CDZ Why not have a 'Universal Basic Income' to replace welfare?

[320 Years of History]

So as you glean from my earlier post, UBI is something about which I know almost nothing. As a result, I have no viewpoints about it, none whatsoever. The idea is intriguing, academically for now, quite simply, because I don't know much about it and you've raised the topic. Perhaps I'll find it appealing in its own right after researching it a bit.

FWIW, I've developed a reading list to try to get up to speed about it. I'll read the documents over the course of the next week. It'll be interesting to learn about something new if nothing else. For now, here's my reading list...shared here mainly so that if/when I do elect to chime in on this topic, you'll have had access to the same info.

• A Brief History of Basic Income Ideas
  
• Basic Income in a Globalized Economy
  
• The Many Faces of Basic Income
• The Relative Cost of a Universal Basic Income and a Negative Income Tax
  
• Two redistributive proposals—universal basic income and stakeholder grants
  
• Redesigning Distribution: basic income and stakeholder grants as alternative cornerstones for a more egalitarian capitalism
  
• Arguing for Basic Income: Ethical Foundations for a Radical Reform
  
• HOW BIG IS BIG ENOUGH: WOULD THE BASIC INCOME GUARANTEE SATISFY THE UNEMPLOYED? (editorial)
• Democratizing Citizenship: Some Advantages of a Basic Income
  
• Basic Income: A simple and powerful idea for the twenty-first century
  
• The Pros and Cons of a Guaranteed National Income
  I'll read this last as I expect this essay to have a Libertarian bias, but that'll be somewhat helpful, if indeed it does have such a bias, for by reading it last, it'll be a good foil for evaluating my own thoughts after having read the other material. I feel obliged to include it, however, as it appears to be something not produced by the folks at the International Journal of Basic Income Research, a publisher that is the source for several documents above, and that seems -- based solely on their name, which isn't a valid reason to conclude anything -- seems unlikely to discuss objectively the full scope of downsides of the UBI idea, but maybe they do...I'll find out soon enough.

Additionally, I found a UBI suggested reading list here and here. I don't know what of what I see there I'll read other than the ones noted above.

 

[Slyhunter]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

Automation produce the products for next to nothing to be distributed to the people as they need it by using the dole system.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well...since everyone will be working......this is not going to be a problem.

With robots and other forms of automated systems taking up 85% of the jobs that people would have been hired for, by 2050, where are all those jobs coming from?

This isnt a slam on Obama,btw, this is looking a good twenty to thirty years down the road.

Human beings are industrious by nature. Still.....the amount of human labor hours required to produce food and other necessities has steadily decreased over time. You may need to adjust your definition of what work is.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

Well...since everyone will be working......this is not going to be a problem.

If it's a barter society there is no money
The question is who will have the money to pay for all this new technology that will magically give everyone a job?
And how will the government collect taxes? Will people pay their taxes with sheep and apple pies?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

Automation produce the products for next to nothing to be distributed to the people as they need it by using the dole system.

And who pays for the machines?

How does the government enforce laws when there is no money to collect in taxes?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

Automation produce the products for next to nothing to be distributed to the people as they need it by using the dole system.

And who pays for the machines?

How does the government enforce laws when there is no money to collect in taxes?

You are asking questions as though you are open to hearing the answers. But...we all know that you are not.

Try something new. Spend a little time thinking about the matter and playing devil's advocate with yourself. It would likely be more productive than you simply dismissing the comments of others.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

Automation produce the products for next to nothing to be distributed to the people as they need it by using the dole system.

And who pays for the machines?

How does the government enforce laws when there is no money to collect in taxes?

You are asking questions as though you are open to hearing the answers. But...we all know that you are not.

Try something new. Spend a little time thinking about the matter and playing devil's advocate with yourself. It would likely be more productive than you simply dismissing the comments of others.

Asking questions is not dismissing anything

I am asking you to clarify your arguments

If I was dismissing your argument I would say
"You're a fucking idiot that's a stupid premise"

Maybe you can't answer the questions so you think I am being dismissive

 

[LoneLaugher]

I like this idea as it will smooth out the transition from a wage based economy to a new technologically based barter economy that will arrive within 30 years if not much sooner.

Now before you start yelling 'But the lazy dindus wont work!' well, the way technology is advancing in such a way that very few people will work no matter how hard they try to find a job; there simply wont be enough jobs to employ more than about 15% of the population, if passed slave economies are any valid comparison economically. Just as there were some jobs one could not train a slave to do well, or a slave was too expensive to have them do those jobs, so too there will be jobs that an android wont do because of the same reasons. Of course the economy has changed quite a bit since 1860, but I think morphologically the analogy is valid.

Besides, what else do we have to guess with?

But this concept of a Universal Basic Income is the kind of thing we will need to salve the insecure who have alwayus thought of employment = financial security. In the coming technological Utopia we will have far deeper challenges, like finding a purpose to our lives when employment is not a realistic option..

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare. ....

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

Automation produce the products for next to nothing to be distributed to the people as they need it by using the dole system.

And who pays for the machines?

How does the government enforce laws when there is no money to collect in taxes?

You are asking questions as though you are open to hearing the answers. But...we all know that you are not.

Try something new. Spend a little time thinking about the matter and playing devil's advocate with yourself. It would likely be more productive than you simply dismissing the comments of others.

Asking questions is not dismissing anything

I am asking you to clarify your arguments

If I was dismissing your argument I would say
"You're a fucking idiot that's a stupid premise"

Maybe you can't answer the questions so you think I am being dismissive

Been there with you many times. You aren't really intersted in learning about the subject. You think you already know everything about the economy and the human condition. Your questions are more like accusations than questions. It's boring.

 

[Skull Pilot]

if no one is working where will the government get the money to pay everyone an income?

Automation produce the products for next to nothing to be distributed to the people as they need it by using the dole system.

And who pays for the machines?

How does the government enforce laws when there is no money to collect in taxes?

You are asking questions as though you are open to hearing the answers. But...we all know that you are not.

Try something new. Spend a little time thinking about the matter and playing devil's advocate with yourself. It would likely be more productive than you simply dismissing the comments of others.

Asking questions is not dismissing anything

I am asking you to clarify your arguments

If I was dismissing your argument I would say
"You're a fucking idiot that's a stupid premise"

Maybe you can't answer the questions so you think I am being dismissive

Been there with you many times. You aren't really intersted in learning about the subject. You think you already know everything about the economy and the human condition. Your questions are more like accusations than questions. It's boring.

So you can't answer the question

If no one is working and everything is automated where does the government get the money to give everyone an income?

Where do the companies that are supposed to build maintain and provide all the materials for the machines that do and make everything get their money to do so?

Those are perfectly reasonable questions to ask in this discussion

If you can't answer them just say so

BTW you are the one being dismissive here not me

 

[JimBowie1958]

Is this Universal Basic Income (UBI) idea similar conceptually to the Alaska Permanent Fund's aims? How is it similar? How is it different?

My rough and quick read of the info you provided suggests to me that rather than "found oil" being the source of the income payments, it'd be the income generated for companies by "robot workers" that toil in place of a human. One might even think of it as humans "owning" robots or shares of robots that the humans "send" to labor in their stead, except that since it's a robot, it doesn't really come home every day, but rather works 24/7, and the employer or the "robot's head of household" somehow deals with repair and maintenance matters. All very "Jetsons" to me, not that that's a bad thing....

Several layers of questions here, so let me break it down with my perception of the issue, most of which is taken from this Wiki article Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What it is: a standard amount of cash given to each citizen to ensure that they can meet the minimum income level to pay for the necessities of life. In theory it would match the poverty line income level. Beyond this, it could taper based on additional income or not, it could be a grant, or a calculation as a tax credit with refunds amounting to said amount.

How it is paid for: Government owned resources sold, government owned services sold, robots provided by government, a Robot Tax, an special automation tax (if you have less than X number of employees / billion in gross revenue, etc) you pay a higher bracket and so forth, many more discussed int he Wikipedia article.

What it does: Stabilizes society through the coming transition to a mostly jobless economy. Such a program could also replace Social Security, eliminates lower brackets on tax policies, could be used to replace Medicare and Medicaid and ACA, eliminates unemployment, welfare of all kinds except special needs welfare.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Automation produce the products for next to nothing to be distributed to the people as they need it by using the dole system.

And who pays for the machines?

How does the government enforce laws when there is no money to collect in taxes?

You are asking questions as though you are open to hearing the answers. But...we all know that you are not.

Try something new. Spend a little time thinking about the matter and playing devil's advocate with yourself. It would likely be more productive than you simply dismissing the comments of others.

Asking questions is not dismissing anything

I am asking you to clarify your arguments

If I was dismissing your argument I would say
"You're a fucking idiot that's a stupid premise"

Maybe you can't answer the questions so you think I am being dismissive

Been there with you many times. You aren't really intersted in learning about the subject. You think you already know everything about the economy and the human condition. Your questions are more like accusations than questions. It's boring.

So you can't answer the question

If no one is working and everything is automated where does the government get the money to give everyone an income?

Where do the companies that are supposed to build maintain and provide all the materials for the machines that do and make everything get their money to do so?

Those are perfectly reasonable questions to ask in this discussion

If you can't answer them just say so

BTW you are the one being dismissive here not me

OK, guys, come, this is the 'Clean Debate Zone', kiss and make up or rent a room, lol.

 

[Fishlore]

This idea has a lot to commend it economically as well as socially. Young Republicans may be surprised to learn that the idea was seriously proposed by President Richard Nixon. He called the plan a negative income tax. Of course, that was before the GOP was hijacked by anarchists and religious fanatics.

Nixon was a criminal-------something of a religious nut-----and negative income tax is----in the minds of most republicans----WELFARE

I've never been a Nixon fan but I also never thought of him as religious. I know he claimed to be a Quaker but his mother said he never was.

As for WELFARE, I'm sure you are correct about what Republicans think. The issue for me is whether or not welfare is a bad thing. The Preamble to the Constitution cites "promote the general Welfare" as one of the aims of the government and the Declaration cites "the pursuit of happiness" one of the unalienable rights which the government is established to protect. Obviously, what these terms mean and what legislative programs are best for implementing them is a matter for discussion, but I take it that the government is intended to be more than just an impartial referee enforcing laws while chance and the "free market" control the lives of our citizens.

there is no way of knowing what the "INTENTIONS" were regarding the issue of
monetary support. The term WELFARE has a whole host of meanings. Actually being a "quaker" involves a kind of membership in a community of "friends" -----
and attending the "meetings"------according to some people who worked with
Nixon he was into PRAYING (so Kissinger noted in his memoirs)

Yes indeed! The iconic image of the Nixon presidency may well be the scene touchingly described by Kissinger in his memoirs in which Henry the K, President Nixon and Billy Graham knelt together on the floor of the Oval Office to pray for peace in Vietnam. The irony and hypocrisy of the image is unbeatable. Billy later confided that he had been taken in by the charade.

I quite agree with you that attempts at reading the minds of the First Continental Congress is an exercise in futility. "Welfare" will mean whatever We, the People want it to mean. If we wish to go along with every other advanced democracy on the planet and provide a minimum level of sustenance for all our people, we will surely do so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you very much 320 for this list of docs on the topic of Universal Basic Income. I have been in 'Internet Book Worm Junkie Heaven' for a while now.

One of these is particularly provocative as it addresses the basic concept of what the UBI is for, and I want to address this first.

HOW BIG IS BIG ENOUGH: WOULD THE BASIC INCOME GUARANTEE SATISFY THE UNEMPLOYED? (editorial)

From your article: (UBI = BIG = Basic Income Guarantee)
BIG has got to start at $15k, or so, and work toward $35k in order to deliver on promises.

So, we’ve got several potential bait and switch problems with BIG:

1. BIG is a Universal program, which guarantees universal support, but if you work for a living we’re going to tax away your BIG. To avoid a bait and switch, everyone needs to get a Big BIG. And they get to keep it. Otherwise we’ve just got welfare.

Totally agree; this is an iron clad fundamental building block to any UBI concept and what it could address.

2. BIG payments allow individuals the freedom to choose to live a life of dignity—whether they work or not. But if the BIG payment is too low, then if you choose not to work, you will need to dumpster dive. That isn’t dignified. To avoid a bait and switch, BIG needs to be Big.

Agree not so much here; the idea is that all people have a basic income to enable survival, i.e. clothing, food, medicine and shelter. Anything above that is a luxury item that they can work, or barter for for themselves. UBI should not be used to pay for $400 pair of Nike B-ball shoes and similar luxuries.

3. BIG proponents argue we don’t need JG/ELR because BIG payments allow all to choose not to work. If the BIG payments are too low then most will choose to work anyway—in jobs that do not exist. BIG must be Big to replace the JG/ELR so that the unemployed are happy not to work. Otherwise, it is a bait and switch.

I totally disagree with this. If a person does not want to work, that should be possible under a UBI system, but not to live at a typical Middle Class life style, IMO. There should be trade offs to allow this, but I will get to that below.

4. BIG is said to provide an alternative to the “work fetish”, allowing all to explore their full potential, living a life of freedom (….on $878 a year? Freedom to do exactly what?) so people can abandon the work ethic in favor of something more elevating. If this isn’t just bait and switch, BIG must be Big. And since working is oh-so-20th century, we need for lots of people to choose NOT to work (since BIG is replacing work, not encouraging more of it).

I dont think the primary concept here is of UBI replacing a need to work with a disincentive to work. I think the primary incentive is to make it so that people can survive without working, but if you want those bright shinies then you might need to work, or make something to barter for the shinies. UBI should have a neutral impact on the need for a job and allow for people to work at what they want to do rather than work doing what they must to simply exist. But as a society, we still need people to work and so there should be incentives left in place for people to do so without compulsion.

If after implementation of BIG, most continue to work (as some BIG proponents have predicted), then BIG was a Big bait and switch after all. We could have just raised wages and didn’t need the BIG at all since it turns out that work is not a “fetish” but rather something people actually want to do. That would mean, of course that Sheahen is wrong: we do need more jobs, not a BIG.

This is nonsense. Enabling people to live without being chained to a job for their existence is the goal here, not allowing every mime in Central Park to live like Donald Trump.

 

[320 Years of History]

One of these is particularly provocative as it addresses the basic concept of what the UBI is for, and I want to address this first. ....From your article: (UBI = BIG = Basic Income Guarantee)

Went for the shorter one first, eh... LOL (just teasing you)

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, another long post, but I cant see a way to avoid it. Actually two long posts as one looks at what we can do and the second on how it can be paid for.

What a UBI should look like right now ( a mental snapshot of my thoughts today) IMO, is this.

A cash grant of Poverty line Equivalent +25% per person, adjusted by local costs and adjusted for inflation annually. Right now that looks like about $10,000 per person. This is unconditional whether the recipient is a felon, a millionaire or a naturalized citizen, but only goes to CITIZENS.

2015-2016 Tax Brackets | Bankrate.com

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-864p.pdf

This would be universal, to every man, woman and child. For children half would go to the parents for their support, the other half would be held by the government for them when they reach the age of 18 and paid to them as a lump sum (sort of a Stakeholder Grant). A family of four would then take in about $30k annually.

Payments go to Institutions of the persons choice for food, rent/mortgage payments, medical insurance and these would be mandatory expenditures that the person never sees spent personally, and the person keeps the remainder. The payments would be bi-weekly and mandatory expenses taken from the first two checks monthly, to allow for a 13th check bonus a couple of times a year. The remaining funds would be sent as a check to that person or designated parent.

This would guarantee that the people in question are getting their necessities, and not spending it ALL of it on booze or drugs. If people want to live in a big house common room, that is their choice. If they want to live in a tent rented at a national park they could theoretically do that as well. Living at a nudist camp that performs daily orgies or a church monastery would also be allowed.

If people want to live in more expensive places, they pay the difference. IF they want that fancy car, they find a way to pay for it, or budget it from their bi-weekly grant.

Anyway, this is a starting model and is certainly likely to be modified.

Edit; though Social Security must roll into this system, we would have to grand father current recipients and those within about 5 years of retirement so that they are not penalized if the Social Security benefit is higher than the UBI would pay them.

And all current government workers would have to be protected from being layed off as well or offered a by out if these program changes would affect their own employment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, how do we pay for this?

Well the budget would be $3,080 billion or so annually at $10k/citizen.

Savings from budget: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa773.pdf
From "federal government funds 126 separate and often overlapping anti-poverty programs.
For example, there 33 housing programs, run by four different cabinet departments, including even the Department of Energy.
There are currently 21 different programs providing food or food purchasing assistance.
These programs are administered by three different federal departments and one independent agency.
There are 8 different health care programs, administered by five separate agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services.
Six cabinet departments and five independent agencies oversee 27 cash or general-assistance programs.
All together, seven different cabinet agencies and six independent agencies administer at least one anti-poverty program. And those are just the programs specifically aimed at poverty.
They don’t include more universal social welfare programs or social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance, Medicare, or Social Security.
And, while the overhead and administrative costs for most programs are modest, generally under 5 percent, the costs do add up. A guaranteed national income would consolidate all or most of these programs into a single entity. There is reason to be skeptical of some predictions regarding how much administrative savings would be achieved (many of which are addressed below), but some reduction in bureaucratic overhead would be near certain."

Altogether federal programs to assist the poor, welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare ,etc, come to around $2,300 billion annually.

Now lets look at cutting corporate welfare. Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business
Savings list
Ending corporate welfare such as farming subsidies - $100 billion (another $80 billion at state and local level)
Ending interest rate subsidies for banks - $83 billion
Ending 'special tax provisions' for corporations - $100 billion
Ending offshore tax havens - $150 billion
Total savings if corporate welfare ended - $433 billion annually

Which brings us to $2,730 billion toward that $3,080 billion of UBI costs.

So only about $350 billion needs to be raised with a series of targeted taxes to make up the budgetary costs. These new taxes should be crafted to reflect the amount of automation implemented and how many jobs were lost through that automation, such as a Robot Tax, or a Robot/Billion in Corporate income tax, etc.

Now the caveat to all this is that abstract numbers do not reflect real world costs completely, and there are many things done in the government that go well past simple welfare, disability and other costs. But this gives us a working sense of how shifting current government resources primarily, and a combination of cutting corporate welfare along with increasing targeted corporate taxes could easily fund this effort and give the citizens of the USA their own 'Quantitative Easing'.

But note too that the welfare and entitlement programs are set to mushroom into far larger costs. Honestly, a UBI would be a long term savings as it would undercut this exponential growth of coming years.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So a family of four would make about $1,154 in each bi-weekly paycheck and we would not being paying out Social Security and other welfare. Since this would also be very close to the bottom of the lower tax bracket, people would be paying a tax on every dollar they make in addition to their UBI and this way the net impact on tax receipts per person will not go down though their benefits to taxes paid ratio goes way up.

This would take huge strides in stabilizing our society.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One of these is particularly provocative as it addresses the basic concept of what the UBI is for, and I want to address this first. ....From your article: (UBI = BIG = Basic Income Guarantee)

Went for the shorter one first, eh... LOL (just teasing you)

Actually there were some shorter ones, but I am still reading the longest one 'Arguing for Basic Income'. It is very good and I want to chew it slowly.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This or something very much like it is coming, and we need to evaluate our options and take responsible action to alleviate the most disruptive technology driven change that mankind has ever seen occur in one generation.

Good stuff.

Regardless of the political ramifications, you're right - we are going to have to consider this as the effects of technology and automation spread deeper and deeper into our economy and culture. It's already beginning.

The challenge will be having a civil, constructive conversation about this, because there are far too many unreasonable voices with far too much influence right now.
.

Did you see this PDF posted by 320?

http://www.modernmoneynetwork.org/sites/default/files/biblio/arguing_for_basic_income.pdf

What do you think of it?

 

[Slyhunter]

Automation produce the products for next to nothing to be distributed to the people as they need it by using the dole system.

And who pays for the machines?

How does the government enforce laws when there is no money to collect in taxes?

You are asking questions as though you are open to hearing the answers. But...we all know that you are not.

Try something new. Spend a little time thinking about the matter and playing devil's advocate with yourself. It would likely be more productive than you simply dismissing the comments of others.

Asking questions is not dismissing anything

I am asking you to clarify your arguments

If I was dismissing your argument I would say
"You're a fucking idiot that's a stupid premise"

Maybe you can't answer the questions so you think I am being dismissive

Been there with you many times. You aren't really intersted in learning about the subject. You think you already know everything about the economy and the human condition. Your questions are more like accusations than questions. It's boring.

So you can't answer the question

If no one is working and everything is automated where does the government get the money to give everyone an income?

Where do the companies that are supposed to build maintain and provide all the materials for the machines that do and make everything get their money to do so?

Those are perfectly reasonable questions to ask in this discussion

If you can't answer them just say so

BTW you are the one being dismissive here not me

Rich people automate everything sell to other rich people.
Poor people die.
it's that simple.