It's the single most retarded thing I've heard and shows how little grasp of reality the advocates of it have.- Who pays for it?- Why would people pay for it to begin with?- How do you want to make those people who can pay for it do pay for it and not have them flee the country elsewhere where they can keep their labours worth?- Why do people think having a basic income will magically make people virtuous instead of competitiveness for ressources doing that?- How narcissistic does someone need to be to believe just for existing the state should give them money to survive? Like - what kind of person has that attitude and do you really think that kind of person will be of any virtue?- Who is going to do the crappy work, if no one has to work anymore to make a living?- Why do people think its a good idea to give that much power to government? Be critical of government and have your UBI cancelled? Easy way to get rid of unpleasant people.
1. People pay taxes2. Everyone who pays taxes would pay into it3. No one is saying it will make people virtuous 4. Because by working and spending they contribute to the economy5. There's more to life then just living and UBI wouldn't let people live a life of luxury6. The government can wield a lot more power with the police and military with UBI
1. Certainly not the people who earn the UBI. So not "people", but people who actually work. Considering there are progressive taxes in almost all western countries the wealthy people are who pays for it. Also what prevents those wealthy people from just getting the fuck out when most of their labour is being taken away from them? Why not just move elsewhere and actually keep more of your wealth? How is the UBI working out then?And what prevents the middle class who then has to pay for the UBI to just say "fuck it, I ain't gonna work anymore under those conditions."?2. So anyone who is actually working and not those who don't want to. Yeah, I'm sure the working population will have tons of motivation to continue working to support those leeches who don't want to.3. That actually is a common argument for UBI. That by removing the stress for making your ends meet means people will have time to follow their passions and thus become virtuous. No, it will not. Competition is what creates virtue and performance.4. They will not. Look at the experiment in Finnland. The people weren't more likely to go work at all.5. Actually yes, that's all there is to life. Being able to live. That's the entire darwinistic program at play. If you have a problem with that, you have the freedom to end it. The world will still keep going like it does with or without you. In the grand scheme of things you, Trump, the pope, me and everyone else is absolutely meaningless. If you want to live, you have to make yourself the living, because thats your and ONLY your own concern. To expect others to provide that for you is the peak of narcissim - and an incredibly parasitic mindset.. I certainly ain't gonna invest my labour for human leeches like that..6. Exactly. If you think that's desirable, you are clearly having missed any sort of education of authoritarian systems.
The people who earn as much or less as the maximum proposed amount for UBI (the amount needed to keep people out of poverty) is 1/8th of the population. And if we were to give each person in the US enough money to stay out of poverty we'd be spending a total of 2.4 trillion dollars. BUT we already spend 1.6 trillion on welfare as it is so the implementing UBI would only use 4% of our GDP so it's not this massive tax hike that people like you envision it to be.2. What percent of the population do you honestly think would be content living at the poverty line?3. The main argument for UBI is that it simplifies our welfare system and gives people a financial security so they would be more willing to spend money to stimulate the economy. And not only that they would be willing to try new and innovative goods and services that usually cost more. That's what I call driving competition.4. That's not the point I was making. You asked just by existing it's narcissistic to think the State owes you something and I was pointing out that people don't just "exist" in a country they contribute to it's economy so it isn't narcissistic to think that you are owed something by the State and to pretend that people who think like you are the only one's who contribute to the well being of the economy and everyone else is piggy backing is the epidemy of self-absorption.5. If that was true why do people work harder than they need to stay above the poverty line if that's all they need to make a living. News flash: people work to enjoy standards of living far beyond what they could enjoy with UBI. Your statement showed that you just view people as cogs in the economic machine. Try looking at this from a perspective where the economy exists for the well being of the people and not the other way around. 6. The point I was making is that if you think the government could control people with UBI then it should stand that you would also want a decrease in the military/police.
1. I assume you are talking about the USA. So you are saying it "only" requires 0.8 mor trillion dollars to get this thing going. So let's do some simple maths. The USA has around 3.2 trillion dollars of tax revenue every year. Additional 0.8 trillion is 25% of the current tax-revenue.Or in laymans terms: The government would have to increase taxes by 25% on everything. 25% essentially means the majority of middle-class businesses have no shot on continuing. Also everything you can buy will become more expensive and/or workers will be fired, because businesses have to balance their income/expenses.But it's "only" 0.8 trillion, right? Lunacy.Source for US tax revenue: www.nationalpriorities.org/.../2. You know there are different ways to improve your living? If I get my poverty line basic income, I might just work for myself. For example the time I am currently working my job I could just do work at home that either reduces my expenses or gives me additional income for myself. I could also easily trade my labour. Or more specific I could increase the amount of beestock I own and just sell the additional honey to family and friends.But I certainly could easily not follow any job-path anymore that is beneficial to society as a whole, but embrace egoism and selfishness. First and foremost I am responsible for my self and my own well-being. Not yours.
3. Simplifying welfare system / raising the welfare income. How that would stimulate people to spent more money is beyond me. Just some naive dream of yours. If you are at the poverty line, you will still check every dime you have. I've been there and had to eat water and bread only for some months. You learn to handle your finances, but you certainly ain't starting to spent more, because the little you have is at least secure.Not to mention that even, if poor people had more money to spent as a result, wealthier people would have less due to an increase of taxing.Fucking lunacy again. No grasp of actual reality.4. People who earn more welfare than the labour they create don't contribue to the economy. If the welfare wouldn't have had to be paid by the government, people would pay less taxes and would be just as likely be capable to contribute to the economy through spending. With the addition of actually being productive human beings who create value through their labour. Not to mention that the saved money especially in the middle class - through lower taxes - can be easily used as means for investment into innovation.So yes, these people do nothing to contribute to the economy and it is narcissistic to expect others to provide for them. They are an actual harm to society and it's economy. You can like it or not. I don't give a fuck. But you clearly lack any grasp of reality and actual real life experience in terms of how businesses and finances work. I on the other hand grew up in a family of only self-employed people where everyone was taking care of themselves and taking responsibility over the success and failure they created.
5. Why? If you have your poverty line saved, there are other means to have a fulfilling life. You don't necessarily need materialistic goods. I could just buy on ebay for 10 bucks a used tent and sleeping bag and go on a walk through several states/nations easily and travel and enjoy life, if this UBI thing would actually work (which it doesn't, because economy will collapse under the weight of unproductiveness). Why would I have to work more then?Hence, there are even plenty on scientific researches that have shown that experiences make people happier than materialistic goods.But you know what? I would just be a mere parasite of having others labour being used to pay my life for me. How you can't grasp that is beyond me.And no, I don't view people as cogs in the economic machine. I view people as human beings who have to move their fucking ass to provide for themselves, because no one owes you shit. It's called self-responsibility. You reap what you sow. If there was no economy, you would have to provide yourself with food, shelter and protection as well - just on your own. A healthy economy just simplifies that and gives people the option to specialise rather than being a jack of all trades.And if you are a lazy bum, incompetent or whatever, well - tough shit, you gonna be poor. But that's none of my concerns and I ain't gonna provide for your lazy and/or incompetent ass. Exceptions are people who really got the short end of the sticks with mental/physical disabilities. That's a matter of community-thinking to help those who can't help themselves.6. Yes, I think government should decrease police, military, laws, bureaucracy, general involvement into peoples lifes. This includes UBI and an extensive welfare system. Liberty and safety are contradictions and I am all for as much liberty as possible - with a few reasonably regulations.
1. There's one thing you forgot in that equation: taxpayers would all be getting a check. Now the Median annual income in the US is $59039. Currently this bracket has 22% of their income taxes so if the tax rate went up to 27.5 then they would pay an extra 3,247 dollars in taxes while their UBI would provide on average an extra 7,385 dollars per year. In fact, do be economically disadvantaged by this policy, an individual would have to be making $123,000 per year. Only 21% of the population makes more than that so the majority of the US population would benefit (and it's simply ludicrous to assume that everyone who makes more than that is going to just pack up and leave because of that). [https://dqydj. com/household-income-percentile-calculator/]2. There are different ways to improve one's standard of living but there is a correlation between income and how enjoyable life is (albeit a non-linear one) [https://news. gallup. com/businessjournal/150671/happiness-is-love-and-75k. aspx]3. Because people don't have to save up as much money in case they get fired/laid off from their job and can use that to buy goods and services that they wouldn't have anyway fueling the growth of businesses.4. People who earn more on welfare than labor aren't contributing to the economy during the time that they're in that situation but the majority of people in that situation don't remain in that state and before they ended up in that situation odds are they would have been contributing to society. Could you be any more myopic?5. If you don't "need" materialistic goods then what's the problem with taxing the wealthy in the first place? You can say that all you like and for some people it may be true but the data shows that overall the more money people have, the better their lives are and if your claim had any merit then people wouldn't work hard to receive promotions if they were content living at the poverty line.
Also, yes we do have responsibilities to one another; that's part of living in a society without which you would struggle to survive. If you don't want to have responsibility to other individuals fine, go live in the wilderness somewhere because society would be better off without you.6. Well I'm glad that we can agree on something but if we cut the US military spending by 240 billion dollars we could direct that money towards UBI and now only 13% of the population would be disadvantaged by it.
1. Only 21% you say. So let's take out the stats. Only 1% of people pay as much taxes as 90% of people. Aka the top1% does as much to hold up the government as the bottom 90%. The top 5% pay more than 55% of the entire countrys tax revenue. The top 10% pay 70%. And the top20% pay for 80% of the entire countrys tax revenue.So it's not "only" 21%. It's the IMPORTANT 21% that keeps this entire welfare system running.Altogether the top1% does make up for for more than a third (37,3%) of the entire tax-revenue. Let's assume only they are rich and powerful enough to leave and do their business everywhere. This means the loss of 37,3% of taxes will have to be collected by the other 99%. Or in short: Everyone else would have to get a tax-increase of 60%. In addition to the previous 25% increase for UBI that means an increase of 100% (!) - aka doubling the tax-expenses.I'm sure people will be spending all that cash when the tax-expenses suddenly double. Not. Lunacy again.Source for tax-revenue: taxfoundation.org/.../2. The correlation has to do about being able to pay your bills without worrying. After that there is close to no further correlation between wealth and happiness. But even then - a government isn't meant to make people. It's meant to govern. It's essentially an administration.3. Except that they are having to pay twice as much taxes.4. You are just making this up. In fact, there are statistics about it showing that most people on welfare remain on welfare. Why? Because they can. You are just pulling stuff out of your arse to justify your opinion. In university you should learn that it goes the different way around, though. Look at data and then make a conclusion.
5. Yes, some people do want materialistic goods and have a materialistic mindset. You say that 1/8 of people in the US require welfare. Let's assume (hypothetically) of the other 7/8 there is one more out of 8 that doesn't require materialistic goods by much. Getting UBI and they can just do as I suggested and not give a single fuck. You are looking at this entire thing in the best case scenario. That's not how politics work. Instead you look at the worst case scenario and if that worst-case scenario is likely, then the suggested policy is complete horseshit.And yes, there are people who work hard to get promotions. But by no means do all people do that. There are plenty of people who actually are content with what they have. Albeit I wonder if there are some statistics on that matter, but this is anecdotal from me with the experiences I had in big companies.And no, we don't have responsibilities to one another. We are a community of purposes. We do work together, because it reaps benefits. But the moment that there are no benefits to that anymore, there is no incentive to continue working together.Furthermore you are misrepresenting my initial statement that was all about self-responsibility. Or to put it in the words of my native language: You are own your fortunes smith. There is no happiness to be found at the hands of others.6. Or those 240 Billion could be spent on - you know - making the economy better by improving the education and infrastructure and as a result bettering the lifes of any working person (again, you reap what you sow. If you are a lazy bum, you have no right to demand an improvement in living standard). I know, I know, it's a fantastic thing to improve the economy, right?
Do with that what you want. I don't intent to continue this discussion as you have your conclusion and try to fit everything into it instead of looking at the data.
1. You're only looking at federal income tax instead of the total revenue taxed.2. There is a definite correlation (albeit a non-linear one)3. No, they would pay 1.25 as much in the federal income tax4. The majority of the people on welfare eventually get off [https://www. census. gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97. html].5. I didn't say everyone does, but most people do strive to do better; you're just cherry picking.6. There is 1+ trillion dollars in the parasitic financial sector that we could use for that.Go ahead run with your tail between your legs because now you're just rambling with the fictitious idea that piling on text will help your points when it really makes you look desperate (especially when each paragraph can be debunked by 1 sentence).
I believe people who simply don't want to work, don't deserve to live of other peoples money. I think we should help anyone that needs help and if you lose your job and live of wellfare that's fine but there should be a limit to it. If someone lives of the government maybe more than 5 years eventhough he is perfectly healthy and had many job offers, he should be banned from getting wellfare or UBI
But if people have more financial security they spend more leading to more economic growth and more employment opportunities.
I think there should be a limit to it regardless. I think not having enough job opportunities is not the main problem. It's more that people aren't willing to work most jobs. Or at least that's the way it is in my town. I think wellfare should be a last resort. People should try making it on their own first. Because those who do work should not be punished with higher taxes because some people simply refuse to work. But I'm talking about people who really have the opportinity to work but just won't do it cause they are lazy. Not people who make an effort to find a job but won't get one
Have an opinion?
I went with:>> It should be enough to keep people just above the poverty line and should only be implemented if we abolish the minimum wage... though I don't see minimum wage factoring into it. Minimum wage is a progressive policy and price floor which forces people to charge a certain amount for their labor at the risk of nobody wanting to hire them at the price and face endless unemployment.I do think we should gradually abolish some forms of welfare in favor of some form of UBI, starting with public housing in areas where housing costs have skyrocketed.
Minimum wage isn't a form of welfare as I see it. It's an anti-competitive measure to keep the lowest-skilled minorities out of the market. Like before the minimum wage, blacks used to have lower unemployment rates than whites. That's unimaginable today since white labor unions effectively utilized minimum wage as an anti-competitive against black laborers to pretend them from outbidding white workers for the same jobs.So that's hardly a form of welfare since there are so many people earning $0/hour under it now. I'd rather we abolish minimum wage either way.
[...] anti-competitive against black laborers to [prevent] them from outbidding white workers for the same jobs.
As for UBI itself, the main reason I favor it is that it could eliminate these most perverse incentives:https://youtu.be/NH-3HlrnHQsThe convoluted welfare system as it is now is riddled with perverse incentives like these. UBI could be a simpler alternative that could eliminate perverse incentives. Of course, there's the counter-argument that poor people might spend the money on booze and drugs. I think that's a legit argument in terms of possible consequences, but not one from an ethical standpoint since it wants to treat poor people like children and trap them in poverty. At least some of them might be capable of climbing up the economic ladder absent these perverse incentives.
"It's an anti-competitive measure to keep the lowest-skilled minorities out of the market"And why do you want to abolish competition? Why do you think its a good idea to abolish competition?
@FakeName123 Quite the opposite. I want to encourage competition. Price floors don't do much good there in my opinion. It's like how much competition would generic colas offer to Coca Cola if we set a price floor requiring that 350ml cans of sodas cost at least $1?
Money is never free. And such system sounds great it isn’t practical. So many abuse the system and don’t contribute. Some studies say it would lower social welfare others say it doesn’t. I think we should reward those that work and ignore those that don’t. With the only exception of those who are physically incapable of doing any kind of job.
Three problems with that:1. If it is enough to keep the population above the poverty line there is no need for welfare.2. With the amount we spend on welfare, we're 2/3rds of the way to spending enough to keep everyone out of poverty.3. UNIVERSAL basic income would provide a net benefit for 79% of the population and 3.6% of the population is unemployed so it will reward a lot more than the people who don't work.
All it means is higher taxes for the working people so they may as well quit working too. Why would someone want to work and contribute if someone else sits on their ass ans gets the same money?It is just another example of democrats trying to appeal to the lazy parasites in our society.
Except that they would be getting UBI while working to. This argument about incentive is just so myopic and if there was any merit to it people wouldn't work harder to make more money than they need to in order to survive.
It doesn't work that way. Just like if someone works and earns money they lose their welfare benefits. You don't know how the system works in reality I guess.
I know how the system works now but with UBI everyone gets a set paycheck regardless of their employment status.
I think it should be introduced gradually. At the moment it should be no more than what one would get on welfare but as the economy changes and more jobs are lost to machines, it should be raised to about what a middle class income would be.To stop people just doing nothing, it should be more for anyone who works
Get a job, and earn money!! There are no free rides when other work hard, and pay taxes, only to supplement lazy losers that are to lazy to do even simple jobs!!
I think it's idiotic. If you want people to have better lives you should invest money in schools and job training so they'll have the skills they need to provide for themselves
It's a good idea to lump it all together, but then again I haven't claimed benefits for the last 5 years and even then it was only for 1 year of my life - health issues.
Everyone should have basic income to keep above poverty line.
It's a great idea and it's going to happen whether people like it or not.
It's a terrible idea.
We won't know until we try it.
It’s gonna ruin America
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.