Crypto, Universal income and cryogenics the redistribution of wealth

[pixie85]

Exactly, that's the discussion we need to be having. UBI is intended to replace other welfare programs that are riddled with bureaucracy and are highly inefficient. Social Security spends an incredible amount of money on lengthy application/interview processes, regular case reviews, and fraud investigations, most of which would be eliminated if replaced with UBI.

Maybe we could decrease the bureaucracy without giving away money to everyone rich and poor. UBI is a strange concept that doesn't function in nature. Why would any society feed parasites who spend nights drinking or taking drugs and days begging and buying supply of alcohol and drugs for the night?

We also need to consider that minimal income will deter crime and reduce healthcare costs as it will keep people from being completely destitute and homeless. I don't know where other posters live, but the homeless problem is accelerating badly in the US. People can turn a blind eye to it and say they don't want to give these people handouts, but they will end up paying for it one way or another through the healthcare and prison systems funded by their tax dollars.

Do you really believe that a mugger who spends his days stealing phones and wallets will stop doing it because he's now getting 200€ from the state? How is it going to decrease crime? Poor people don't steal to live. They usually beg or starve. Criminals usually have more than they need to survive.

[figmentofmyass]

Why would any society feed parasites who spend nights drinking or taking drugs and days begging and buying supply of alcohol and drugs for the night?

is that really your impression of anyone who would receive public benefits? UBI recipients would reflect the actual demographics, meaning the vast majority would be the working poor and middle classes.

are there some bums out there? sure, i'm not sure how to avoid that in society. they existed before welfare systems ever did and they aren't going anywhere.

extremely unequal societies are not happy societies. they eventually reach a tipping point that brings violent upheaval. i have mixed feelings about UBI but unless people are looking forward to living through a violent revolution, something ought to be done to hedge against drastically increasing inequality. in the USA, housing prices and virtually all costs of living are skyrocketing, wages are relatively stagnant---and this is with nearly full employment. meanwhile, the replacement of human labor with automation is moving full steam ahead. does this not scare the shit out of anyone?

[hatshepsut93]

Maybe we could decrease the bureaucracy without giving away money to everyone rich and poor. UBI is a strange concept that doesn't function in nature. Why would any society feed parasites who spend nights drinking or taking drugs and days begging and buying supply of alcohol and drugs for the night?

Almost every country in the world in some way guarantees that no one starves, and I wouldn't want to live in one that doesn't - not because I'm afraid it would happen to me, but because such society is likely to be deeply flawed and not a pleasant place to live. UBI is probably not suitable for every country, but I won't be surprised if some of the countries will successfully implement it in the future and even see positive results from it. It's an interesting idea that deserves to be tested, especially as automation replaces more and more human jobs.

[ajaymukund]

I think the environmental issue is now of interest to many millionaires and billionaires around the world.
You also know that in the past few days there has been an Amazon forest fire and the statistics are very surprising, that is the forest fire is increasing every year and the number of trees damaged up to 83% over the previous year. At compound interest, our earth will have no oxygen in 17 years.
That's why billionaires pour money into helping biologists more.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Why would any society feed parasites who spend nights drinking or taking drugs and days begging and buying supply of alcohol and drugs for the night?

are there some bums out there? sure, i'm not sure how to avoid that in society. they existed before welfare systems ever did and they aren't going anywhere.

There is also little evidence to suggest that direct cash transfers (such as what UBI would be) cause increases in spending on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. Most studies have found either no change, or even a decrease in spending on these products following a cash transfer program: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/617631468001808739/Cash-transfers-and-temptation-goods-a-review-of-global-evidence

extremely unequal societies are not happy societies. they eventually reach a tipping point that brings violent upheaval. i have mixed feelings about UBI but unless people are looking forward to living through a violent revolution, something ought to be done to hedge against drastically increasing inequality.

These are my feelings too. As much as I dislike my tax money being given freely as cash to people not working for it, the alternative looks even worse. Inequality is worsening and poverty is rising. We are looking at hitting 10 billion people within the next 30 years. There already aren't enough jobs to go around, and automation will make things worse. What do we do when half the US is living in poverty without enough food to eat? They aren't just going to suffer silently in the shadows.

[coolcoinz]

Almost every country in the world in some way guarantees that no one starves, and I wouldn't want to live in one that doesn't - not because I'm afraid it would happen to me, but because such society is likely to be deeply flawed and not a pleasant place to live. UBI is probably not suitable for every country, but I won't be surprised if some of the countries will successfully implement it in the future and even see positive results from it. It's an interesting idea that deserves to be tested, especially as automation replaces more and more human jobs.

And I would prefer to live in a country that doesn't give and doesn't take. What they're doing is taking money that wasn't earned by them and giving it away to those they find suitable. Then the majority, who happens to benefit from basic income, praises them for it. I'd like to live in a country where nobody has to starve because every little thing you do is free of tax and gives you enough profit to live on.
You shouldn't look at automation like it's a fast process. By the time it replaces people's jobs there will no longer be anyone qualified to do them. To give you an example, do you miss blacksmiths? They were mostly replaced and it did not hurt them. You couldn't see thousands of blacksmiths protesting because people are not using work horses anymore. This was such a slow process that young people stopped choosing it as their future profession, knowing the amount of work is declining.
If we didn't need permits from the government for everything it would be much easier for people to sustain themselves.

[fiulpro]

I don't know about redistribution of wealth but we should understand that .. more or less it's sometimes a thing of luck .. people who invested when it was sold for a dollar are the ones having huge sum of cash and the ones who invested after the big boom are the ones loosing a huge amount of of money ..
It is more or so playing like a gambling he therefore I don't think I would call this redistribution of wealth rather than that we should understand that people who are successful are just few but the ones loosing money are a lot ..it doesn't account periodically for more and more people getting successful...I think that positive time is over ...
We have to wait years ..for an opportunity like that .

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'd like to live in a country where nobody has to starve because every little thing you do is free of tax and gives you enough profit to live on.

That would be great, but it isn't the case at the moment. In many places, a full time job at minimum wage still puts you below the poverty line, with not enough money to live adequately. Several states in the US and some countries around the world have introduced the concept of a "living wage", which is higher than the minimum wage and generally set at or just above the poverty line.

You shouldn't look at automation like it's a fast process. By the time it replaces people's jobs there will no longer be anyone qualified to do them.

It doesn't need to be a fast process. We have an estimated population growth of 3 billion in the next 30 years, and an estimated 30% of jobs at risk of automation within the same time frame. Widespread unemployment and therefore poverty is inevitable unless something is done.

This was such a slow process that young people stopped choosing it as their future profession, knowing the amount of work is declining.

That's all well and good, but there were jobs in other sectors available for these young people to aim for instead. When the shrinking job market is over-saturated by the growing population, what then?

[Apaxy]

I'd like to live in a country where nobody has to starve because every little thing you do is free of tax and gives you enough profit to live on.

That would be great, but it isn't the case at the moment. In many places, a full time job at minimum wage still puts you below the poverty line, with not enough money to live adequately. Several states in the US and some countries around the world have introduced the concept of a "living wage", which is higher than the minimum wage and generally set at or just above the poverty line.

You shouldn't look at automation like it's a fast process. By the time it replaces people's jobs there will no longer be anyone qualified to do them.

It doesn't need to be a fast process. We have an estimated population growth of 3 billion in the next 30 years, and an estimated 30% of jobs at risk of automation within the same time frame. Widespread unemployment and therefore poverty is inevitable unless something is done.

This was such a slow process that young people stopped choosing it as their future profession, knowing the amount of work is declining.

That's all well and good, but there were jobs in other sectors available for these young people to aim for instead. When the shrinking job market is over-saturated by the growing population, what then?

Guys, we need to look at the world so that we can see the real things happening today.  The fact is that a lot of people study and get education in such fields, there are a lot of specialists from them and it is very difficult to find a job for each person with such a profession.  First of all, we can give an example of the humanitarian profession, such as lawyers, psychologists, managers and the like.  I recently looked at statistics, when in different countries, both highly developed and not too developed, there is a great need for working hands, namely, Builders, welders, turners and specialists of other professions.  It is such professions that are very much in demand in society today and there are not enough people.  The fact is that everyone is trying to earn a lot of money while not doing any work, or working without making any work.  You need to think about this too.

[Febo]

About the Universal basic income.

I don't know enough, but it's the thing where everyone would make the same amount of money, no matter what's your job?

LOL why dont you google the term?  Universal basic income is that money that gets collected thru taxes gets evenly distributed to all citizens. Right now those that apply and show they need more help gets more and those that dont apply or have a lot dont get anything.  Like someone that cant walk get a lot of money. Someone that can walk get nothing. Universal basic income would give the same to both.  

What some countries will start with is universal basic income fro kids. So far only kids from poor parents got help. From now on all kids will get help. No matter how rich their parents are. Or how skilled are to apply for help or bend the law in their advantage.

[seraph_the_wise]

Even if it's rent money, food money, water money, heating money, condom money, beer money that is given to somebody for free it still must be taken from somebody else. Even if we all get this minimum income, not all of us pay for it. And this is called wealth redistribution.

I agree with you, but this already happens in all Western nations to some degree or another: https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm
The OECD average is 20% of a country's GDP is spent on social welfare. USA is slightly below this at 18.7%, but there are some European countries which spend much higher amounts on welfare spending. If UBI is going to reduce the amount spent on welfare because of the reason I mentioned above (I'm not saying it will, but if it does) then surely it's worth looking in to?

Exactly, that's the discussion we need to be having. UBI is intended to replace other welfare programs that are riddled with bureaucracy and are highly inefficient. Social Security spends an incredible amount of money on lengthy application/interview processes, regular case reviews, and fraud investigations, most of which would be eliminated if replaced with UBI.

We also need to consider that minimal income will deter crime and reduce healthcare costs as it will keep people from being completely destitute and homeless. I don't know where other posters live, but the homeless problem is accelerating badly in the US. People can turn a blind eye to it and say they don't want to give these people handouts, but they will end up paying for it one way or another through the healthcare and prison systems funded by their tax dollars.

Although there are credible benefits to an UBI program as a full-scale system intended to replace all other wellfare programs, I do see some major issues at the implementation level. Assuming a private sector still exists and no full automation (not feasible in many centuries unless we get AGI):

1) If everyone earns the same minimum base, why wouldn't individual purchasing power decrease as prices increase for goods, services and rent?
Over time this would reduce the purchasing power of the UBI, unless the amount is increased (extra burden on the state) or other price control measures are implemented (creating distortions and a parallel economy).

2) How exactly does one set the fair handout value of the UBI? Lowest common denominator for sustenance, highest wellfare provided?
Does it vary by region/state? (eg: 1000 USD in NY will not get you a lot, but can be enough for a remote place in the countryside).

3) How 'universal" is it? Would it be distributed to "all" people? Whats the criteria exactly?
All citizens? All legal residents? Can one travel? Is one entitled if living abroad? What about dual citizens? (can one claim multiple UBIs?) Is there a minimum age? (eg: if one has 5 teenage kids, can they collect 5 UBIs on their behalf?). Does it stop at a certain age? (eg: how does it work with seniors receiving pensions)?

Just some food for thought 

[exstasie]

1) If everyone earns the same minimum base, why wouldn't individual purchasing power decrease as prices increase for goods, services and rent?

You mean as a matter of regular inflation? Presumably the base should periodically increase to account for that. I think that's how most welfare programs work.

2) How exactly does one set the fair handout value of the UBI? Lowest common denominator for sustenance, highest wellfare provided?
Does it vary by region/state? (eg: 1000 USD in NY will not get you a lot, but can be enough for a remote place in the countryside).

There's a wide variety of proposals out there based on different goals and principles. I think a reasonable policy would vary by region based on actual living costs. $1,000/month is enough to live well in Alabama. In California, there are homeless people living on the same amount.

Andrew Yang's proposal is just for a flat $1,000/month payment for all US citizens.

3) How 'universal" is it? Would it be distributed to "all" people? Whats the criteria exactly?

It varies by proposal. This is the conventional definition as I understand it:

A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.

That is, basic income has the following five characteristics:

1. Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant.
2. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
3. Individual: it is paid on an individual basis—and not, for instance, to households.
4. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test.
5. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.

https://basicincome.org/basic-income/

[seraph_the_wise]

You mean as a matter of regular inflation? Presumably the base should periodically increase to account for that. I think that's how most welfare programs work.

Yes, in terms of both inflation and Purchasing power of goods.
If everyone is assumed to earn 1000 USD a month onwards, the purchasing power of 1000 USD would drop (even excluding base inflation).
Let's say I'm a business selling groceries, I may be tempted to raise prices of goods as I can assume people have a higher level of disposable income to buy. This is specially true for low-value commodity goods. Nowadays the lowest expected baseline is zero and the average is the medium salary.
Inflation-wise, this decrease in PPI has been happening already for decades (just compare the purchasing power of 1000USD in 1960 vs now).
I just think it would compound to the issue at a faster rate. I also agree there are mitigation measures that could be enacted to control rapid inflation, price & rent controls, and more. But those measures might not be universally well received by people and business alike (generating other unintended effects).

There's a wide variety of proposals out there based on different goals and principles. I think a reasonable policy would vary by region based on actual living costs. $1,000/month is enough to live well in Alabama. In California, there are homeless people living on the same amount.

Indeed, we could set a reasonable amount. If we consider 1000 USD / month in all states, then one of the incentives is for people that don't want to work to move to places where they can maximize their purchasing power (eg: countryside, away from metropolitan centres). This could actually decreased homelessness in big metropolis and decrease pressure on services & infrastructure. All states would need to agree, and some would be subsidized by the Federal Government if needed (UBI would be handed at a federal level I assume). If so, one of the unintended consequences could be an increased asymmetry between states over time (due to the change of demography and internal economic migration incentives).

It varies by proposal. This is the conventional definition as I understand it:
A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.

Ok, this one can be tricky and I think implementation details would be critical for UBI to work.
For example, if truly unconditional per person and in absence of other welfare programs, then we create a strong incentive to have kids and maximize income per household (not necessarily provide and educate them in the best way). Assuming the best higher education remains private an unaffordable for many, a new generation could grow up with lower skills for the job market, increasing the chances they would rely on UBI and keep unemployed (another compound effect that could strain the system, as more people would draw funds). This would be great for the birth rate though and to be fair aligns quite well with the polarizing future of the job market with increased automation (very high number of non-repetitive low skills & low number of creative specialized ones).
Another issue would be foreign market distortions (assuming a single country implements it)
One could just receive their UBI, fly to Vietnam or a low-cost country and live quite well. If a sufficient number of people opt to do so, this amount to a lot of capital leaving the U.S. economy to foreign countries with no UBI policy (or one with lower thresholds). Again, I concede that this could be mitigated by travel restrictions for UBIs. Possibly withholding the freedom to travel abroad if unemployed or requiring a certain amount of funds.

Any UBI policy would need to be very comprehensively detailed, in order to be resilient, and would need to consider macro-effects on economics, internal & external emigration & immigration policy, population growth & job market prospects, services planning, business incentives and more.
Trust that the UBI policy would not fail would be the last and critical element of the whole endeavour.
If we get a politician who manages to a least try it in my lifetime, I'll eat my hat and give him a satoshi for good measure 

[eaLiTy]

About the Universal basic income.
I don't know enough, but it's the thing where everyone would make the same amount of money, no matter what's your job?

Society does not work like that, if everyone get equal income irrespective of their hard work then you will find many people who will go after causes like we see today. The advocates of universal basic income are people who go to universities who think that they will earn six figure jobs after completing some random subjects which does not have any value in the job market and they set out to fight the world .
No one is equal and competition drives the world.

why is there significant interest in this subject from some crypto millionaires advocates. I knew about H. Finney but that's not the reason.

I first heard about research about immortality from a documentary about the Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov who is conduction his own research and have spent billions for his mission and many are doing that kind of research.

[beerlover]

Guys you are forgetting one real important thing here, UBI is not suppose to be a wage or a salary, it can't be that high and it can't provide you with enough money to live without working, it has to be low enough that you do not starve to death, we are talking about maybe 200 bucks a month, do you really think a person in USA can live on 2400 a year? Of course not, you won't be able to live in a house with that kind of money and find rent let alone have enough for anything else.

Reality is if you do not help people then they will find a way for themselves, they may start drug dealing, they may become homeless drunks, they may steal, but in the end no human would just let themselves starve to death, certainly not their family if there is one. So with this you are telling them "look we want to help you out a bit but you gotta help yourself out as well" and bring that "almost on the verge of criminal life" people to "finds a McDonalds' job" levels.

[o_e_l_e_o]

UBI is not suppose to be a wage or a salary, it can't be that high and it can't provide you with enough money to live without working

That's exactly what UBI proposals say. It is supposed to be the minimum required for someone to meet all their basic needs, which includes food, water, shelter, and basic necessities and essentials for living. This level of income is known as the "poverty line". In the US, this currently stands at $12,000 per year on average, but will obviously vary widely from state to state and city to city.

What you are suggesting isn't the same as what UBI proposals say. The whole point of UBI (not that I'm saying I necessarily agree with it) is to replace any and all other social welfare systems and provide enough for people to live on, albeit eagerly.

[LeGaulois]

...

Because I'm tired to read about stuff to help the poors to get free money but nothing for those working.
Nah, seriously, it's because in my country we have something similar already taking place, the 'Universal Income' and I supposed the UBI is the same thing more or less.

And we have also another program similar to the universal income. In which people get free money to stay on the sofa all days long. Wake up at 11.00 am from Monday to Sunday in an almost free house. I call them 'Full-time tourists'. Get them a job they will refuse anything. Sure, since they earn near the same as someone working full time. Without to bother to work. When they will be retired, they will again receive a pension from govt. Those who work will get almost nothing. Great life.

Whatever, about UBI. If a day it's really implemented, it sounds fair to ask something in return. Not sure what and how, maybe working 1 hour per day, cleaning dog's shits in the streets, to help in the retirement residences, etc. So many things to do, and in return the government could reduce some costs doing this

[South Park]

UBI is not suppose to be a wage or a salary, it can't be that high and it can't provide you with enough money to live without working

That's exactly what UBI proposals say. It is supposed to be the minimum required for someone to meet all their basic needs, which includes food, water, shelter, and basic necessities and essentials for living. This level of income is known as the "poverty line". In the US, this currently stands at $12,000 per year on average, but will obviously vary widely from state to state and city to city.

What you are suggesting isn't the same as what UBI proposals say. The whole point of UBI (not that I'm saying I necessarily agree with it) is to replace any and all other social welfare systems and provide enough for people to live on, albeit eagerly.

It seems to me that those that are proposing UBI do not understand supply and demand, if you give 12k to poor people then they will be able to afford things they could not before, on the surface this seems good, but this raises the demand not the supply, and we all know what happens next right? The price of everything begins to go up and soon those 12k are not enough to meet your basic needs and more money will be needed to be given to them the next time creating a vicious circle, the truth is there is not an easy solution to the poverty issue and people do not want accept this sad fact.

[Febo]

...

Because I'm tired to read about stuff to help the poors to get free money but nothing for those working.

Universal income will fix that. Also those that are working will get it. For everyone the same. For Trump the same as for the beggar. Both get exactly $xxx and not a cent more. That is the point. Right now some get a lot and most get nothing. In my country people dont marry just so they are single parent to get money from country. Now that will stop since all kids will get the same.

[bitgolden]

It seems to me that those that are proposing UBI do not understand supply and demand, if you give 12k to poor people then they will be able to afford things they could not before, on the surface this seems good, but this raises the demand not the supply, and we all know what happens next right? The price of everything begins to go up and soon those 12k are not enough to meet your basic needs and more money will be needed to be given to them the next time creating a vicious circle, the truth is there is not an easy solution to the poverty issue and people do not want accept this sad fact.

You would not say there no solution to poverty eradication, there is , we can only not attain it 100 percent and eradicating poverty is not all about those distribution of money, first for poverty to be eradicated, inflation must be curtailed because this is one of the thing that makes people's earning not to be enough, this poverty we are talking about is not only tied to amount of income that comes to a person, but what the amount can buy and what makes it not enough is just inflation.

Government also needs to create some industries where people can work and then earn money, there are so many graduates that has left school and do not have job to do, if there is something to do, at least the wealth will get to them from there and they don’t have to use force to gather it.