What's wrong with universal basic income?

Basic economics and human nature

everything.

It's unsustainable, mathematically speaking.

That's not true. $1,000/month isn't enough to encourage laziness, but it is just enough to take the edge off of people and give them more time to focus on the things that are important to them, while also funneling that money back into the economy.

You also don't fully grasp the implications of a heavily automated economy, and the impact that that's going to have.

No shit, right?

Requires theft

1) Free shit destroys nations.
2) How will you pay for it in a way that is sustainable?
3) Free shit destroys nations

>$1,000/month isn't enough to encourage laziness
Yes it is.

UBI can only work if there is a constant influx of tax money from an active tax base , i.e scandinavian countries that have high but flat taxes. In that case it's less about "wealth redistribution" than access to the bargaining power of government on natural monopolies. Can't work in a heterogenous country with high racial and (correlated) productivity and intelligence disparity.

im not paying more in taxes so some dipshit can spend $1000 a month on drugs

fucking child

prove it works, wheres the evidence?

Incentivizes laziness, drives wages down because businesses can get away with not having to pay a living wage anymore, and it's a one way road to major rioting once you run out of the middle classes' money eventually or decide to cut off gibs.

Also causes massive inflation, because while you might be giving everyone money to spend, where's it coming from? Certainly not the lower classes and the poor, who are broke af. Certainly not the rich, their power and influence is massive af and their wealth is all invested in other stuff (I forgot the word for this...divested? Basically all their wealth isn't in money sitting in a bank account but spread out in the form of stocks, property, businesses, etc), it's the middle class who obediently pay taxes who suffer. That or you raise VAT, and taxing more money just to give it back to the people for free to spend causes inflation. And like I said earlier, remember that businesses would no longer have to pay a "livable wage" since you get a check from daddy government already, wages will go down.
It is absolutely unsustainable

>work really hard
>keep half your wage
or
>don't work
>get half of someone else's wage

In a country full of '''''diversity'''''' more people will choose to not work and survive on handouts. Destroying the system.

If it's enough for food and rent then I'm sorry but it is

Because many of the people who are working right now are going to be displaced by machines in about 10 years.

Even if you're a skilled worker that can't be replaced by machines, the job market is going to be insanely competitive when everyone is trying to get those limited human jobs in the future.

A. however much money it might get me is peanuts relative to what I make/spend on a regular basis

B. it will have more tangible tax and inflation implications that will hurt me far more than it helps me

People don't deserve money just for being alive

you'll do whatever the govt tells you to do you cucked wagie

>dude if you don't work a deadend job at mcdonalds you'll cause society's death!
brainlet

>prove it works, wheres the evidence?
They don't want to test it because step 1 would require complete dissolvement of social security administration and we can't have that happen :)

>That's not true. $1,000/month isn't enough to encourage laziness

Yes, it is. If it can cover a place to live and food to eat, people will settle with it and become too lazy to pursue better jobs/pay

$1000/month is more than enough to live off alcohol, weed, and shitty junk food. It's a really bad idea to have the best expectations of people, it almost never turns out that way

>They don't want to test it because step 1

We tried testing it in Ontario and people are now suing because of "unforeseen damages" that were caused by cutting it off

Seriously, people are SUING the Canadian government because they canceled UBI

i think it would work well once we have complete automation

so let me get this straight, you're arguing for my money to fund your low iq piece of shit lifestyle?

fuck off

you're never getting a cent from me

moar liek
>don't work
>get a measly 1000 a month
or
>work
>make good money because wages will go up
>make more despite more taxes because your wage has gone up

$5K a month would be better

>1000 is enough to encourage laziness

Attached: Projecting.jpg (490x333, 34K)

why even live if you aren't going to do anything at all with your life? work, it's what are your body and mind have been perfected to do.

I'm all for it. All the recipients have to do is give up their voting rights and birthing rights

Attached: rato_del.jpg (696x927, 194K)

>it's real
I didn't hear about the suit, that is pants-on-head retarded

thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/08/27/class-action-lawsuit-launched-against-ontario-government-over-cancellation-of-basic-income-pilot.html

>They don't want to test it because step 1 would require complete dissolvement of social security administration and we can't have that happen :)

you're low iq, kill yourself, prove it works, show it accomplishes your goal? what is your goal? to sit on the couch and spend other peoples money?

get a fucking job

pro-tip, it has been tried and was a waste of tax dollars, didnt accomplish anything, and was discontinued, look it up

OP, STOP POSTING SHOPPED PICTURES OF HIM

Yang shills keep shopping his pics to make his eyes seem bigger. This is the original

Attached: 1551138261104.jpg (1574x831, 190K)

Same thing with every other socialist idea. Nothing at all is wrong with it up until you decide how its going to get paid for.

>agrarian times end
>HOW CAN I SURVIVE WITHOUT ME FARM?
>factories leave the US
>WHERE WILL I GET ANOTHER JOB?
>useless jobs get automated
>GIB ME FREE MONEY!!!

I hope everyone understands that first world countries are meant to decline in population over time because the work is drying up. BUT NO!!!!! Import more shitskins because the government thinks they know how to run an economy during a labor surplus.

Alaska.

This isn't a new concept either. Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman, and Richard Nixon all thought it was a pretty solid idea and deserved a chance.

I don't think people are going to be content on $1,000/month. And besides, when machines make up half the workforce in 2030 (it's happening, not an "if" scenario), then all the newly unemployed are going to need a cushion while society figures out how to adjust to this new world.

This, i always ask ubitards this question and never get a proper answer.

No free stuff. Nothing is free. It's just a question of who's paying. The only way I could agree with a UBI would be if it was coupled with a universal work requirement. No sitting around the house, you have to go out and pick up litter or perform manual labor on public works or other tasks as assigned by the Self Maintenance Committee.

>get a fucking job
nigga I am employed, with flexible hours. I can sleep in until 2pm if I want to

Boomers and Jews built society in such a way that everything will collapse if population and GDP aren't perpetually growing.

Attached: old_people_redpill.png (1181x866, 215K)

Nothing, if your society has spent three generations now pretending that money is something the government makes and gives out when it has the will to do so with all moorings to reality having been cut and forgotten, at least for the brief window of time it takes to all come crashing down.
The only reason we aren't eating dog food yet is that the rest of the world is a financial shithole and there is literally not one other large market for the world's rich to put money where it won't be endangered by thugs and socialists.
That's not going to last much longer though and doubling our annual debt increase would put a quick end to the music.

Attached: 754272564745136.jpg (1756x892, 598K)

It's mostly bad because of nigs and jews and because road to hell is paved by good intentions.
The idea is pretty solid in a vacuum, most western nations already pay as much or close to the amount of what UBI would cost except UBI would cut all the bullshit out of the system, make it easy for the bureaucracy and for the citizen, really a win-win.

In practice it doesn't work for largely the same reasons communism doesn't. If you implement it somewhere then people who are looking to abuse the system will immigrate there until the carrying capacity of the hard working portion of the population is exhausted and you are back to square one.
Then there are rules and loopholes people will build into the system which will undermine the system eventually, at least very latest once the powerful idealist generation passes from power. Lastly it's not studied nearly enough and while things might seem good on paper there would most likely be unforseen consequences down the line. Effects on motivation to work might be underestimated and the effect of robots to eliminate the need to work might be overestimated. Even fringe psychology effects like how humans are most happy when people around them are doing worse not when they themselves are doing good are hard to take into account but might have significant impact.

Lastly there is a fundamental reason why welfare systems are as complicated as they are. Even though the execution is poor there needs to be ton of special clauses and extreme circumstances that need to be accounted for like how giving everyone the average medical bills worth of money would end up with most people not spending it but some people it wouldn't be nearly enough and then when the grandmas that need new hips or something start dying off there will be riots and old systems have to be bough back to compensate which negates lot of the benefits.

Scandinavian countries don't have flat taxes

What is important to people is not important, moron. There is no Santa Claus. You PAY to do the things you like. It is idiotic and downright evil to think that it is OK to rob people of what they have earned to subsidize others amusing themselves.

The point is that when tons of blue collar workers are out of a job due to the AI/machine takeover, they won't need a tax break because they won't be making anything.

>I don't think people are going to be content on $1,000/month
A lot of people won't be content with that, sure, but to the massive underclass of welfare leeches, drug addicts, gang members and the like this is just enough money to perpetually fund their lifestyle

A crackhead getting $1000/month isn't going to spend that money on starting a small business, for example

>This isn't a new concept either. Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman, and Richard Nixon all thought it was a pretty solid idea and deserved a chance.

no they didnt you fucking liar, milton argued for a negative tax, thats completely different then handing people $1000 a month. are you fucking kidding me? im very aware of milton and he would never have argued for giving people money they didnt earn because he understood incentive

you're encouraging people to not work or work part time, dead-end jobs, and then taxes will have to be increased, and wages will decrease because the govt is subsidizing the entire population

grow a fucking brain

and your example of alaska is a joke, what? a town of 100 people got $200 a month and what happened? people started painting wonderful pictures

you're a fucking brainlet

This.
Get AOC, Spike Lee, Michael Moore, Bernie and THC in a room together. Literally any welfare problem they draw up, in exchange for citizenship and sterilization.
Alternatively, any payoff desired if stapled to a one-way ticket to anywhere.

It is.

takes one to know one

>nigga I am employed, with flexible hours. I can sleep in until 2pm if I want to

kill yourself, im not subsidizing you so you can "sleep in until 2pm" you fucking idiot

grow up

Hey leftypol

It will increase my cost of living disproportionately to whatever gibs the government gives my white ass.

How much booze & drugs can you buy for $250/week?

(a lot)

In addition, the $1000 a month will include existing forms of welfare. If you're getting $253 in foodstamps, $437 in medicare, and $190 from unemployment then don't expect a $1000 check. A direct money stimulus is far more efficient for economic growth dollar-for-dollar than any other form of social safety net.

I don't advocate taking a lot from someone who earned it. But that's not the point.

Many people who work hard are going to be displaced by machines. The world is changing rapidly towards this, and most people do not understand the full implications of a heavily automated economy.

>What's wrong with universal basic income?
>the state becomes your ruler
Dumb commie.

Cool.

Where I live $1000 is enough for rent at a cheap place, groceries for a month, and a little left over.

All you're going to cause is inflation, since people are likely to increase prices due to the excess of money now being spent, and in turn people will want higher wages as their 3000 bucks a month is now closer to 2000 since everything got pricier.

You'd be better off giving people 20 bucks a month or something.

>what's wrong with perpetuating the problem caused by the federal reserve and fiat currency?
fuck off

>paying 0$ in rent and other expenditures
it's as simple as forcing people to have a place where they live to qualify for UBI. And they're down to living on the bare minimum with almost no money left for booze.

>The point is that when tons of blue collar workers are out of a job due to the AI/machine takeover,

this is literally the same argument that climate change activists make for massive taxes on industry and basically an entire slow down of the economy because "the earth is going to be unliveable in 2010"

AI is a meme and you're just another low iq asking for someone elses money because you cant hack it yourself

Attached: m7wwm3cd7fh21.jpg (500x479, 25K)

>negative tax
>a form of guaranteed minimum income
>completely different from universal basic income

In the form of VAT and other consumption taxes, yes.

Universal Basic Income is a good thing if your an employee.

As an exmployee with a good job you are entitiled to zero benefits.

What UBI does is it takes the total benefits paid to benefits claimants and didives them among all citizens.

Now all the bums on benefits become immediately priced out of housing in decent areas.

UBI is brilliant concept if the replace all benefits with it.

nice reddit spacing btw

Can you afford it? Finland had a limited test run of it a couple of years, how about you ask them how that went.

Yep
So not UBI

From his website:

>Won't this cause rampant inflation?

The federal government recently printed $4 trillion for the bank bailouts in its quantitative easing program with no inflation. Our plan for a Universal Basic Income uses money already in the economy. In monetary economics, leading theory states that inflation is based on changes in the supply of money. Our UBI plan has no changes in the supply of money because it is funded by a Value-added Tax.

It is likely that some companies will increase their prices in response to people having more buying power, and a VAT would also increase prices marginally. However, there will still be competition between firms that will keep prices in check. Over time, technology will continue to decrease the prices of most goods where it is allowed to do so (e.g., clothing, media, consumer electronics, etc.). The main inflation we currently experience is in sectors where automation has not been applied due to government regulation or inapplicability – primarily housing, education, and healthcare. The real issue isn’t Universal Basic Income, it’s whether technology and automation will be allowed to reduce prices in different sectors.

What's to stop them from spending their little money left on booze & drugs? Or if you're proposing that they spend all that UBI money on rent - why even have UBI in addition to cheap housing?

>a little left
>excess of money now being spent
makes perfect sense

>Ancrap not having the faintest fucking clue what he's talking about
What a shocker. No we don't have flat taxes, "wealth redistribution" is a poor joke.

>So not UBI
I'd assume this UBI to apply only under certain conditions. Otherwise I agree it's retarded.

a negative tax provides incentive for people to become wage earners, it isnt a $1000 handout you fucking idiot

grow up, look at yourself, a literal leech on society, asking for other people's money because your such a fucking joke of a person

guaranteed = universal
minimum = basic
income = income

I'd assume the point of UBI is to just barely cover the essentials. Rent, bills, groceries, with very, very little left for booze, maybe 100 a month at the very most. ffs I live in a shithole country and could barely get by on 1000 a month.

>thinking it will stay at some paltry sum like $1000

There won't be tons of blue collar workers out of a job. You all seem to be focusing on burger flippers when majority of them do shit like welding, plumbing, delivery, construction, roofing. I'd like to see a machine crawl down the heating plant furnace to weld and patch it. Or find a proper cable out of 50 different ones in a dark damp telecom tunnel and replace it. Or even bring you stuff you have to personally sign for. The "AI" we have right now can't even scale staris properly and i don't see it changing in 50 years.

>$250/week?
CDN? 3x 0,7l bottles of not rotgut booze. Mixer not included.

Who's going to pay for it?
Why should lazy faggots get paid for doing nothing?

From Yang himself:

>The data doesn’t show this. In many of the studies where cash is given to the poor, there has been no increase in drug and alcohol use. In fact, many people use it to try and reduce their alcohol consumption or substance abuse. In Alaska, for example, people regularly put the petroleum dividend they receive from the state in accounts for their children’s education. The idea that poor people will be irresponsible with their money and squander it seems to be a biased stereotype rather than a truth.

I think about it like this as well: all those drug addicts and potential criminals will be less inclined to commit crimes to earn money for drugs, and they would be less inclined to go to jail/prison as well. That would save money on jails and prisons, police budgets, homeless shelters, etc.

you're retarded. consumption taxes are flat taxes.

People will not be displaced by machines, you fucking Luddite. The fact that machines can make things won't prevent people from making things. If people do not have the money to buy goods and services made by machines, they can produce goods and services THEMSELVES. Despite the fact that the machines might be faster at growing vegetables, for example, this won't prevent people from growing vegetables. These machines will also be built and owned by private individuals and corporations, idiot, they won't spend trillions of dollars building these machines to give away the output for FREE. Get your head out of your ass. There is no Santa Claus, there is no magic, there is no such thing as free.

The 'little left over' would be for current prices, and would theoretically be available to the person getting it to either save or buy luxury items.

Once you actually implement it though, the price of things is just going to increase so that $1000 is going to to from covering rent with half of it to barely covering rent if at all.

Sorry if that was hard for you to understand

Negative income tax only benefits the jobless you dolt. Universal basic income stimulates the economy by shifting money toward consumers, ensuring a more efficient pipeline toward consumption and further growth.

I pay taxes here. Don't fucking try and lecture me on what system we have when you have no fucking clue.

Yes

well the point of UBI, as the name suggests, is that its a "universal" distribution of wealth. Rich get UBI along with the middle class & poor. If it was limited strictly to lower classes as you're sort of describing, it would be no different from any other form of welfare handout

cont.

It's probably going to take at least few more decades before any serious attempts at UBI will come.
UBI or some similar variant is the only real solution to the mass unemployment that will result from the robots and AI taking over all the jobs.
Provided we don't nuke ourselves back to stone age trying to resit the change or otherwise stall out it's nearly inevitable that there will be a time when people don't need to work and more importantly no one is willing to pay for a human to do any work. In that situation the government will simply be replaced as many times as it's neccessary by the poor masses until some order is restored. Taxing the robots to provide UBI is basically going to be the inevitable end result in civilized countries.

The question is just when to transition to the post labor economy. Right now it's obviously too early and at some point it will be too late and violence will be wrecked and quality of life will suffer in a transition by force. The optimal time is somewhere in the middle but it's hard to say when exactly that would be.

Well I guess the other alternative is the barbarism approach where people will forever be forced to work menial labor because government will keep taxes on automation so high it keeps human labor competitive or by creating menial jobs like digging and filling ditches for no particular reason for a wage

>I think about it like this as well: all those drug addicts and potential criminals will be less inclined to commit crimes to earn money for drugs, and they would be less inclined to go to jail/prison as well. That would save money on jails and prisons, police budgets, homeless shelters, etc.

yeah you're an idiot, if you give someone who is an addict more money, their addiction will grow stronger

nothing like advocating for a handout of $1000 and then claiming you're going to somehow save money in the long run

you're just a complete idiot