Hypothetical question about Bitcoin and a unversal basic income.

[Rabber]

If there was a plan to use Bitcoin as a universal basic income when automation and robotics remove >50 of the work force and you were on the team to develop a strategy to make this happen, what kinds of things would you suggest?

A major issue would be funding and how to decide who gets how much.


This question does assume it would make more sense than using cash deposits, what are some reasons you would argue why this is the case?

[1715009145]

1715009145

[1715009145]

1715009145

[1715009145]

1715009145

[1715009145]

1715009145

[1715009145]

1715009145

[pixie85]

I'd prefer if they removed taxes instead of adding universal income and then tax me on every step.

Funding is not only the issue in bitcoin universal income, but in the one based on fiat. You have a budget that is more or less balanced and suddenly you have to find the money to give out to 50 million people, so they can pay their bills? Why not just remove bills in the first place and save yourself the trouble?

[Yakamoto]

If there was a plan to use Bitcoin as a universal basic income when automation and robotics remove >50 of the work force and you were on the team to develop a strategy to make this happen, what kinds of things would you suggest?

A major issue would be funding and how to decide who gets how much.

This question does assume it would make more sense than using cash deposits, what are some reasons you would argue why this is the case?

Why the hell would Bitcoin be used for UBI? The fact is that there is still probably a century before everything (including >50%) of the workforce is automated and Bitcoin is not going to be the solution for it. Chances are in that time there is going to be another crypto that comes out which gets backed by governments (assuming that there is a shift from fiat to crypto) and that will be the system they use to implement it.

UBI is a dumb as shit system anyways.

[Icculus.]

A solution to the funding can come from taxing the income replacement the robots represent. If they are replacing real employees, they're replacing the income that would otherwise be taxed and used to pay for the services needed by the population. If robots will be used to replace people, the owner of those robots could be charged income tax on the income replaced which helps keep money in the budge to pay for welfare income.

My own opinion, universal income isn't the answer. It's not fair. What is most fair is that equal opportunity be made available for people to achieve education and have access to available jobs. Some people will perform better than others and get compensated more for that greater performance. Some people will have greater ambition and get compensated more for that greater ambition.

Finally, the people should be more wiling to NOT BUY products and services based on price increases or other activities that are not seen as benefits to those people.

Why do you think Universal Income is possible? realistic? feasible? just?

[darkangel11]

A solution to the funding can come from taxing the income replacement the robots represent. If they are replacing real employees, they're replacing the income that would otherwise be taxed and used to pay for the services needed by the population. If robots will be used to replace people, the owner of those robots could be charged income tax on the income replaced which helps keep money in the budge to pay for welfare income.

My own opinion, universal income isn't the answer. It's not fair. What is most fair is that equal opportunity be made available for people to achieve education and have access to available jobs. Some people will perform better than others and get compensated more for that greater performance. Some people will have greater ambition and get compensated more for that greater ambition.

Finally, the people should be more wiling to NOT BUY products and services based on price increases or other activities that are not seen as benefits to those people.

Why do you think Universal Income is possible? realistic? feasible? just?

You're right, it isn't just. Universal income is a socialist idea, an attempt to equalize the society and people aren't equal! Some are smart and some are dumb, some are workaholics and some are lazy. Giving all of them an equal share of the pie is not only unjust, but stupid.
I also don't agree with taxing the robot owners. Ok, a machine replaces a person and it works for free, but this has been going on for years now. All car factories have automated production lines. Machines bottle your drinks, pack your snacks, can your veggies, why aren't they taxed yet?

[franky1]

theorising new FIAT systems. each idea are separate

starting with the basics. the new money and who deserves it

idea 1
'new money' /blockreward.
this should be used as the public services treasury.
the funds of blockrewards pay for public services as the way to 'trickle down' funds into circulation. not hoarded by bankers/pools. but done as a way to pay for public services without the people needing to be taxed by 20-50%.
EG hospitals, fire/police/social security office/schools become the 'pools'


idea 2
'new money'
this should be used as the public services treasury.
but is not created by 'blockreward' but instead by parents and doctors forming new multisigs as a 'birth registration' when a child is born that gets funded XXXXXX fresh coin which is then collateral in some format to pay for that persons public services (health, school, pension, unemployment) at a rate of say 15-25 years of healthy living.

[MingLee]

UBI will make society hedonistic, myopic and rapidly accelerate degeneracy as everyone lines up to become part of the state's welfare line that they will have on every single street corner for every individual over 18. It destroys the family unit, will encourage laziness and is not something that encourages the natural state of human beings; working in some way.
It creates a level playing field for everyone, meaning that the true losers of society are now the equivalent of the best (outside of the 1%) and no-one will have to care about anything. Humanity will become apathetic to everything, technology advancements will slow, and it will all go to shit.
I have never seen UBI being pushed by someone who is not part of the dredges of society or has a worthwhile education.
Bad idea. Bitcoin will not be effectively used this way.

[franky1]

my belief is that every human should always have a BASIC roof over thier head and enough funds to keep a fridge and microwave functional to make food. enough funds to cover the most basic food to prepare the most basic healthy meals there are.

and then people work to improve their lifestyle.

no one should be homeless and starving. but no one should be living luxury lifestyles of 50" TV and caviar  lifestyle on social security.

as for funding this.. is simple. instead of banks making billions a year .. the 'money creation' covers the basic 'survival' public services/health.
if you take away the "my taxes are paying for laziness" debate. and make the social security funded not by the public but by money creation. then it can work

[MingLee]

my belief is that every human should always have a BASIC roof over thier head and enough funds to keep a fridge and microwave functional to make food. enough funds to cover the most basic food to prepare the most basic healthy meals there are.

and then people work to improve their lifestyle.

no one should be homeless and starving. but no one should be living luxury lifestyles of 50" TV and caviar  lifestyle on social security.

as for funding this.. is simple. instead of banks making billions a year .. the 'money creation' covers the basic 'survival' public services/health.

Well hypothetically you could set something like that up by simply taking areas of land, creating complexes that focus around giving everyone a bed, a kitchen and giving them roofs over their heads and sending government-sponsored produce to said places. Give them jobs related to work within the complexes or something else that fits their roles.
Now, of course, the world isn't perfect so you need a population that actually wants these things to live there for something like this to work.
The thing is though, EBT and all the other social services will actually subsidize people in a more lucrative manner than having these people actually work. That is something that has to be changed.
I suggest subsidize the working poor over the lazy poor, but of course that takes away gibs and votes.

[iluvpie60]

If there was a plan to use Bitcoin as a universal basic income when automation and robotics remove >50 of the work force and you were on the team to develop a strategy to make this happen, what kinds of things would you suggest?

A major issue would be funding and how to decide who gets how much.


This question does assume it would make more sense than using cash deposits, what are some reasons you would argue why this is the case?

There will never be full universal income. What will more likely happen is that so many people need money and will work for shitty jobs and slave labor levels. People will not just get paid to do nothing. That is a utopia that simply wont be, so get it out of your head.

The most realistic thing that will happen is we go back to being serfs living on a rich persons land and we farm for them while being given a shitty shack to live in.

The few things we actually need are food clean water and safety. It is very inexpensive to pay your serfs in food and water, while giving them minimum shelter and safety.

[franky1]

I suggest subsidize the working poor over the lazy poor, but of course that takes away gibs and votes.

if you stop watching fox news and other snobby news that the rich love. you will find out that the 'lazy' people only account for a very very small percent of the population.

im not talking about giving them a living lifestyle amount. but just a survival amount. so no one need to be homeless/starve.

[hatshepsut93]

If there was a plan to use Bitcoin as a universal basic income when automation and robotics remove >50 of the work force and you were on the team to develop a strategy to make this happen, what kinds of things would you suggest?

A major issue would be funding and how to decide who gets how much.


This question does assume it would make more sense than using cash deposits, what are some reasons you would argue why this is the case?

It's simply impossible. To implement universal basic income, you need to have a total control over financial system - print money, tax heavily, monitor all operations to prevent laundering, etc. Bitcoin is against all of it.
If you want to give out money to everyone, you need to establish the source first, and with Bitcoin you can only buy and mine it. So unless you take over all mining power, or create a fork with new rules, you can't sucesfully use Bitcoin for universal basic income.

[btcbug]

If there was a plan to use Bitcoin as a universal basic income when automation and robotics remove >50 of the work force and you were on the team to develop a strategy to make this happen, what kinds of things would you suggest?

A major issue would be funding and how to decide who gets how much.


This question does assume it would make more sense than using cash deposits, what are some reasons you would argue why this is the case?

What would I suggest?

How about NOT stealing other people's money to redistribute? It's called Socialism. Every country in the world practices it to some degree through taxation and welfare. UBI is socialism/welfare repackaged and marketed through fear (robots gunna steal our jobs oh nooooo) to gullible idiots who haven't grown up yet or are too stupid to understand basic economics.

It's been tried and it always collapses eventually. You always run out of other peoples money!

Have you heard of the 80/20 rule or Pareto's principle? It's about 20% of your efforts that usually gets you 80% of your results. It can also be applied to the population as a whole. 20% of people are responsible for 80% of the world's productivity. Of course this is a rule of thumb. The point is that a small percentage of people are massive achievers, most are somewhere in the middle and do ok, and the rest are leeches.

You are not helping the people on the bottom by voting money away from the most successful. Rather, you are creating a growing dependence on a system. A system that is no better than theft I would add. What makes it moral for 3 men to vote and steal from the other 2? So you're hurting those in need and also destroying incentives on both ends. Why work if you get it for free? On the other hand, why work when it just get's taken from you?

You can feed me bullshit about how you can micromanage it and dole out the perfect percentages in order to still incentivize people into working, but that's delusional.

What does "jobs" even mean? Why are people, and specifically the government so hung up on the term? Jobs didn't even exist hundreds of years ago and people still survived. Jobs are simply your means of survival. Are people really so intellectually lazy that they can't possibly think of how to make money in the future? Surely robots need programming, maintenance, etc. And when it gets to the point that we don't have anything to do because EVERYTHING is automated then why do you need a fucking "job"? You'll be enjoying your life of abundance.

[btcbug]

my belief is that every human should always have a BASIC roof over thier head and enough funds to keep a fridge and microwave functional to make food. enough funds to cover the most basic food to prepare the most basic healthy meals there are.

and then people work to improve their lifestyle.

no one should be homeless and starving. but no one should be living luxury lifestyles of 50" TV and caviar  lifestyle on social security.

as for funding this.. is simple. instead of banks making billions a year .. the 'money creation' covers the basic 'survival' public services/health.
if you take away the "my taxes are paying for laziness" debate. and make the social security funded not by the public but by money creation. then it can work

That default state of humankind is one of living in the wild, unprotected from the elements and forced to find food to survive.

I too want to see people cared for, but your "belief" doesn't mean anybody has the right to what you see as a basic lifestyle. Sorry.

You can say it all you want, but who's providing this right to an arbitrary amount of stuff to somebody stuck on an island for example? Nobody, because basic necessities are not rights. To say they are rights, places an obligation on somebody else to provide them.

It has nothing to do with banking corruption, government corruption or anything else you and I know is seriously corrupt in the world. Those things need to be reformed, but that's another matter.

The fact is that there is nothing magical about voting to redistribute property. If I come take your car, it's called theft. If myself and two others vote before we take your car does that change the morality of it? Theft is theft and political rituals called Democracy don't change that.

Come up with a consensual, voluntary way to support the less fortunate and operate under free market principles. Then I'm all for it.

[The One]

A solution to the funding can come from taxing the income replacement the robots represent. If they are replacing real employees, they're replacing the income that would otherwise be taxed and used to pay for the services needed by the population. If robots will be used to replace people, the owner of those robots could be charged income tax on the income replaced which helps keep money in the budge to pay for welfare income.

My own opinion, universal income isn't the answer. It's not fair. What is most fair is that equal opportunity be made available for people to achieve education and have access to available jobs. Some people will perform better than others and get compensated more for that greater performance. Some people will have greater ambition and get compensated more for that greater ambition.

Finally, the people should be more wiling to NOT BUY products and services based on price increases or other activities that are not seen as benefits to those people.

Why do you think Universal Income is possible? realistic? feasible? just?

Please learn the following... maths, economics, accountancy, taxation based on understanding accountancy, not what the politicians, media and fuckwits tells you.

Then you will be educated and not waste time writing utter loony lefty socialist Marxist claptrap again.

[The One]

my belief is that every human should always have a BASIC roof over thier head and enough funds to keep a fridge and microwave functional to make food. enough funds to cover the most basic food to prepare the most basic healthy meals there are.

and then people work to improve their lifestyle.

no one should be homeless and starving. but no one should be living luxury lifestyles of 50" TV and caviar  lifestyle on social security.

as for funding this.. is simple. instead of banks making billions a year .. the 'money creation' covers the basic 'survival' public services/health.
if you take away the "my taxes are paying for laziness" debate. and make the social security funded not by the public but by money creation. then it can work

On the condition that they have a job in the first place before breeding. Otherwise the breeders will breed in greater numbers.

[Sadlife]

It would take years before we can eliminate the 50% workforce, i think bitcoin should stay the way it should and let fiat currencies handle those things.
If that scenario does occur in the future the income that the robot would make goes to the owner and also with the taxes there maybe also some  intances that the robots get hijack and income that was made it stolen what will happen to the user starve to death?

[franky1]

The fact is that there is nothing magical about voting to redistribute property. If I come take your car, it's called theft. If myself and two others vote before we take your car does that change the morality of it? Theft is theft and political rituals called Democracy don't change that.

Come up with a consensual, voluntary way to support the less fortunate and operate under free market principles. Then I'm all for it.

where have i even said once that the funds should come from taxing people. or theft.
my theory of new fiat. it would be the NEW money.. starts at the bottom and trickles up... not starts at the top and trickles down

imagine if all the public services and social services/care was funded via block rewards. thus 'tax' is not of concern

On the condition that they have a job in the first place before breeding. Otherwise the breeders will breed in greater numbers.

im not talking about a basic lifestyle. im talking about a survival amount.
not a 50"tv broadband,
not free electric to run a cinema 24/7 along with a houseparty..
not full english breakfast, a roast lunch and a takeaway evening meal

im saying a survival amount
just 5 hours of electric a day, to run 1 lightbulb at a time in the evening and enough to make toast in the morning and heat up an evening basic meal in a microwave
basic meals like toast for breakfast a chicken salad sandwich for lunch and something simple and basic in the evening

as for your "breeders will breed in greater numbers".. seems you have been reading the snobby media that exaggerates things to make the banking disaster of 2008 some how the poors fault for syphoning funds.

here in the UK the 'lazy people' account for under £2bill, not even 1% of the treasury(and even that is using exaggerated numbers) yet the government hands over £45bill to banks, £30 billion to corporations(atleast)

anyway my theory
take that snobby 'burden' away from tax payers by making the money creation cover all the public services with a trickle up not a trickle down monetary policy.

[d5000]

My approach would need a coloured coin (e.g. realized with OpenAssets or with the Rootstock platform) that has constant inflation (e.g. 1000 coins/day) and is distributed in another way than block rewards.

That coloured coin would be distributed in a random way according to geographical location. So every point in the world, measured by latitude and longitude, would have the same probability to get a "reward".

The idea behind it is that a "universal basic income" in an anonymous and trustless way in Bitcoin is not possible because of sybil attacks - you would need something like an "authority" or a "state" for it. But an decentralized income based on geographical location is roughly equivalent, because in regions with similar population density every person living there would have the same probability to "catch" a reward, e.g. with a client in their smartphone. Rewards that are not claimed (because nobody is near the location that got it) would be burnt.

A problem is location spoofing, but I think it can be managed if the amounts are small enough to make spoofing more expensive than the rewards you could get.

Crazy? Possibly

[Hydrogen]

Every tax dollar the state collects is spent.

This means new programs like universal basic income can only be funded through tax hikes.

Whenever politicians discuss "new programs" (that are unfunded), it means they must raise taxes to collect funding.

Universal basic income can only be funded through tax hikes on those with jobs.