assets.

[Anonymous No.9964568]

>>9964557
Your country is now bankrupt

[Anonymous No.9964571]

>>9959974
>is there any general principled scientific/mathematical reason why UBI can't work?

no there isnt

in fact there is plenty of wealth for everyone to live comfortably forever. People forget that insane gap that opened up in the excess production one person provides in a modern economy over what a subsistence farmer can produce.

Not even kidding, Einstein wrote some killer essays on the subject that are worth reading.

[Anonymous No.9964590]

>>9964568
They taking the land, resources, factories, buildings, and equipment with them?

Money doesn't make those things run, people do.

There's a reason most of the gommie revolutions in Latin America wound up with the American Military up their asshole. Every time the workers and farmers decided they'd had enough of getting shot at for trying to unionize, and started seizing the land for themselves, the rich people ran to the USA and begged for Uncle Sam to get their land back. It's not the capital flight that presents the real danger, it's the capital return (alongside someone else's army).

[Anonymous No.9964800]

>>9961900
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt

A factory may not be able to move, but the employment opportunities sure can.

[Anonymous No.9964803]

>>9962067
There's a fairly big difference between the Kenyan economy and those of the US or Europe.

[Anonymous No.9964813]

>>9959974
It could work no sweat people just don't want it because they want to be able to amass large amounts of their own wealth. Money's not gonna exist in the future. We gonna be onto bigger and better things.

[Anonymous No.9964815]

>>9964590
Kek. They will likely rig the factories to blow. If not your "union" workers will likely make lethal mistakes figuring out how everything works. Face it. If you want to stop being a brainlet, you gotta learn math.

[Anonymous No.9964847]

>>9964815
>If not your "union" workers will likely make lethal mistakes figuring out how everything works.

I'd love to live in the cartoon world your brain is lodged in. You think company owners go into their factory every day, turn on, and program the machines?

You think they design the newer and better machines?

They own the money that gets moved around, that's their job. Nobody's gonna lose a limb if they don't come back to work.

[Anonymous No.9964868]

>>9964847
Then I would love to know what hellscape YOURS is lodged in. The majority of good STEM companies have a boss of bosses because of what he does and can be referred back to if anything goes astray.

[Anonymous No.9964872]

>>9963407
I've thought the same. For example, a certain couple may be on the fence about having a kid due to the expense that comes with that. This would allow them to do so, and that would be beneficial to society. They have the foresight to plan for things, so they would most likely be good parents and raise a kid who will grow up, pay taxes and contribute to society.

Now on the other hand, retards like Jethro, Jamal, Cindi and Sha'niqua will have more money to get drunk and have unprotected sex, thus producing more kids. They most likely won't be able to afford this, despite having the extra income and the government will have to step in, either by giving them extra aid or sending to kid to a foster family, and pretty much doing what they are already having to do, but with way more kids, which of course leads to more of the federal budget going towards this stuff.

[Anonymous No.9964889]

>>9963407
>>9964872
Now that I think about it, if sterilization was a requirement in order to receive UBI, I would reconsider my stance on it.

[Anonymous No.9964895]

>>9964889
Nice thought, too bad it would never ever happen. Imagine it, it would be beautiful, it would put the survival of the fittest back into reproduction. It's humanitarian, everyone is entitled to a quality life, but only those strong enough to contribute to our society are allowed to. And best part is since it's voluntary, there's no implications of classism, sexism, or racism, but as I said earlier it'll never work because too many people will somehow find a way to claim UBI sterilization is racist (likely because certain ethnic groups would self-sterilize more than others)

[Anonymous No.9964957]

>>9963570
>I don't know what it's like in the USA, but in most places the number of brands for very basic products like milk and bread are very small, and it's not unheard of for them to talk and coordinate price increases.

In the US we have a ton of different options for basic products which keeps the prices low. Many grocery store chains have their own brands actually which undercut many of the other producers. About 75% of the time the store brand product is just as good as their competitors product in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.9964960]

>>9964872
See
>>9960976

[Anonymous No.9964966]

>>9964957
Most generic brands are people who sniped the producer and sell the same thing as a big brand, except at a lower cost because of less overhead. Almost no corporation actually owns the factories that produce their shit, so that shit oftentimes ends up being sold under different names.

[Anonymous No.9965017]

>>9964895
It honestly would be win-win. Paying out around $14,000 every year to each person who decides to get sterilized could potentially be cheaper, assuming that a large number of those who are fit to be parents don't decide to take that route.

As social welfare programs require less funding, those who are productive are now able to have kids, and wages could potentially rise due to people checking out of the labor force. Hell, it might even be possible for a household to be able to function on a single income over time just like the post WWII period. With technology, the same output would be produced.

Obviously there are probably some flaws I haven't considered yet, but it wouldn't be a bad way to go about it.

[Anonymous No.9965021]

>>9964960
>implying no one would build a UBI-coin mining rig after watching a tutorial on youtube

[Anonymous No.9966594]

the argument for UBI wins in every essence. it is the most helpful thing to do.
money is invented out of thin air anyways (where did all the money come from? fiat printing.) so based on that reason alone it is certainly possible. people are not lazy.

[Anonymous No.9966626]

>>9966594
Brainlet.
On first we used exchange trading, then we used gold or other valuable metals. Then for sake of simplicity we created money that represent some amount of gold and is easy to carry and value. Then we stopped using gold and now the money is the value of your work that you can use to make other work for you. It didn't came out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.9966652]

>>9966626
maybe in the past, when things were more commodity or gold based. that is no longer the case. i live here and now, as does everyone in the universe, where i must pay my taxes in fiat, or go to jail. fiat is worthless. there is not enough gold to back up said currency values. its just bits of paper and numbers on a screen.
my family, which i was born into, has never had any gold, but the banks and government keep printing money day in day out. money is an illusion. it is a huge fraud.
so we could at least make it work for everyone, if we are gonna play make-believe games.
artificial scarcity is... a mistake, a disease... the remedy... is UBI.
I was born into this world without a choice just like everyone else and I should not have to pay to exist. The squirrels are doing fine.