Here is the way I see it: > Wealth inequality is getting worse, partly because having money makes it easier to make money, and partly because new technology especially automation of jobs is squeezing the labour market, reducing demand for labour therefore the price (pay) of workers (the vast majority of income earners). Taxing the obscenely wealthy and their kids to pay for UBI would reduce wealth inequality. This is good for the economy because lower and middle class people spend a higher percentage of their income, meaning businesses make more sales. > Lots of money is spent on bureaucracy in the welfare state to decide who is worthy of welfare. Much of this would be eliminated with UBI. > Welfare as it is creates an incentive to be useless and not work. If you work more than x hours a week you lose welfare. UBI eliminates this incentive. > The vast majority of people do not currently enjoy going to work. Having a UBI means that employers must improve working conditions to persuade people to work. This will likely result in an increase in the price of goods, but will result in a decrease in the total cost of medicine to the country given the high percentage of disease associated with work and income related stress. Though this impact is a good argument to roll out UBI slowly as a small amount first, then as more jobs are eliminated by automation the UBI can be increased.
Won't work unless unproductive people stop breeding.
Subsidizing the lifestyles and reproduction of groups that take more than they put in is never a good idea.
Andrew Carter
Ubi is horrible theres a reason the zuc supports it.More people dependant on the government is bad.
Xavier Adams
Fuck off. I won't be enslaved by that, at risk of having all income switched off for wrong think. I'll go fish penguins at the N.Pole
Colton Jones
>inequality is bad goy
SAYS FUCKING WHO
Adrian Perez
Disclaimers and other info: > When I say universal basic income i mean national basic income: Americans paying for Americans, Australians for Australians etc. > I am only talking amout implementing this in 1st world countries. I am not thinking about shithole countries right now. > when I say it should be implemented slowly i would suggest $100 a week. This is assessable for tax like any other income and is given to all citizens. This policy is enacted with a simultaneous reduction of the same amount to any income from welfare. > My personal politics is center left, and I am in my mid 20s working as an accountant for a large big4 firm.
Chase Hughes
Finland had a trial run for a basic income system for two years. It didn't work out.
Evan Edwards
>UBI would reduce wealth inequality You're implying that wealth inequality is a bad thing... Lemme tell you a secret, OP. It isn't your 5grand 401K (or whatever burgers call their retirement plan) that is propping up the stock market. Just so you know Bill Gates doesn't keep his billions in an old matress. If you tax the rich the stock market (and any similar financial product) will stagnate and you're retirement savings will never grow. >Lots of money is spent on bureaucracy And chances are your wife, sister, mother, or daughter has a job because of it. Women are typically the monkeys they train to fill out that paperwork... Or did you think bureaucracy some how benefited the ludicrously rich? >UBI eliminates this incentive. How? >... Your last argument is just straight up retarded. My response to it is that you are stupid.
Matthew King
>someone who makes lots of money trying to control the taxing of those who make less money then himself by forcing UBI Okay Mr. Noseberg
Elijah Thompson
There's a lot to discuss here, but it boils down to the same basic problem we have with everything.
>niggers and spics
Why is the honor system no longer a thing? Why is the welfair system such a bloated monster that a week's disruption could crack the country? Why are states little more then fifes of the Federal Kingdom? How have ivory-tower coastal elites hijacked the election process? Why has health care become a business not a service? All these things and more, a lot of talk, but in the end:
>niggers and spics
UBI will become just more welfair, and niggers and spics will demand more and better then what anyone else gets. They will bleed and break the system like they have every other government program. Sorry OP.
Not at first. It would not be enough to make a decent living on its own at first. You would have more spending/saving money though.
You are already paying for peoe who never work. UBI is about paying more to people who do work.
It is a legitimate concern that this puts more power in the hands of the state but I think as long as there are checks and balances in the political system this wont be an issue.
Kevin Jackson
In my opinion we just need a reform of welfare, make it so people can work and have welfare on top of their pay. >Rather that then people doing nothing and just cashing in welfare.
Caleb Howard
>paying more to people who do work No, it’s paying EVERYONE to not work. Most UBI plans want close to poverty line income. If you can make $20k by existing and being American, why would you work? I can’t stop the welfare system that was in place when I came about, but I can try to stop a worse one from being introduced.
Gavin Russell
I don't make lots of money, only the partners in these large firms make lots of money. I am working to have the big name on my CV, and hopefully can make a decent living. I am not talking about taxing people who make less than me more. It would need to be funded by taxing the obscenely rich, especially their kids who often don't contribute shit.
Benjamin Kelly
They do, but if you make enough to support yourself you stop getting welfare... You can make like 300 a month in Canada before you get kicked off it. that's like 25 hours of min wage work... Employment insurance has a similar concept as well. An amount of money you make during your "unemployed" collection phase is deducted from your pay outs. However, that amount is also tacked onto the end of your available pay out. In other words, if you have 10grand available to you and are being paid 1grand a month you'd have 10 months of EI. If you decided to work during that phase, the amount you make is deducted from your 1 grand installments, but is also used to extend the length of time you can be paid for... If you made 2grand during that 10 month period, it would stretch your 1grand payouts another two months.
Ian Evans
>stock market will crash Firstly i would say the stock market is a modest share of the total economy. It is important, but don't think it is everything. Second, the stock market price is not actually driven by capital investment, the only time cash flows to the company is the initial public offering. From then, it is driven by investor expectations about the company's performance. This performance comes down to sales less Operating costs. As mentioned, sales will increase as putting money in the hands of the working class is putting money in the hands of people who spend a higher percentage of their income. Labour costs may increase as you need to do more to convince people to work, but these costs are decreasing as automation becomes more viable and the increase would not outweight the increase in sales.
> beuracracy is good for wamins Don't care if people in useless jobs get made redundant. That is not an argument to keep useless jobs around.
>how It eliminates the incentive because people on welfare still get money if they start working, instead of having those funds cut off.
Julian Bell
You're going to give people money to just sit there and live. This is going to lead to a massive growth in government to support said program. The government is innately intrusive into the lives of the populace. This is how you get total control. Someone doesn't agree with the government? Cut their gibs. Someone wants to think for themselves? Cut their gibs. No, go away. Release ALL the suppressed technologies and enable actual independent families. We can do it, tptb don't want it.
Luis Lopez
This is a legit concern and is difficult. I think a 3 child policy is necessary.
Punchy lines but no argument.
Not all inequality is bad, but obscene levels of wealth inequality are bad for the economy as discussed above.
Do you believe UBI would not achieve this?
You may work because you want more than an average living. You may enjoy work. You may change your work to do something you enjoy for less money. Most people do not want to sit around doing nothing. I think you would see more people starting small businesses because business failure does not necessitate poverty.
Juan Carter
I think you may be a bit too concerned with government oppression. I think there are adequate checks and balances in most western countries. If not UBI how do you address automation taking the vast majority of the jobs?
Kayden Scott
The stock market is like a pool. The water might splash around, but the total amount of liquid in it doesn't change... Unless someone dumps more water into it or takes some out. The reality is that the average person is lucky if their savings grow at a rate equal to the rate at which the total amount of money in the stock market grows... And that total amount of money only grows if it is being propped up by the presence of massive "whales" that have invested insane amounts of money, and continue to invest more and more.
I say again, it isn't your 5grand 401k that is keeping things afloat. The performance of individual stocks are irrelevant when you are talking about the big picture.
>Firstly i would say the stock market is a modest share of the total economy. The stock market is the canary in the coal mine. I brought it up because it is a prime example that everyone would recognize... Sure there are many, many other financial products/investment options, but (aside from bullshit like bitcoin) they are all propped up by the insanely rich (bitcoin is propped up by gullible idiots).
>As mentioned, sales will increase as putting money in the hands of the working class is putting money in the hands of people who spend a higher percentage of their income. And as I've said, this isn't necessarily a good thing. There needs to be a foundation of wealth upon which society operates. An entire nation living hand to mouth is a disaster waiting to happen.
>Don't care if people in useless jobs get made redundant. Modern bureaucracy may be bloated, but it is far from useless.
>It eliminates the incentive because people on welfare still get money if they start working They should get cut off though... Or are you the type of cuck that is willing to pay their daughter's rent even when they are making 55k+ a year and living with their boyfriend?
Julian Murphy
Universal basic work. Sharecropping vs lying around jerking it.
>pool metaphor Not true at all. The stock market is ownership interests in companies. The water in the pool constantly changes based on the activity of these companies. Any sale these companies make is water added to the pool. Any expense incurred is water taken from the pool.
Lets say that all these rich people sell their stocks (which wouldn't happen as they are still loaded, you just tax them a bkt more). This has no impact on the operations of the companies themselves as their price on the stock market does not influence anyfhing but maybe some parts of their executive remuneration.
>everything is propped up by the insanely rich.
Small businesses are not, and you would see an increase in small business investment as a result.
>needs to be a foundation for the wealth
Agreed, and this foundation comes from production, which is driven by demand.
Robert Johnson
>[The "pool's" depth]... changes based on the activity of these companies. Not in the slightest... If someone wants to invest in the stock market, they'll invest in the stock market. The behavior of individual companies only effects which stocks they buy. It doesn't effect whether or not they are going to buy stocks. The amount of water in the pool goes up and down depending on whether or not people want/need to add/subtract water from it. The behavior of the "pool's" individual waves are irrelevant... When looking at the big picture.
If you tax the rich they wont want to put their water into the pool, because they'll have no excess water to spare.
>Any sale these companies make is water added to the pool. Only if that revenue is used to buy stocks... >Any expense incurred is water taken from the pool. Only if that revenue would have been used to buy stocks...
>his has no impact on the operations of the companies themselves I am not talking about company operation. I am talking about finance. Stocks are just products being sold. They are little different than a bar of gold or silver.
>Small businesses are not Go to any local business and ask them what company they use to conduct their debit transactions (I bet it'll be a massive company that wouldn't qualify as a "small business")... Ask them who delivers their products (I doubt they own the freight train that the product was delivered on, nor the freighter that their products sailed across the ocean on)... Ask them who supplies their electricity, their water. Ask who maintains the road that they drive to work on. The idea that small business owners could single highhandedly replace all those companies is ridiculous.
>and this foundation comes from production So if my grandpa produced something that made so much money that I am now able to live off his surplus supply. I am somehow different then the person that made that money themselves?
