Should UBI Replace all Welfare Systems?

[Flying Hellfish]

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).

[1714993664]

1714993664

[1714993664]

1714993664

[1714993664]

1714993664

[1714993664]

1714993664

[1714993664]

1714993664

[squatz1]

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.

[Quickseller]

Andy Kessler an editorial column 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:

[...]This isn’t sliding a slippery slope toward socialism, it’s a trapdoor

How would the fund get all those assets? Start with all government-owned land and buildings. Then add a 3% market-capitalization tax on public companies. Apple would owe $30 billion. Add a continuing 0.5% market-cap tax, a 5% levy on initial public offerings and 3% on mergers. Smells Marxian: “government owning the means of production.” So much for the ash heap. Then increase the death tax and get rid of every tax deduction. Heck, they better pay hefty universal basic lay-on-the-couch dividends because why would anyone ever go to work again? Companies would have minimal retained earnings to invest in the future, and workers wouldn’t keep much of their pay. [...]

[FilesFM_Announcements]

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.

[SneakyLady]

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.

[Thekool1s]

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.

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.

[fommes86]

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.

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  that is not going to work out 

[TECSHARE]

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.

[Flying Hellfish]

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.

[Thekool1s]

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

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.

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...

[TECSHARE]

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

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.

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.

[Thekool1s]

Oh has it been proven wrong? Please source.

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

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

[TECSHARE]

Oh has it been proven wrong? Please source.

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?

[Thekool1s]

Oh has it been proven wrong? Please source.

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.

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

"Oh has it been proven? Please Source."

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

[TECSHARE]

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.

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

"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.

[Thekool1s]

Thanks for the perfect example that UBI is just re-branded Socialism.

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.

Please do explain specifically what "Has been proved wrong countless times".

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.

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.

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...

[TECSHARE]

Thanks for the perfect example that UBI is just re-branded Socialism.

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.

Please do explain specifically what "Has been proved wrong countless times".

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.

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.

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!

[Thekool1s]

The market price signalling 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.

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 might want to look up "the tragedy of the commons".

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

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.

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?

[TECSHARE]

The market price signalling 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.

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 might want to look up "the tragedy of the commons".

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

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.

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.

[Thekool1s]

"debunking" a claim I did not make is not a premise.

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

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.

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...

BTW, Canada still operates under Capitalism.

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.