Bitcoin Forum

This is going to be a long one, and I want people to be involved with this issue so I can hear all sides of the argument.

In the recent years, there has been a push from the right and the left to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) -- which in short, is a set amount of income (pegged to inflation) which is provided to you if you're a US citizen. This money is given to you with no strings attached. I'm going to use an example and say that every American is given $10,000 a year regardless of the income that they have their marital status, and so on.

This in and so of itself removes the cliff dive which is apart of the welfare system we have now. As the welfare system, we have now may give a large number of benefits to someone who makes under $35,000 -- but won't give a dime to someone who is married and makes $36,000 a year. This practically means that the current system does not incentivize growth, it incentivizes you to stay under the imposed income (and other barriers) to get your benefits.

This new UBI system would give you money either way and then you'd be allowed to go work as hard as you want or as little as you want. I think (alongside some economists) that this is going to spur growth as it incentivizes people to go ahead and work hard to continue to succeed as they aren't held down by welfare limits.

I also want to say that with this system, some conservatives and libertarians think that the entire welfare system should be removed -- which includes, Medicare, Medicaid, and then the various federal and state programs which go alongside with it. To them (which I agree with), this plan is a substitute for every single other program that is currently present in the US relating to welfare. I'm not going to go into detail about what the left thinks the right thing to do with UBI is, but I do think they want to remove some programs and then add this on to the current welfare system -- but I think some of the liberal-leaning people who post here can chime in with that side of things.

I do want to stress that I don't know if $10,000 per year is the right number, it may be different based on research. I was JUST using an example.

I do think that UBI can work as a way to remove the hundreds of state and federal programs which aren't necessary when the benefits can come from one central source -- which only has to vet if you're a US citizen or not -- This is a way to remove the massive bureaucracy, and then introduce a program which will have the same effect to the people who need welfare.

I am fascinated by UBI. I think it is becoming necessary, as technology is taking over so many jobs. Robots and computers are producing products and groceries now. I never heard your argument before though. It truly can be a negative factor when people realize if they make $1000 more they'll lose way more in benefits. It seems like a no brainer that it's better to "stay down" sometimes. I think that when people have the basics they need for life, they will spend less time doing jobs that they don't like. We'll have more creativity and more people doing what they want to do. This will make society more productive as a whole.

Before I respond to you Glum, I do want to let you know that it is kind of frowned upon to quote an entire post when you're responding to me -- all it creates is more of an annoyance when people are reading through responses. I know you're new to the forum, so this is just for next time and so you don't bother anyone!

But onto the topic here


This is exactly what the current welfare system does, it makes people stay below some limits -- sometimes these limits are income related, but they are sometimes based on marital status and so on. -- in order to retain their valuable benefits. This sort of system, in my opinion, is un-American.



Exactly. I think that these limits do nothing but make people double think working hard if you remove these limits and just give EVERYONE benefits -- then you're going to enter a world which is more productive as they have the reason to be more productive. As they're not going to lose out if they attempt to progress.

This is incompatible with lax or unrestricted immigration of course. I know you restricted it to US citizens, just saying.

But a fundamental rule of government is that no programs are allowed to be considered which are not capable of supporting graft, corruption and political favoritism.

In an ideal world, there would be no welfare whatsoever. However, in the US I do think that UBI is a more reasonable path forward than continuing the current welfare system. Currently the US has probably thousands of different welfare programs, each with tons of overhead. Better to just mail everyone a check. It also significantly improves incentives, for example fixing the issue you mentioned of people getting trapped in welfare. According to Charles Murray's In Our Hands, $13k/year would be cheaper than the existing welfare system. Here's an interview with Murray (https://www.c-span.org/video/?419679-4/washington-journal-charles-murray-discusses-in-hands).

However, I only consider it acceptable if it replaces all other welfare, including heath-care-related welfare, and I suspect that this will never be politically possible. I'd also like it to result in an elimination of all work-related regulations such as minimum wage, since with UBI there should be no excuse that people are being forced to work and therefore the government needs to protect them.

Universal basic income, along with other welfare systems, create disincentives to work and otherwise generate income. As such, it would be a very bad thing if UBI, in any form were enacted.

I would much rather see the various welfare programs be eliminated and/or reformed over time then see some kind of UBI system be enacted that would likely only grow and expand over time.


The only instance in which I would support UBI in any form would be in places like AK where government income far exceeds expenditures, and the government can pay their citizens some amount every year from the income their assets generates. 

Of course. I may have used the wrong wording when I said, then we enter a world of more production -- I meant this as in only talking about the United States.


This is one of the main reasons that I think UBI is necessary, I beleive that the current welfare programs ARE capable of supporting graft, corruption, AND political favoritism. UBI is a system which is just mailing out checks to American citizens, nothing more and nothing less.


I may not have listed out all of the programs that I wanted to be removed, but I was pointing the finger at all welfare related programs -- some even say that Social Security should be replaced as well. I tend to agree with that personally. I've never seen any research relating to work-related regulation (such as min wage) but I do think that is an interesting point and I'm probably going to research it further.

I'll also address the political possibility of this. I know that if something like this was ever enacted, not all other welfare systems would be removed -- there would be no way that a conservative vision like this would get through both chambers of congress and signed by the president unscathed by moderates or dems. So, I don't think I would ever support another version of UBI - I fully agree with you that it's only acceptable if ALL other welfare programs are removed.


This type of goal faces a larger issue of political impossibility, while I may support something like this as well -- I do think that UBI is a much better system than the thousands of welfare systems with a wasteful amount of staff and money being used on this staff and other resources.


As theymos quoted before, 13,000 per year would be cheaper than all of the current welfare systems which are present in the United States. So it's not like we're going to be digging further into debt.

Thanks for pointing that out. Nobody had ever mentioned that to me before. I'll try to be better at it.
I just realized another way that we could be more productive. If you give everyone benefits, like you say, then you wouldn't need to worry about who deserves them or not. You could actually eliminate a huge amount of people who work for the government to determine who deserves help and who doesn't. This would free up a lot of people from pointless work. It would also free up a lot of resources that went into that.


I would like to point out that the US is constantly digging itself further into debt. IT would be more accurate to say, "It's not like we're going to be digging further into debt any more quickly."

I would like to point out that the freeloaders are constantly looking for more ways to get free stuff. It would be more accurate to say "It's not like the $10,000 of free money a year is the end, it's only the beginning!"

I think UBI would go along way in replacing the welfare system in any country. The amount of waste the bureaucracy that multiple levels of multiple organisations bring to the current system does significantly more harm than good. One benefit I see for individuals in the current system is removing the stigma behind receiving/applying for benefits; as everyone would be receiving this.
Beyond that the UBI provides opportunity if you know you have a certain amount coming to you regardless with no stalled wait period or chance of denial, you can take risks.

• You can accept that new position without the fear it may not work out
• You can make plans for upgrading in post-secondary
• Maybe you know feel you have more disposable income to inject back into the economy
• Start-up a business, knowing you have something backing you for a while

The problem is in finding the right amount. UBI is designed to be a system that will supplement your earnings, not as something to make a career of. It essentially should remove the situations where someone is choosing between the necessities of life at any given time. So I don't feel eliminating a safety net regulation such as minimum wage would benefit the system as a whole; because the UBI amount would likely be relying on a national average of minimum wages.

In regards to healthcare, I'm not even sure what it would cost me to show up to emerg with a broken leg, or to have a special operation. I'm glad I don't have to think about that, it's a perk of where I was born. I understand that it's different in the U.S, and that insurance costs can also be fairly arbitrary. So if UBI were to replace all health care related social assistance, I would expect the average cost of insurance be factored into this. Not just the average cost of the currently insured, but also those that currently chose other necessities over insurance.

Not being well versed on tax breaks or loopholes, there may also be several of those programs that could be lumped into the trash can if UBI were launched.

---

Regardless of your view on UBI or what you want it to achieve, I feel we are a long way out. The biggest problems are that there needs to be some longterm trials that make it to the end. They need to be held in an unbiased manner to determine the effectiveness of the program. Thanks to changing of governments and them usually trying to "salt the earth" of their predecessors this is becoming difficult. That is largely due to the fact that many people do not understand what UBI is, and look at it like it's expanding welfare.

I like that you broke down some of the options. Hadn't even thought about how it would be much easier to go back to school. You talk about trying a new position. I think that the key is that people won't be afraid to quit. I really think that we need more people quitting. So many people stay at jobs they don't like because they are afraid that they won't find another job and they'll end up with no money. UBI would help minimize that fear. People doing jobs they don't like greatly reduces our productivity as a society. They'll always try to do the bare minimum.
What about people with disabilities, for example? Wouldn't that be considered welfare? I mean, what about people who literally can't make more money themselves? I feel like healthcare is a separate issue. $10,000 a year is not going to cover your healthcare if you go to the hospital a couple times.

This is true, I was just stating that UBI and the current welfare bureaucracy machine would be equal in costs. It's also a given that the payments of UBI don't increase (beyond inflation) -- if this were to occur by some politicians who increase the 13,000 to a different number (though this is the same risk which is present with all welfare programs, you can't stop politicians from increasing the benefits to please / sway some section of voters)


I don't know if I can agree with this. I do know that Theymos was trying to get at the fact that if everyone is now getting government assistance (UBI) then maybe minimum wage hikes shouldn't be so prevalent across the nation. Maybe we should stick with the national minimum wage (which is a lot lower then some states -- in the US of course) rather then trying to hike the minimum wage.

Some people may think that minimum wage hikes help the economy -- but they don't, they screw small businesses the hardest and all that ends up happening is bussineses are really only left with three options (see this article as well - https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-leads-to-job-losses-2017-3?IR=T)

• Cut margins of your business (this may be possible for some, but not all businesses may have this option)
• Raise prices (also, mostly impossible for businesses in a culture which is VERY price sensitive)
• Reducing employees. (this is the most possible one companies may further look into robots / automated machines to remove the lowest skilled labor)

That's something which is a really tough issue to dive into, I'm going to admit I would like to research the issue before I comment on healthcare at all. I'll make another comment in the thread relating to UBI and healthcare at some point. Just wanted you to know I wasn't avoiding the question.


That's actually a really good question and I've never read anything relating to disabled people and UBI -- I'm going to read into that a little bit as well and post that part into the healthcare post I'm planning for this thread.

There's no question that it would create a slight disincentive to work, but I do not think that it would have an enormous effect on people's willingness to work.
Some basic income experiments have also shown this, but I'm careful not to over-generalize, since there have only been a limited number of experiments done.

https://qz.com/1205591/a-universal-basic-income-experiment-in-alaska-shows-employment-didnt-drop/

Now it can definitely be said that most experiments do not include the enormous tax burden that would accompany UBI.
Here's another point of view:

https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2017/11/rr32-snapshot.pdf (UBI – Universal Basic Income is an Unbelievably Bad Idea)


Not really sure what you're implying here. I assume you mean that you think that welfare systems are currently run inefficiently? Or are you actually advocating completely removing all welfare systems?

I think that is ONLY true if the other welfare systems aren't removed alongside the addition of UBI. I would understand your point if the other welfare systems weren't removed as well. But in the current state of the welfare system, work is disincentivized as you aren't allowed to make more income then the set amount OR you will lose benefits.

That is the part that disincentivizes working, but it is a part of the current system which has a steep drop-off point for people who are trying to progress and grow. This isn't the case with UBI, as you're going to be getting your set amount of benefits and it doesn't matter if you a shit ton of money or you earn nothing.

I've seen report after report that says that if all other welfare programs (including welfare ones are removed) the UBI system would cost the same amount as the current welfare system. So an enormous tax burden wouldn't be coming alongside this addition of UBI.

I can agree with that, I just didn't believe that scrapping minimum wage all together would be beneficial to the plan. There are a lot of factors at play with any monetary distribution like this; for instance do we provide the same UBI to an Alaska resident as you would someone in New York or Peurto Rico. These factors are significantly easier to approach in smaller countries, but should always be dealt with in a well thought out manner.

My country is no different, there are communities here that resemble a far off land where they pay 5-10X what I do for almost every daily use item. Due to that I would expect there to be some form of weighted calculation to take these things into account.


No worries, I really only bring these points up to stimulate the mind on the subject. I mean no disrespect when I say that it shows how despite having a well reasoned opinion about the subject there are always aspects that have been overlooked. I don't envy the person who takes on the idea and tries to draft the initial launches of these programs; if they mean to launch them with the serious intent of success.

I did cut the portion in regards to small business, but I am no stranger to those factors; having successfully run a failed retail outlet myself. That was a great example of what a knee jerk reaction causes if you don't think of the secondary and tertiary impacts of legislation and regulation.

Of course, there are a lot of things that must go into consideration, I don't know on the exact cost of living differences (based on studies) but I think that this would have to be much more fleshed out then giving everyone 13,000 a year and calling it a day. I do think there must be cost of living differences but on average what this SHOULD account for $13,000 for each American citizen -- this is what it would average out to with the differences in cost of living.


I have family which operates small businesses who rely on the low-skilled labor and have seen the hardships they've had to endure to ensure that they can keep their clients, maintain their profits, and tries to ensure that their businesses run smoothly while having to work with fewer employees. It's tough to see, and I don't think min wage ends up helping anyone when employment is being cut due to mandatory wage increases.

But back onto the topic, I do have good intentions with opening up the conversation to people on here-- and I really do enjoy seeing all of the differing opinions which are present on the topic.

I'll try to get back with a little write-up on healthcare and stuff along those lines, thanks all for being apart of this conversation.

I do agree with what you're saying, but when you are talking about welfare systems, do you also mean that healthcare would be included into that?
If that's the case, some people would be off far worse than under the current system, as they could not possibly pay their medical costs from the UBI they're receiving.

I'm passionately in favor of implementing UBI, I really think that current welfare systems (for unemployment) are severely flawed.

Lately I've also been more and more interested in seeing UBI implementations through some form of cryptocurrency.
Now, let me preface this by saying that I do not think these will magically solve poverty in the future, but they can grow to be viable additional income for people in third world countries.

It's pretty amazing to see how many such projects there already are. Currently there are at least 23 such projects. Source (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3242065.0)

This is the case with what I'm saying from my side here, some people may say that this isn't the right way to go about things but I feel it is so. I'm not advocating for removing welfare programs for those that are disabled from work -- but I don't think you should receive any other welfare if THIS is the way forward. It's also the only way to go forward while making this UBI system have a net zero on the governmental dollar.

Is replacing the current social assistance programs with a wealth distribution plan really a good idea?  What I mean is currently welfare budget is reserved for "those" in need which is a pretty small percentage of People.  If we take the same budget (meaning the 13k threshold) and redistribute it to EVERYONE, folks who need the assistance will get much less.

I would love a "free" 13k, but I don't need it.  A family making 36k a year needs it more than I do, so why not talk about increasing the threshold for these programs.

Btw IMO it's not only welfare that's not keeping up and meeting the needs.  I see skilled blue collar people that could once but a home with those skills.  Now with the price of house's sky rocketing and those wages not corresponding don't allow a new young skilled person to have the hope of a buying a family home.

13k is such a small amount of money who could hope to live on that a year?  The poor will get poorer and the rich will get insignificantly richer.

I forgo my 13k per year so someone who needs it can have it.  The welfare system sucks, but redistributing it people that clearly don't need it seems counter productive to me!

Well, the thing is that the current system isn't working it's a bureaucratic mess which isn't (in my view) helping people lift out of the welfare program anyway. UBI is what is needed to bring some real change to the system -- and this reformed system is one which is going to spur growth.

To your entire response as a whole I'd support capping the program out at a certain point, but it shouldn't be a point where the benefits discourage people to work harder.

I'd propose a change where people don't get an income if they earn above a certain point, for an examples sake I'm going to say 250k (adjusted for cost of living in certain areas, so it is the right number in rural areas and in big cities where things are more expensive) I'm open to debate on pretty much anything on here, I'm throwing out these numbers for examples sake.

So the whole 13,000 a year could potentially increase if you remove millions of people from receiving that. But this should never be a substitute for working, and that's something that I want to stress.

Yeah, I agree. In a country like the US, you really would need to have a different amount for different regions I think. If not, then it wouldn't have the desired effect in big cities. On the other hand, it it was more in the big cities, people might want to go there to get more, not fully realizing that they'd just spend it all there. Maybe, if it was the same everywhere, it would discourage people from going to big cities. They'd stay in smaller cities more, get the same amount of money and live on less. It's sort of hard to predict I guess.

I'm looking forward to the healthcare ideas. Thanks for the discussion.

How about incentivizing low income working people with UBI money, if you have a job but it's below XX,XXX a year get a bump from UBI, if you don't work and are able too, you need to not be given as much.

I think this effect would be far larger than many here seem to believe.

What used to be called "middle class" makes what - $60k a year? (median family income in the US). Now imagine a family of four getting $52k "free". Would they stay in their back-breaking dead-end jobs? You could say they might be more inclined to move into more satisfying perhaps less paying jobs to supplement their UBI but that might make it even worse by displacing less educated/qualified people currently holding those positions. UBI has a potential of creating a massive disruption in the job market and I'm not sure it would be a positive one. Remember we would still need a solid tax base to support the UBI. Wouldn't want to end up with e.g. 25% VAT/sales tax.

Another negative effect could be inflation. I know the theory is that it would be just replacing current welfare system, but for a lot of people it would be additional disposable income and depending on how they spend it we might end up with price changes that would create new social problems in housing, healthcare, etc.

As the program right now is speculation the UBI is generally applied to only adults, or persons in the age of majority.
I haven't looked into how many of the pilot programs were calculated but some actually provide a lesser amount to couples. So If you or I as an individual were to receive 13000 as a couple we may receive 21000.

I'm not going to lie if the only thing keeping someone at there back breaking job is that they "need" that amount if money, I think them being able to take a lesser wage for the trade off of better mental health or less hard labor good for them. This would allow people to make decisions based on more than the dollars earned.

As with any system there will be people who try and abuse it or give it a bad name. I personally feel the overall net benefit will be a society that has improved mental health, and a stronger workforce because at the lower to medium skill jobs people will make a choice not just accept circumstance.

To hellfish's post about donating.
That was refreshing to see and something I had not considered. I like the idea that there are some out there who realise what they have is enough and would be willing to use this as an attempt to help lift others

That right there sounds prone to abuse and unfairness if applied to any significant extent outside of a limited experiment. Expect shitloads of "unmarried" or suddenly "divorced" couples claiming $13k each. Kids need to eat and go to school and can't earn for themselves.

The only way this could possibly work at least to some extent as a replacement for welfare without its accompanying bureaucracy is if it's straight $13k for everyone, not dependent on marital status or age limitations, but you would still need some government involvement to make sure that e.g. kids are not starving and people with disabilities or other issues have a fair chance. Unless we're disregarding all that as part of the whole welfare system, in which case we might as well cut the UBI off at the age of 65 and let them old-timers fend for themselves.

LOL I can only dream I have enough LOL.  I want more don't get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to be able to provide my wife and kids with a substantial nest egg should something happen to me (like the deep state lizzard pedo's taking a hit out on me  ;) !!!!!!!!!) but I don't want it from people with much less than I currently have!

I like your straightforward approach but I do not believe that children should be considered in the universal equation as "equals". I would not be opposed in any way to having a smaller portion allotted for a household with children as there is a substantial cost increase associated. Believe me I know ;)
I also believe there will still need to be considerations taken for the disabled and elderly, to ensure proper care. Especially when both groups can at times be mistreated, forgotten or taken advantage of.

Again the UBI, is not meant to be something you can make a living off, it is supposed to help everyone have the opportunity to meet the basic necessities of life, but not being limited to lower income earners. It also is not tied to only being able to spend the money in a certain way, it is your income, which also has the potential for abuse. I just rarely any program should be tweaked based on the small number of people abusing it. The fine tuning of how benefits are calculated and paid, should be something we can learn from these experiments if they are run start to finish and analysed in an unbiased manner. 

To touch back on the shitloads you describe, yes there may be something along those lines. I imagine then that they would have to be looked at tin the same way as a common law relationship is. Which most of the time is no different than married. The added cost of a new address would negate the gains these people may be trying to grab.

It is also currently happening or at least being considered.
https://www.today.com/health/happily-married-couple-considers-divorce-pay-daughter-s-health-care-t132915

On the other hand, we wouldn't want to falsely categorize otherwise unrelated people living at the same address (e.g. roommates) as "partners" and reduce their UBI, right? This gets very complicated very quickly.

Overall the main thing making me extremely skeptical towards UBI is that it is loved both by bright-red socialists and hardcode libertarians, which seems to indicate that the idea is unworkable in practice. It won't improve social fairness and it won't eliminate the state's responsibility for welfare, or achieve whatever other goals those groups might ascribe to UBI. In practice this would be a welfare system under a different name, with a bunch of exceptions and limitations and lots and lots of regulation.

Or we could focus on what has been working reasonably well if not perfectly, e.g. improving education, healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, etc to give people a better chance at upward mobility plus a decent safety net, boring as it may be.

You're not wrong but I feel any system that looks to encompass a large group of people living in inequality will be complex in nature. The checks and balances of this system would again have to be hammered out by the administering government, and be open to adapting to changing circumstances. Admittedly something governments are becoming worse at as time goes on. For my country it would probably fall into the category of filing tax returns that would help to decide what is a couple or not, again there will be the couples that are "roomates" for life. No matter the system for regulating anything there will be those who find a way around it.


Skepticism is healthy, and needed in any good debate. Anyone who goes into something like this without an open mind towards failure or success will at some point only hinder the development of the project. I personally don't reject an idea based on who is for or against it, regardless of my opinion,but I tend to try and see the points of failure. This has helped me personally with planning, developing and learning in general.


Agreed, boring doesn't mean bad. It has been shown that education is one of the best things you can do to help raise a nation. The majority of what you mentioned as well help create jobs, which usually accompany a program to bring unemployed persons back into the workforce; or provide low to medium skilled workers for a chance at upgrading.

Personally I have no problem admitting that my mother required the social safety nets in place to provide for us at some points in her life. She also took the opportunities that were presented to her, to upgrade and built a great career for herself. Based on my upbringing I've seen both the failures and successes of the system. This is why I will never agree with doing nothing to try and help elevate people and their situations, and the solution isn't always just handing out a check.

---

Been a great discussion. I feel the differing opinions and ideals seen here are exactly what need to be in place when the powers that be are deciding how to proceed. Unfortunately I feel we've been more open-minded and respectful in our discussions here than many governments prove to be.

---

It's good to dream and there is nothing wrong with wanting more regardless of being single or having a family. I can understand the wanting to make sure a family is covered no matter what happens. Another nice bonus, to a UBI or other programs.

You obviously forgot your tinfoil hat, and to spin around 3 times in each doorway before turning on your computer if they know where to take a hit out. ;)

The more we talk about it, the more it seems like it would be much less simple than was originally proposed. The idea of just giving every person an equal amount of money every month quickly became something else. What ago should they start receiving it? What about then they're too old to work anymore to supplement the UBI? How do you determine how old is too old to work? What if somebody is married? What if somebody has kids to support? What if somebody already makes a lot of money? What is somebody is from a poor area and another person lives in an expensive city? It seems like we'd still need big government organizations to regulate it all.  :'(

People against UBI are truly evil people.  UBI will drastically lower the crime rates and impove mental health for everyone.

We are supposedly more advanced than ever before but the modern human works much more than a hunter gather ever had to.

The vast majority of new wealth created goes straight to the top, the wealth inequality in this world is disturbing, 4 people own more than the entire bottom half of the popuatlion.

NO ONE IS SELF MADE, every wealthy person relies on this society and other people, without other people they wouldn't have wealth.

Every Fucking piece of land on this earth is "owned" what a joke, you can't even live in freedom if you want.

Support UBI

I don't think there's any need to be so aggressive about it. There are plenty of good arguments against UBI. I don't think they make the people against UBI evil.

You raise a really good point about how much we are working. People work so much these days, but we clearly don't need it. So many things are produced in excess. If you just look at food waste around the world, it's astounding! I've heard number at over 50% of food produced going to waste. Why the hell are we producing more than twice the amount of food we eat? That's not to mention that we don't even need to eat all the food we are eating. Obesity rates are going up all over the world. Companies purposefully produce things with planned obsolescence. We just constantly produce and consume. It would be better to produce smarter and better quality. I'm sure we could cut down on work our by dozens of percent.

To the first part, it would be the case that everyone does get 13,000 each -- it's not dependent on marital status. Though I would like to have it linked to if you're a dependent or age (or dependent status) As it does seem pretty hard to remove the abuse that may come forth when people are popping out kids just for the reason of getting 13,000 a year (if their children weren't listed as depents or something along these lines)

I don't really know how children would be treated, as this is the only area I can see that COULD be prone to abuse -- though I don't think the abuse is as catastrophic as the current welfare system.


The problem with all of the things that were listed that needs fixing -- such as Education -- is that it's not like we havn't tried to fix these. It's just that we can't agree (the people and government) on HOW to fix these issues in Education, Healthcare, etc. Many things have been tried, but nothing has stuck and worked (to a large extent in the last 10 or so years)


The difference between us debating on here, and governments is that the people in government need their constituents votes in order to stay in power while I'm just a guy on the internet. I can say the truth, and what I think should be done to fix systems.

Politicans must say what is best for them to stay in power, and I guess they've assumed that not supporting UBI is one of those things -- sadly.

My Healthcare writeup will come at some point, haven't gotten around to it yet. Sorry folks!

The politicization (is that even a word?) of some of these issues is beyond ridiculous. You'd think we should at least agree that these things are important but there is a large percentage of population and politicians who appear to think that being dumb and sick is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

Ironically the US being so backwards e.g. in healthcare could be an advantage - we could look around at how this is solved in other countries, learn from their mistakes, and build a better system. I'm laughing just typing this. Not happening in my lifetime.

Unfortunately, the point you brought up here is so true. Politicians will always avoid making highly controversial decisions. I just did some Googling though and I see some hopeful things. Wikipedia talks about some polls. It says that "in 2016 a poll showed that 58 percent of the European people are aware of basic income and 65 percent would vote in favor of the idea." Here's only about the US: "2017: POLITICO/Morning Consult asked 1994 Americans about their opinions on several political issues. One question addressed attitudes towards a national basic income in the United States. 43 percent either ‘strongly supported’ or ‘somewhat supported’ the idea." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)

It seems like many places are trying to pilot the idea. I may become a reality sooner than we expect. One of the first results in my search was actually from Chicago. The government there is considering giving it a try, but the amount seems pretty low to me, $500/month. (https://freebeacon.com/issues/chicago-officials-looking-universal-basic-income-program/)

UBI is a good idea for government to use on us. I say this from a personal advantage.

Most folks out there will be reduced to poverty (or greater poverty, if they are in poverty, already) with UBI. But because I know how to create multiple persons that all have my name (not that other people can't do this), and since I know how to assign the SSN (Social Security Number) from my SS person to other of my persons so that they can use it as well, and since I know how to benefit off all my persons, and legally protect myself from government officials who think I am doing something illegal (which I am not), I know how to make way more money (or live without it) than the simple UBI amounts.

So, UBI is a good thing for me. It takes property (in the form of money) from the people, and funnels some of it to me.

8)

If it's not a word, it sure as shit should be.

I don't think politicians and people in government are dumb, I think they're just stalling progress in order to keep their voters happy -- or (on the other end of things) promising so much that they know none of it isn't going to happen in order to keep their voters happy.

We're a different country in the United States, it's something that people have failed to notice for generations.


There's only so much that a city can give, the federal government (or state governments) can give a good amount more.

Yeah, I'm sure there would be loads of fraud. That would take another whole government department to deal with. I wonder if your idea is anything similar to the movie Into the Wild. If I remember correctly, the guy burns all his document. Then later, for some reason he decides he needs some document. He comes to a homeless shelter in California and real quick they did him up some new documents just based on what he said. I wonder why illegal immigrants don't do that. Well, I guess some of them probably do, we just don't think they're illegal immigrants. Haha!

You have to understand that the welfare fraud which is present now is probably a lot more prevalent then it could be if UBI is present. Because with the current welfare system, if you fake your income levels (or something along these lines) you're going to be allowed to get welfare.

UBI is a system which gives to all (maybe capped out a certain point, but still) and avoids the tediousness of having to screen mass amounts of people.

I can agree that there will probably be less fraud. It's a bit simpler to fake income than to create a completely new identity.

I was just reading about a pilot program that's happening right now in Ontario, Canada, if I understand correctly: https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot. The numbers there are quite similar to what we've been talking about here. It's intended to be an "income that will meet household costs and average health-related spending." This is how much there's giving:
It's only for people that are earning less than $30,000 or $48,000 as a couple. It seems a little weird to me. It you make $20,000, they'll only give you about $7000. They you'll have $27,000. If you don't work at all, you'll have $17,000. It seems like there could still be a tendency to work less. There would definitely be a huge desire to falsify income info, when every dollar means you lose 50 cents of what the government would give you. It looks like the first pilot program may actually be complete, but I can find the details yet.

Just a heads up. The Ontario pilot program is being scrapped early by the incoming provincial government.

This program was part of my basis for why politicians will be the downfall of a reasonable test or Implementation.

Don't worry though they are pushing to bring back "buck a beer"... or to  non Canadians 1 dollar beer.

While it sounds nice getting "free" money especially if you're not making much, could this still lead back to the same problems of dependency? You get the same amount of money whether you work or not anyway.

People might be motivated to better themselves if actual welfare is cut off but should these people fail to save up and end up in emergencies, it's likely the other taxpayers would still have to break their fall.

If we ever get to using UBI I hope it's some sort of blockchain system where every detail of expenses are tracked and the gov't can block certain purchases or impose limits or outright cut off the money if it's being wasted.


Cutting out welfare might probably cut down on illegal immigration more than any wall, me thinks. I mean, look at those men with multiple wives migrating to Europe and living off welfare they are getting through the children and not working. Many of those were already in there before the rise of ISIS.


Unfortunately. That's how the system perpetuate itself. Sure there are honest politicians but many would definitely try to take advantage, especially since they are the ones who write the laws and implement them.

A couple points that people neglect or ignore that are important to this issue:
1. The banking system is a legal world Ponzi;
2. A person is any document that reflects a human being or some other person.

The government set up the banking Ponzi back in 1913. All Ponzi's need an influx of people/persons to remain "alive." So far corporations (persons) and world people (persons) are the things that are keeping the Federal Reserve banking Ponzi alive. But we are running out of people. If suddenly there is a national required UBI, there will suddenly be a whole lot of persons that will be receiving additional funds, while inflation can grow, again, to scoop up more of the property of the world. These persons are the things that are keeping the banking Ponzi alive.

What is a person? It is paperwork with your name on it. Your driver's license might identify you, but it is a person. Your phone bill name is a person. Your electric bill name is a person. The name on each of your bank accounts might identify you, but they are not you. They are persons.

How can you tell? Get out your electric bill agreement that you signed up for electricity with. It has your name and address on it. But it is not you. Get your kitchen butcher knife out, and stab it. It doesn't bleed like you would if you were stabbed the same way.

UBI will give the government and banking system more breathing room by creating a whole new bunch of legitimate persons. And that is what they need to keep a Ponzi alive. We barely understand what is going on... while they take up ownership of the world.

8)

Dang, you're right. I should have dug a little deeper. I found an article about the explanation: https://globalnews.ca/news/4365399/ontario-cancels-basic-income-pilot-project/. It looks like payments will actually end this month. They suggest that the program discouraged people from finding work. Participants seem to be refuting that claim though. They explain how UBI gave them the opportunity to go back to school while keeping a part-time job. They are saying that it's probably got more to do with cutting the budget. It seems a bit ridiculous to cancel the pilot program. They could at least see it out to get some good data.

Would you really want the government to have that much control in your life? That does not sound like a good idea at all to me.

I can already imagine...

"Oh, I'm already out of money and unemployed but I need to have an emergency surgery done. Would you really be so cruel to not help me? It's just money, I will pay you back, I swear! Don't be so heartless!  :'( "

Right, that's why while I think that it's a good idea in principle, it'll probably never be done, and almost certainly never be done in a way which is a net positive. The point is to reduce the size of government (in number of regulations, government employees, etc.) and encourage some amount of personal responsibility (at least the responsibility to ask private charities for money if necessary), but instead you're going to end up with a huge mess of limitations and exceptions which would rival the US tax code in size.

---

I'd be theoretically OK IMO to progressively phase out UBI at very high income levels, but I wouldn't particularly support that because it requires the government to know your income, and I strongly favor eliminating the income tax. Taxation is theft and should be totally eliminated, but income tax is the worst type; it'd be better to replace income tax with sales tax and/or property tax. (If there is an income tax, then you can do negative income tax, a similar system to UBI supported by Milton Friedman.)

The amount should not depend on marital status. If two or more people are able to have a better standard of living by living together, then that's fine. Charles Murray suggests that his proposed $13k/year is not usually enough to live alone, and would require either marriage or rooming.

The amount should not depend on location. If costs are too high where you live, then you should move. If costs are low where you live, then that's fine. People without much money should go to low-cost areas; it's like supply & demand.

Minimum wage is basically universally agreed amongst economists to be counter-productive to everyone. The only thing that it can possibly do is prevent two people from making a deal which they otherwise would've considered worthwhile. It decreases employment and has very little effect on wages. With UBI, even the (totally false) justification for minimum wage that it's necessary for people to get enough money to live would be removed.


This is something that also bothers me. People always frame prosperity/welfare as needing to find a well-paying 9-to-5 job, but is it really necessary for people to work so much? 100 years ago it was common for a single person to support two adults and several children on his own, but now it's common for two parents to work full-time and still feel squeezed. Standards of living have increased, of course, and materialism also plays a big factor, but the whole culture seems wrong. It's probably also due in large part to the government uselessly consuming so much of the economy.

Especially with increasing automation, people are going to have to spend more time on free-form, entrepreneurial sorts of things, and that's good. There's no need to force people into soul-sucking 9-to-5 jobs. Already, I suspect that if you're earning less than $30k/year in the US, then you could probably make more money by becoming an independent contractor of some sort, even if you're completely unskilled.

I fear that governments will create near-pointless 9-to-5 jobs as a form of welfare (like eg. the New Deal CCC) in order to guarantee a "living wage", which would be just unbelievably stupid. Just send people a check and the vast majority of them will on their own do much more useful and fulfilling work.

Thanks for mentioning. Even more relevant to the topic is the most social security program is practically a Ponzi scheme. Straight out off Paul Samuelson's mouth...

“The beauty about social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in. . . . Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real incomes growing at some 3 per cent per year, the taxable base upon which benefits rest in any period are much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired. . . . A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.”

You know what the U stands for in UBI?

Unconditional


Anyway if i was the world leader i would just remove welfare completely and sent all the shitters to mexico, africa or some other shit 3rd world country where they die after a while.

Population is too big anyway.

Better let 500 million people live as gods then 7 billion people like beggars.

That western 6 year old mentality of everyone deserves love, peace and money is retarded.


 ::)


Edit: Whoever doesnt agree is 100% on welfare

Edit2: @theymos Only stupid people have soul-sucking 9-5  jobs which doesnt earn them enough.
Its no wonder anyway because half of the population has an iq less then 90.

Good paid manual labor is mostly done by robot nowadays.

"Universal" actually.


It already pretty much works that way. The majority of world's population live in shit (and refuse to die contrary to your expectations) compared to the top 500 million so that doesn't solve anything.

I am totally with you on this. I'm not sure if standards of living would be the right way to put it. I think it's just a culture of of needless consumerism. I remember really an article of a family of 4 that comfortable lives on $25,000 per year (though they make more) compared with a family of 4 where the father is a doctor and the mother is a dentist. I think the latter family was making over $350,000/year. Of course the latter family was also that it just wasn't enough to finish building their million dollar home and pay for their kid's private schools and nannies etc. It's just ridiculous how people don't even think twice to spend more than they earn.

I had another idea that I think may apply well to all this. What if there was just a limit placed on how much you could work to, say 20 hours/week? There would immediately be twice as many jobs available. We could raise wages and focus on increasing productivity. We already produce much more than we need and waste so much.

I'm waiting for you to announce the annual competition where all these people you feel don't have the right to exist in your utopia, can compete for enough food to scrape by.
I wonder would you even say "May the odds be ever in your favor"

So of these 500 million gods who is going to be performing manual labor roles, fixing roads, or clearing the sewers? Not the gods surely!!! Oh wait you'll have a hardy group that have survived their death sentance to bestow a "lifetime of servitude upon". Sounds great  ::)

In case you only look forward and do not consider history as an indication of human behavior, this generally leads to the "peasant" or "undesirables" giving their lives the same value you do while hoards of them give that life to drag the "gods" into the streets and ......

Wow, I wonder where my check is... must be a huge amount of backpay, here checky, checky, checky.

Or they do what they can in a system they do not feel they can advance in, while still wanting to provide for themselves or their family. Would you rather they quit and seek welfare? Some of those people do find a drive or see an opportunity and find a way to be happy working a 9-5 or some variation. I was about to say these are not the individuals we are here to discuss, but imagine what a UBI could do for them, pretty much( insert all benefits previously stated)

I have worked around these robots, they are great because usually you need to employ 2 people for each of them to be able to provide mechanical repairs or technical troubleshooting.

True story - even though google finds Uncoditional Basic Income too, because one of the basic principles of universal basic income is unconditionality.

Regarding myself i was translating it from german where it is called "Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen (BGE)" (engl. universal basic income) and "Bedingungslos" means unconditional in english.





Whoops  :-[

---

Let the Hunger Games begin  8)




You see, if we wouldnt need to spend trillions on garbage every year we would have AI supported Robots everywhere that would do everything.




Ah history - you know what i think mostly of that?

New day, same shit.



I knew it!



(Depends on the robots and industry - i dont think we need to go into detail here but in general you can say robots are more efficient and less expensive then humans (where they are used and will be used in the future), else nobody would use robots.)

Or we just deport them to mexico and africa!

 ::)

UBI has to be implemented because of rhe rise of robots and automation, if the rich people don't agree there will be mass riots and revolution.

We need to stop UBI, because then people won't have enough money to buy the things that robots and AI make, and the robot system will collapse for lack of funds and anyone buying their products. Rather, the people will have to go back to producing things for themselves, and trading with each other. This will help eliminate fiat, and Bitcoin might become the standard method for money trade.

8)

Automation has been going on for decades if not centuries and there won't be an abrupt change but rather a gradual shift from stupid menial jobs that machines can do to jobs that humans are still better at. I don't think we will run out jobs in the next few hundred years just like we won't run out of people complaining that they can't make money doing what they learned 30 years ago.

But this time it's different tho. Would recommend you to watch this 15-minute gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

We will actually run out of most jobs in the next 5 decades thanks to AI and immutable databases (Blockchain).

I think the government is going to be able to know your income either way, because even if the Income tax is ever removed (it won't ever be, too much in tax revenue at this point) there is still payroll taxes with W-2's (and 1099s for independent contractors) that are going to report your income levels anyway.


Governments will do this, and it is sad to see. But-- the average worker doesn't want to have to depend on how hard they have to work to gain money. They just want to go to work, stay for as long as they have to and collect their paycheck at the end of the week.

Entrepreneurs are a different breed of people in my view. They strive for greatness and they will dip into savings, loans, etc in order to make their dreams a reality.


People have been saying we're going to run out of jobs for decades, I truly think it's going to take more time than this.

Indeed the problem being, Most of the automation done in the last 5 decades or so was of mechanical "muscles", this time its different. We are talking about mechanical "minds". I will ask you to watch the video I mentioned above. It will explain what i am talking about.

"AI" is an overused buzzword that makes some (most?) people think it's going to be a drop-in replacement for a human. It's not. I will be shocked if in 5 decades we are able to develop machine learning to the level of a 3-year-old toddler. More likely though it will continue to be narrowly specialized, such as self-driving cars that may work reasonably well during daytime on well-marked roads in a well-mapped area with good wireless signal. There will still be plenty of humans doing the road marking and mapping and all that stuff.

Now look 5 decades back and I'm sure you'll find many jobs that no longer exist and probably even more jobs that were "invented" in that time period. Things change.

i doubt ubi will survive for long, capitalists are very greedy people they will sooner or later try to create a slavish form of capitalism, enslaving as many as possible as money earning cattle to feed their greed for power.

Agreed but these AIs can specialize in anything. Just take this Dota 2 AI bot as an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92tn67YDXg0

This bot took only 6 weeks to train and it beat the Dota 2 Defending champion. Dota 2 is clearly not a toddler's game. Plus they have already accomplished to make them work together... Check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaBYhLttETw

Next decade or two will be revolutionary in terms of AI Automation.

When you go around telling people how much they can spend, and on what, you are very close to socialism, especially if you are pushing people to live off of very small amounts of money.

People should be able to spend and save whatever amounts of money they want, including borrowing what others perceive to be recklessly to spend what they wish to spend. Obviously this will be limited by the amount of money they have in the bank (and other assets), and various lenders' willingness to lend to these people.

Only people who have been subverted into slaves, will stop making big money from their businesses when they start receiving UBI.

8)

AH SOMEONE IN THE WORLD UNDERSTANDS ALL OF MY THOUGHTS AND CAN EXPLAIN IT SIMPLY!

I don't think people truly do understand how much knowledge a machine would have to have in order to give you tax advice, compliance, and so on and so forth when it comes to the world of accounting. I understand people thinking that basic (super basic) tasks like data input are going to go away with the world of AI, but that's not something that requires too much brainpower anyway.

Humans are always going to be needed, the world is just going to SHIFT. As it always has.


This argument goes either way, it could either be CUT or it COULD be expanded. Who knows what the people are going to vote for. (Hint: usually free money, or at least they THINK it's free)

You sure about that?

Exascale computing is around the door, we arent in the 1980's anymore.

Though i agree to the shift happening, and this time the shift will kick out all (still existing) low to most medium thinking jobs until skynet will enslave the rest of humanity.

AI doctors and lawyers are just the beginning.

Exactly! just take my Dota 2 AI bot as an example. It took 6 weeks of gameplay on a high-end PC which is still millions of times slower than the supercomputers we have. Imagine, how good these AIs will get once they are trained on these supercomputers. The possibilities are endless.

@squatz1 @suchmoon You guys should really watch this 15-minute Gem by CGP Grey. "Human need not Apply": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

The video isn't about AIs but how the world is changing and how this time it is different.

If you want to read the transcript of the video you can read it here: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/humans-need-not-apply

I did. It's clickbait. He doesn't address any practical challenges facing AI implementations and how these could be overcome. AIs are still very bad at some very basic tasks, such as pattern recognition. This is far more than Facebook's creepy photo tagging. We as humans have billions of years of evolution behind us, which allows us to hit the brakes when we see an object on or near the road that shouldn't be there (https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/268915-fatal-arizona-crash-ubercar-saw-woman-called-it-a-false-positive). CGP Grey instead proclaims that self-driving cars is a done deal and that was 4 years ago. Can't take it seriously.

Having said that, AI engineer is one of the best jobs to have right now. I know folks who got $200k straight out of college. Good option for anyone worried about job security over the next 50 years.

From the video footage, I couldn't see her till she was in front of the car. Couldn't have done much even if it was a human. The road wasn't lit enough IMO. I doubt the cameras would have picked her up. Even if its the AI's fault. These cases will be considered "Outliers". How many crashes do humans cause per year after "Billions" of years of evolution? while this thing has been out for not even a decade yet. It's kind of unfair to judge these things this early.


Agreed! but I wouldn't call this job "Secured".

GOOGLE AI CREATES ITS OWN ‘CHILD’ AI THAT’S MORE ADVANCED THAN SYSTEMS BUILT BY HUMANS: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-child-ai-bot-nasnet-automl-machine-learning-artificial-intelligence-a8093201.html

The only way I'd agree with UBI is if part of the money is automatically "saved" somewhere, meaning even if the person receiving the stipend is rather lazy or a spendthrift, he/she would still end up with some savings, which can only be accessed upon reaching a certain age or for medical emergencies.

I'm not so sure about the idea of limiting the UBI by income. That would just bring us back to the same problem we have now with cash transfers to the poor, they reach a certain income level, they lose their allowance, making some people just not try harder.

The way to make sure that free money from the government isn't a substitute for working is to set the amount of free money to zero.

Or set it to 13,000 a year, but then inflate the currency to the point where a hamburger costs 13,000.

I think that at the levels we're thinking at about income limits then it's not going to be something which is the same problem we have now (as the problem we have now set the limit too low, something around 24,000 which makes the gain from not working harder outweighs the benefits)

I don't think we should establish where these people spend their money, this is their own decision on what they're going to be doing with their money.


Ah, Suchmoon -- we agree on so much around here!

CGP Grey is usually a pretty good source, but sometimes these people abuse their audience as a way to throw them fake news. People have been saying that AI is going to take over all of the jobs of the world for years now, but it's never going to happen at least to the degree that people think it will.

This is fear mongering that is happening by so many people to push their own bottom line today.. as a way to freak people out for tomorrow.

If UBI is set in place, and if you want to accept it, read the fine print in the agreement, and use your head.

What I mean is, when you paid into Social Security, you did so thinking that you understood what SS was all about. You were wrong, of course, which can be used to nullify any agreement you had with SS. The point is that your property went into SS first, so you deserve it returned to you.

Your property doesn't go into UBI. You simply get UBI freely. This means that you will have to pay later. Even if it isn't written like this in the formal paperwork, it is standard law that is written in basics in The Uniform Commercial Code.

Look at the difficulties that Social Security is having regarding maintaining their ability to pay out. Do you think that you will have it any easier when UBI money is demanded back from you? Rather, you will pay with your life and soul.

8)

These difficulties that Social Security is having isn't because of problems in the program, it's because Politicians never wanted to change the program as it should have been in order to adjust for old age. As Social Security (when it was started) was pretty much a gift to people who could live long enough to be able to get what they put into the program. I'm not saying that we should change the program to fit like it was. What we should do is admit that politicans failed the program as a whole.

They took money from the Social Security fund and loaned it to themselves in order to pay into the mass amounts of programs that they needed to pay for.

Check out this link, it'll be a nice read - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Well, if you look closely, you will see that they didn't take and loan. They simply borrowed against. There is a difference. They might have been in trouble if they hadn't repaid the loan... oh, that's right, they didn't repay it. But a promise to repay without a date set, is a perpetual loan that essentially doesn't have to repaid, because the payment remains in the future. Until time ends, there will always be a future.

Btw, it's legal to do it this way.

8)

Often people think of automation as something that will lead to UBI. I believe the opposite, once UBI gets implemented it will lead to massive automation.
The ancient greeks built simple steam machines but saw them as toys, not tools because they had access to a very cheap labor through the use of slaves.
If a UBI was implemeted people would probably turn away from low payed BS jobs and it would become economically viable to automate these jobs.

I would like to share some of my thoughts on how a society that adopts UBI could be like:

That society will be divided in maybe 3 social classes:
group 1: the masses: UBI provides them with everything that is considered necessary, like housing, food, healthcare, basic education, transportation, internet, basic recreation.
group 2: highly educated, high payed professionals: will have or do whatever distinguishes them from the masses, but need to work hard in order to do so.
group 3: investors: provide the masses whit the products and services that UBI pays for and will live an exceptional lifestyle.

The before outlined classes will be difficult to leave, for obvious reasons. To me UBI means a new form of socialism, which does not expropriate the rich, but instead dictates what is considered as necessary and that will be given for "free" to everybody in the form of an income, which is high enough to pay for all the basics. But if you dare to want something not basic? Well, you could work. But wait, it will not be that easy, because all the things that are considered not basic will become crazy expensive.

But everybody wants free stuff, right? Don't get blinded by "free". There does not exist something for nothing in this world. Somebody will have to pay (taxes or inflation or similar). Just imagine the following: today as you work and earn a decent income (hopefully) you can eat out in a nice restaurant eating good food. But now imagine a society with UBI. Will there be somebody who wants to work as a waitress or chef, if not exceptionally highly paid? And if highly paid, will you be able to afford to eat in that restaurant with only your UBI income?

And then there is the problem with the UNCONDITIONAL in UBI: would people spend their income on providing their children quality education or rather drink, do drugs and gamble? Will people use their free time for constructive or destructive persuits?

UBI/welfare both warp price signaling conditions in markets, which can cause very serious issues. They both result in inflation. IMO we should offer some kind of tax credit where you can volunteer at approved facilities, and be "paid" in the form of a tax voucher at a regular wage rate. This voucher would be good for the year and could be applied to negate any existing tax liability during that period.

IMO this would foster a culture of community service, create jobs, help people transition to the work environment, and most importantly be productive while also not skewing the market conditions which we all rely on. This wouldn't solve every problem but IMO it would be more effective than the current welfare system.

This is why UBI as a replacement for welfare is a pipe dream.   Children cannot manage their money on their own and without highly restrictive limits on what the UBI money can be approved to pay for, people would spend their (and their childrens) UBI on things that the UBI was meant for, then what?  What if all of the money was spent and they don't have housing? food?

In design thinking, when you want to design a solution to solve a problem, you need to make sure your solution addresses the cause of the problem directly.  UBI does not solve any problem.  It only gives money with hopes that money can solve the problem.

Example
 If the housing crisis is caused by low housing supply, paying all individuals a median rent, is not going to result in everyone being house.  Its simply going to increase demand.  This problem could be applied to many of sectors UBI hopes to address. 

Example 2
Healthcare spending is unpredictable on the individual level.  Most people would end up with a surplus from whatever you calculated but someone who becomes severely ill will not be able to cover their costs under UBI.  UBI is never going to be a realistic solution to "healthcare costs"

UBI is a lazy solution. If you really want everyone to have the necessities, (housing, food, healthcare, basic education, transportation, internet, basic recreation. ) your solution needs to actually end with people getting those things. 

I'm not opposed to a UBI for non essential things but UBI as a replacement for all welfare programs is just "throwing money at the problem" and would be a disaster for the very people it intends to help.

Though this does open up the question of who is going to approve these 'community service centers' Because this could become a political issue where people are saying that certain centers that are aligned with political parties (such as the NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc) This would open up some pretty big issues IMO, unless there's a way to screen against things like this.

The only thing that I was going on when I initially proposed this idea of replacing UBI was to improve productivity because there is no large cliff-like a cutoff point.

I am not really even suggesting constructing anything new, the idea was that certain jobs shown to have a significant public benefit could be predesignated to be approved for this type of work. The choice where one would work would still be a meritocratic system largely based on choice and convenience of both parties involved. There would still be just as much competition for these jobs, just a different form of payment.

I just don't understand UBI, someone has to pay for it.  Deficits are ballooning out of control I can't imagine handing everyone free money is going to help fiscal responsibility...

There are WAY better ways IMO to help the lower classes (if that was the goal which I am sure it is never the goal of any politician hehe) that actually incentivize working. 

Reducing the tax burden on working people by increasing the non taxable income threshold would be a major start to helping low wage families that actually work.

I am also very unclear why people are in favour of some kind of UBI but resist a higher minimum wage (or reject the concept of min wage at all).

I mean, if every other single welfare system is removed then we don't have an issue with the whole fiscal responsibility thing. As it's pretty close in price (I don't have the exact numbers, but that's it)

I would have to say that people support UBI instead of min wage increases is because it puts people out of the market, if there are people willing to work for $7.50 an hour -- then so be it they're going to get jobs. But if the government sets an arbitrary number at lets just say $10, then less people are going to be able to be employed by this firm as they're not going to increase salaries (they're going to cut hours, or employees, or both) That's just simple economics.

But yes, there probably are tons of other ways to fix the system -- but this is just what I proposed sometime ago, hehe.

Andy Kessler (https://www.wsj.com/news/author/8679) an editorial column (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-universally-bad-idea-1540147422?mod=hp_opin_pos2) in the WSJ today, that will presumably be published in Monday's paper.

He argues that UBI created government dependency, and would lead to socialism. One missing piece from his argument is that entitlements inevitably will be expanded over time.

An interesting portion of his piece is:

I don't understand how UBI would exactly work, perhaps if every automated machine which takes the job of a human was given a working salary and a % of that went to the UBI pot.. I could understand it working then.. but if you just have machines replacing humans in the lower level jobs.. you ultimately just have fat cat corporate owners making bigger profits with lower costs.. I think it should be mandated that automated machines | robotics whatever you want to call them has a 'earning salary' which is then distributed amongst the people it puts out of work...

The other issue with all this is when you have the IMF just able to print money.. it makes the whole exercise superfluous.

Proponents of UBI claim it could be implemented through value added taxes, which is done in Europe (consumption taxes placed on a product whenever value is added at each stage of the supply chain, from production to the point of sale.) The amount of VAT that the user pays is on the cost of the product.

If AI and more efficiency takes jobs away on huge scales, paying clients will have less spending power and the economy would stagnate. The abundance that technology will create could be distributed in this way to keep the economy alive and well and people off the streets.

I think the future will be that homelessness etc. will be solved but if you want more you'll have to either be very inventive or be a programmer. I don't think there will be as much motivation to rise above however, as technology is making it so that more money doesn't necessarily equate to a better life.

Well, that's how its supposed to "work", The owner who will replace the job of the "human" with an AI/Robot will technically pay the wage of the human worker as the tax. The benefit being that AI/Robot will be able to work 24/7 and 365 days a year. Will have almost zero downtime and errors. Thus increasing the productivity of his business. Once his productivity increases, his 'profits' should increase too. So its a "win" for the people who own the means of production. But this is a theoretical scenario. we won't see government intervention for a good few years. Businesses will keep replacing humans with bots. Just look at Amazon warehouses or other warehouses which are automated. Have the government taken any action "against" them? We all know the answer to this.

I believe there will be a "transitional phase". This "phase" is the challenge we will face in the coming next 2 decades. The Transportation industry will be the first one to experience this change on a large scale. All these people becoming jobless can't develop new skills instantly. They will most likely get employed by other labour industries. But most will suffer through this change. With all these debt issues going around I doubt any sort of government will try to implement socialist policies. we will most likely see training centres pop up everywhere. Teaching these people basically the new skills in demand. Those who will resist the change will fail and will eventually be eliminated.

Good thing is that we have time and the whole transitional phase will be a slow one rather than a sudden one. I am sure many different solutions will come to light once we are in the mess itself. For now, we can only speculate and hope for a better future for everyone. UBI imo will only come into play once this transitional phase completes.

You bring up some very valid points here. Yes, the improvement in technology is improving the living standards and this will be possible as well very cheaply. But this is not because of UBI but because of capitalism.

The other point, VAT as basis for sustaining the basic income means that a society has just to consume in order to sustain itself  :o :o that is not going to work out  ;)

Let me break down in some very simple terms why UBI is bad.

With the government being in charge of handing out the resources that people would need to live under UBI, you immediately create a conflict of interest. The people will always vote for more "free" stuff, and the politicians, not being the ones to personally foot the bill pander to them and hand out more free stuff. A cycle of dependence is created on both sides as people vote for more free stuff and politicians hand out more and more to buy votes using our own money. Also what happens if they decide you aren't worthy of being supported any more? Now the government has the power to cut off your income. Furthermore money for nothing will pervert market signaling and create inflation and scarcity of the most in demand products, essentially bringing us full circle right back to where we started with haves and have nots.

UBI is simply just rebranded Socialism/Communism. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Don't ever forget it.

I almost fell over when I read this... because I agree with it LOL.

The VAST majority of able bodied people want to work, society needs to look at shaping the environment to incentivize working.  I don't see how UBI accomplishes that.  Wage disparity is the problem currently, blue collar wages are not competitive anymore and UBI doesn't address that in any way.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/100b8cd7d98694bcb221180a969ae213/tenor.gif?itemid=8471142


Has been proved wrong countless times, Just Look at countries like Denmark. Where students literally get paid to attend college and guess what? They have one of the highest literacy rates in the world. BTW Most UBI systems are being designed to help those who are "working" on low wages. You aren't getting paid for doing "nothing". It's a system for people who are struggling. There is a difference between free money and helping the struggling class...

Oh has it been proven wrong? Please source.

The results of inflation are very well documented and not up for debate by anyone with any credibility. Market signaling is also critical to a functional economy, this is also not under debate.

Denmark had a high rate of literacy before UBI. Even if it did not, correlation does not equal causation. Additionally their literacy rate was never in question. There is no difference between free money and helping the middle class because they are both the same thing, just on different scales. Helping the middle class turns quickly into free money as politicians increase handouts to buy votes. Also Denmark is not Socialist, it is Capitalist. Without Capitalism none of this would be possible.

okay, let's begin here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc

The video description has all the sources mentioned. Do check em out :)

Cartoons...always impressive. Pick a premise and support it with sources. Shotgunning links at me is not a debate. if you can't explain your concepts in simple language, what makes you think you are going to convince anyone else?

Lol, Why waste my energy on explaining something which has been "perfectly" explained in a short video??? I am here to point you in the right direction, not to convince you that UBI is good. How can i convince you that something is "Good" when it hasn't been even defined properly. Each person has their own idea about what "UBI" should be. I mean, to you giving out free money may be considered "UBI" but to me providing someone with free training can be considered UBI too. One of the points which the "cartoons" point out.

Also, Its just a single video, Not "Shotgunning links" at you in any way. I mean if you are really interested in changing your mind or giving "UBI" a chance, You wouldn't mind doing a bit of research or would you? I will not spoon-feed you the information you require If that's what you are looking for, I am not your guy.

---

"Oh has it been proven? Please Source." :)

P.S I don't mind reading articles or watching videos So feel free to link them. ;)

"...providing someone with free training can be considered UBI too."

Thanks for the perfect example that UBI is just re-branded Socialism. Dude, its like, all post modern and stuff man, and we can totally just each have our own definitions for words man.

Please do explain specifically what "Has been proved wrong countless times". I literally don't even know what your premise is other than "UBI GOOD". Asking you to define your terms is not demanding to be spoon fed. I have done a LOT of research on UBI and economics in general and it will have destructive effects long term if not immediately after implementation due to the basic laws of economics and psychology of human motivation mentioned above.

See this is the issue here, You think that people will get paid by a "state" which isn't true. People will most likely get "paid" from the people who own the means of production. I mean as long as people can own the mean of production and produce whatever they want, free from "state" intervention you can't call it socialism. It is capitalism of sorts but the "profit" being the wellbeing of the society.


The video gives clear examples of countries where the UBI was tested, again I won't tell you where but feel free to watch it for yourself.


The results beg to differ... Just watch the video already man... The points you have touched are all summed up in there. Just watch it...

It doesn't matter who pays them. The market price signaling will still be corrupted, and inflation will still be a factor because the most in demand goods will be less available and have to rise in price to meet demand. You might want to look up "the tragedy of the commons".

Yes, you won't tell me. How convenient you can't even clearly and simply define your premise and rely on some video to think for you.

What results? You haven't refuted a single one of my points successfully. Furthermore you haven't even stated your own points!

Why are you assuming that the production won't rise? Automation/Technology is already helping us to overproduce. We are closer to the post-scarcity era than you think. Like even if Apple wanted to give out 8 billion iPhones for free they could be produced in this day and age. We aren't living in the 50s. Technology is there and is improving constantly. Also, Laws of economics aren't set in stone like laws of nature. People like you need to understand that. Why do you assume that governments will print out money to pay for UBI? That's not the case. The idea of UBI is to shift the money from one class to another, So inflation isn't an issue with UBI.


You throw out terms like "tragedy of the commons" but fail to cite sources where this was actually proved...


Alright, let's start with Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs Link: https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/32/2/155/4098285

Since you are going to accept whatever I say as truth.  The trails done in Canada in the 1970s showed that less than 1% of the participants left their work. Those who left their jobs were moms who left work for taking care of their newborns. Also, participants reduced their work hours by less than 10% on average and those who did, they spent their time looking for new jobs or going back to school to learn new skills. I mean what more can you ask?

These are very simple economics concepts that are well accepted, and considered laws based on past economic behavior. If you give people things they do not have to work for, those things are consumed more, but the actual value of the money becomes debased because they produced nothing to get those things. Money does not just represent work it represents capital. Capital (ie things) are not infinite and regardless of how much you automate this will not change. Resources are finite. Market price signaling is the ONLY THING that is giving an accurate signal to the people who produce those things, what the fair market value of their products are. When you hand out free money, it means these resources are consumed, but these people paid no cost for it, and the true market prices are corrupted by this influx. This long term results in shortages and supply problems. These are all well known and accepted economic concepts. Postmodernism is not an acceptable substitute.

I mentioned tragedy of the commons because it is a general concept that people don't appreciate or take care of collective possession as well as they do their own. IE if they don't pay the cost to gain the thing then they are less likely to appreciate or care for it. There is nothing to disprove here, just an idea you might benefit from examining critically because this seems to be a foreign concept to you.

BTW, Canada still operates under Capitalism.

"debunking" a claim I did not make is not a premise. A premise is a claim, or truth, you hold to be true. Try making a claim you feel to be true and introduce evidence to support it. This is not debate, this is you putting up a straw man no one asked for, beating him with a stick, and declaring victory.

Are you serious right now??? Explain this...


From your responses, I feel like you haven't done shit... I will wait for your sources to prove that humans become lazy/unwilling to work if they are provided with free money. I'm not a big fan of pseudoscience, I would love to see real-world results...


Why is it hard for you to grasp the fact that UBI will work under "Capitalism".

---

If you can't come up with proves to back your claims there is no point in debating this out. I have provided mine, its time you provided yours.

It is really simple. I never made the claim people will become lazy or not work, you did. Also I asked for your PREMISE, IE your argument. Arguing that an argument I didn't make is not true is not debating.



What you feel is irrelevant. I don't have to provide sources to back that premise because I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. You have a really difficult time understanding what a premise (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise) is don't you?



You can't even come up with claims! All you have are straw men logical fallacies. You haven't provided anything. Just to prove a point though...


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_inflation.asp

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofsupply.asp

http://www.preservearticles.com/2011092213870/what-are-the-effects-on-production-of-inflation.html

https://inflationdata.com/articles/2018/03/29/the-effects-of-inflation-and-interest-rates-on-commodity-prices/

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-dynamics.asp

Found some interesting youtube videos on the subject (warning: no cartoons, goes in dept)

https://youtu.be/FtAYFgsUeis

https://youtu.be/rb1cv9_Y7wg

They are worth watching, I did a lot of research into this discourse, more than a cartoon  ;D ;D (no offence though, I watch this short cartoons as well)

In my opinion UBI has a difficult time to work out, just for the usual problem, that where there flows money easily, money will be spent easily and that results in inflation. So the money that should help the struggling in the first place is increasing the prices for them as result.

Anyway we can not predict the economic implications of UBI with certainty, like QE should have resulted in more inflation, but actually it did only for certain assets, like real estate in major cities and stock prices. On the other hand the QE example shows clearly, that there are different outcomes with certain money flows. That is also on of the best arguments for decentralized crypto currencies by the way, that a stake holder/investor is safe of forced money flows that eventually will cripple his investment.

Lol, Okay... I am out...

Yeah God forbid I call you out on your logical fallacies and inability to even present a premise to argue. Have fun jerking yourself off over how much you believe you are right. Thanks for playing.