UBI won't close loopholes, the two are unconnected. If it was simply a case of closing them then it would be done already. If corporations were more heavily taxed, wouldn't they just increase the price of their product to compensate for it? As for streamlining welfare? Well let's say I've seen it all before and it tends to be cyclical.
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
yeah but dont economic systems depend on supply and demand and if everyone can afford the same food and products does it not at some point put a strain on production and resources? Im all for the basic income I just dont see how prices dont just suddenly jump up negating it completely.
Is it not the automation and AI streamlining of production and efficient distribution of resources the whole reason we are having this discussion?
The inflation question has been discussed earlier and unless you pay the UBI by printing money there is no problem because you only redistribute. Products will either be supplied more or demand will decrease due to higher prices like today.
Bit of a cooincidence I’ve been following this thread very closely and just checked bbc and Levi has just announced its switching to autonomous lasers to do its jeans in 2020, which can make a pair in 90 seconds instead of 2-3 hours. No job cuts right away as staff will be reallocated, but that’s just the start.
Not sure what your point is. There is no concrete specific UBI proposal we are discussing.
If there was a concrete proposal in the US, UK, Aus or elsewhere then I am sure there would be concrete provisions to discuss about funding. Depending on how the bill the was written, of course it could include the closing of loopholes as part of the funding process. And no in general corporations cannot pass on heavy tax increase completely to their customers. Typically the cost has to be shared and profits reduced.
If your argument is simply "its impossible to tax corporations any more than X amount because otherwise they pass their cost to consumers" that is another thread and you would have to back up your claims with evidence.
Because that is how it works. Everyone gets it thus no means testing is required which results in the huge administrative saving from not having to means test everything.
Healthcare is a separate issue. Pensions could theoretically be abolished and replaced with the UBI as could most or all welfare eventually. Not something you could turn on overnight but it would be a far better system and much cheaper to run.
Here is some information from an infographic that gives clear information about what is currently being looked at in various countries
[/quote]
Really? You're suggesting UBI is a solution yet basing it's implementation on unrealistic changes. That's the idea of discussing it, to see if it's actually viable. You're being incredibly naive if you think you can simply just lump a massive tax hike on the rich without consequence.
Honestly if we get to the point where all manual labor is completely automated then yes UBI will have to become a necessity because there simply would not be enough jobs to go around.
Maybe in 30 years people can work 3 days a week 5 hours and retire at 40
Maybe in 30 years people can work 3 days a week 5 hours and retire at 40
I included the infographic for wise asses like yourself to educate yourself more since this is obviously a new topic for you and also for me.
As I mentioned I never claimed to be some kind of UBI expert (I started looking into this topic two days ago). I was just discussing the idea in theory as it does merit research and further discussion.
If you had actually put some effort into reading for yourself you would notice it is not funded by some "naive massive tax hike on the rich without consequence" but it sounds like you just want to talk random shite to sound like a know it all instead of having an actual discussion.
Incredible that I think having a credible way to pay for it is discussion worthy isn't it? Do you not think that if it was just a case of taxing the feck out of the rich and closing tax loopholes (we're talking 2.7b in tax avoidance/evasion and 34b in unclaimed) it would be done already? Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason why it hasn't.
I tried but I'm out. Take your petty insults elsewhere, you're clearly incapable of discussion without them.
Did you even try to read the infographic?
Did you not even read the thread at all?
I never claimed to have a specific funding plan yet you come in throwing around strawmen and insults without even paying attention to what was written.
Not even sure why you even quoted me instead of just posting in general since you already seem to have your mind made up while I was just debating the moral justification behind the concept to begin with. I wasn't even debating about funding or claiming to have any specific knowledge of all these proposals' funding as I hadn't even read up enough to debate that yet. I linked an infographic that even discusses funding (from a variety of plausible potential sources actually). Yet your posts indicate you didn't even bother to read that before posting so not even worth it for me to try to discuss with you if you can't even read sources before going off.
As I said, I'm done. Find someone to exchange petty insults with. You're welcome to claim a victory in your final response to me if you like.
Last edited:
Technology was always going to be the end of us.
Im shocked JoJoJoJo hasnt come down on you two for arguing. That usually happens to me.
Well I've ended it now. Too often I get drawn into these type of exchanges and they never end well.
Usially with a polite message in the inbox with a warning or points
No idea what you're even talking about. You came in quoting me completely off topic to what I was even debating. You started with the childish insults and condescending tone without even reading the source I posted. Doesn't look like you ever had the intention of discussing things in good faith.
Oh yes, got a catalogue of those!
I bet you have
Only 2 points though. I'm getting betterI bet you have
[/QUOTE]Here is some information from an infographic that gives clear information about what is currently being looked at in various countries
the problem of this info-graphic is that it starts with the assumption that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of robots and available jobs. That's false. Otherwise there isn't much info in it. Obviously UBI would be funded by raising taxes. It wouldn't eradicate (relative) poverty (if any realistic number is used). Its nice to look at something like that, because its well designed, but content-wise the statements are either false, empty phrases, self-evident or unsubstantiated.
You don't believe more automation and AI use will result in reduced available jobs overall?
It would encourage more to do the same for sure. It won't get more people working.
I still don't get how giving people something for nothing is better for ALL of us. It still needs paying and it will come out of our pockets.
We shouldn't treat this as a question of pure believe and speculation. Currently it is not happening. If anyone thinks otherwise he has to present valid data (that goes beyond single indices or anecdotal evidence of a sector). It might happen at one point in the future, but that could be in 10 years, 50 years or 500 years. We are terrible at predicting new developments, that aren't already occurring. Genuinely terrible. Nobody has a good track-record at doing so. Its fine to speculate, but one should understand that nobody can be confident about his predictions and that's crucial. Its difficult to justify major political or social reforms based on speculation.
There are various false assumptions about "jobs", that are commonly hold by many people. The most obvious one is that "there is a fixed amount of jobs". 50 years are migrants were blamed "to take our jobs"(well, sadly people still do that) and now apparently the new version is to claim robots are doing it. When ATMs became widespread available, the amount of bank-tellers increase (against any common sense). Thats just one example, but the history is literately just a series of "new unexpected jobs got created, while other vanished". There has never been a development that created permanent technological unemployment. I am not claiming that this is never going to happen. I am just saying that it isn't a valid argument for UBI, because its not happening at the moment. I also really struggle to see how the numbers of medium and high-skilled jobs could be limited in any time-frame that I can reasonably think about. Technological advancement always changed/increased the requirements for jobs. Politics should talk about the education system. Thats the only way to address this trend properly. Yet the education systems shouldn't be simply expanded (more money, more years), but the structure of them has to change. Any other attempt to deal with this is futile.
I also want to repeat that I am actually somewhat in favour of a well designed UBI for other reasons.
I think a very important question is about what people consider to be fair. Currently developed welfare systems try to micromanage outcomes and they do that for good reasons. It decreases the likelihood, that someone is "totally fecked". Thats why there are a billion different rules which support you get under which conditions. Once you abolish this system and lump (most of it) into a single payment, the range of outcomes will increase. Some people (who are lucky or make better choices) will end up in a better place, while others, who are not lucky/smart will suffer. Even I am quite uncomfortable with that. Thats why I don't think UBI should replace all other social programs. Yet once you are making exceptions (e.g. for disability), UBI becomes a lot more like the already existing social welfare system. The one exceptions is that it would abolish all the "push" factors for unemployment benefits. To discuss if UBI is better than the current system one would need to outline at least the basic structure of it. Some UBIs would suck, while others would probably improve the situation.
Last edited:
I personally don't see the automation factor as a deal breaker either way. I don't think the assumption about automation either accurate or inaccurate is a big deal as its more of a prepare for the worst situation.
Maybe you knew everything else presented in the infographic but I did not.
It mentions a variety of sources of funding (unlike the silly strawmen the other lad mentioned earlier), It provides some hard numbers for the US (3.2 trillion to cover absoltuely everyone with 10K per year while 1.5 trillion if you remove a couple classes like those with income > 100K) , it offers two case studies I was unaware of, it lists countries currently researching UBI which I was unaware of, and it also provides a list of links for further research which was useful for me. It also provides some interesting quotes in support from people as diverse as Bertrand Russell to Hayek.
It might not "eradicate poverty" (no single proposal could possible do that around the world) but it could certainly help provide a baseline for food and shelter which could certainly help millions of people.
And again, I am not convinced this is the best idea of all possible ideas, I am not some hardcore UBI advocate, I simply think it has moral justification and *could* potentially be a more efficient system than what is currently in the Anglosphere.
I go back and forth on it.
By most accounts and study's automation and ai is already having a significant impact on jobs.
And i really can't imagine it not continuing to.
If were talking 50% kind of unemployment rates then I think a lack of push to work really wont be a problem.
I think the overwhelming majority of that 50% will spend a week sitting on their sofa in their boxers before they get utterly bored and miserable
and are desperate to get out of the house and keep themselves occupied and meeting people for the day.
I dont think many would be that comfortable with the pretty humble existence that UBI would provide either.
Our current social welfare systems just aren't built to deal with this problem and it'll require a fairly drastic redesign imo.
Also i think that anyone who believes the status quo is a realistic alternative to introducing something like UBI is very naive.
Historically the status quo would be to get out the guillotine around about now.
By most accounts and study's automation and ai is already having a significant impact on jobs.
And i really can't imagine it not continuing to.
If were talking 50% kind of unemployment rates then I think a lack of push to work really wont be a problem.
I think the overwhelming majority of that 50% will spend a week sitting on their sofa in their boxers before they get utterly bored and miserable
and are desperate to get out of the house and keep themselves occupied and meeting people for the day.
I dont think many would be that comfortable with the pretty humble existence that UBI would provide either.
Our current social welfare systems just aren't built to deal with this problem and it'll require a fairly drastic redesign imo.
Also i think that anyone who believes the status quo is a realistic alternative to introducing something like UBI is very naive.
Historically the status quo would be to get out the guillotine around about now.
Also it's from a website that calls itself Futurism - the self identifying group consisting largely of pseudoscientists, pseudophilosophers and conspiranuts. The automation problems seems a reasonable concern to me that is worth investigating, but it is tied to a lot of outlandish claims. The less said about the singularity hokum the better.
The label "futurism" is so broad and covers so many different things I don't think one can dismiss something just based on the name. That website from what I saw seems pretty legit just as a news aggregator around topics broadly related to the future rather than promoting crack pot theories like that Robert Mercer cat believes in.
Also I asked earlier in thread for other sources and no one seemed to have any. So that was the best link I found that summed up what was happening around the world related to UBI. Anyone is free to link sources they feel are better of course
There are loads of sources, from all sorts of media, its not exactly a new idea. If someone really wants to know about it and knows how to use Google its not hard. I thought the infographic was fine as part of your back and forth with the other guy.
Skynet 2050 bruh....
I've always thought it would happen because let's face it, how are we going to stop the push for advanced AI? Whether you agree or disagree, this is obviously something that will happen. If you mean hokum as in nobody knows when it will happen then fair enough....
Skynet 2050 bruh....
This is good summary of some of the polling around the idea
http://bigthink.com/news/half-of-am...rsal-basic-income-for-workers-displaced-by-ai
A huge proportion of the cost of administration of welfare payments is in processing claims, tracking recipients, means testing everyone on a rolling weekly basis and various other processes that would simply no longer be required. Everyone already engages with the government either through the welfare system, the tax system or both so you wouldn't be creating 70m new beneficiaries in the way you seem to be thinking.
Why would you care as your net position would be the same?
And you are also thinking about the current situation. In the future there won't be full time employment for all or anywhere near to it. So we have to do something and this is the most sensible and cheapest option I have seen so far. The one thing that is for sure is that the current system won't cope or tax rises for the employed will have to be huge.
I think you are trying to change something just for sake of it. UBI was proposed to address the needs of jobless and those below poverty line. Why not stick with that?
Why do you have to bring the.middle and rich class into it and unnecessarily complicate this. All you need from them is more taxes. Come up with a % and let's crack on.
As to 1% vs 3% , I prefer former because I can do taxes on my own. I don't need a chartered accountant to tell me how much I'm actually paying which is what will happen if you make it complex. Not to mention,it's just unnecessary.
As to cost of administration, I'm curious to know the current value? Any links? In earlier post you mention that pension will still remain. Do you still believe that we can pay pension and UBI for everyone and still be cheaper?
And if robots do replace us, the amount of those with jobs will shrink and jobless increase. This plan will pretty soon be unfeasible.
And that's ignoring inflation and the current budget deficit.
No it wasn't. Even if it was (and it wasn't) it certainly isn't only for that now.
Automation will make anywhere near full employment at 40hrs per week per person impossible. This will have an impact on everyone. Our societies need to plan for this and start to look at things very differently way of running things. The current swerve to the right demonstrates how badly our current approach is for anything but the very wealthiest (the greatest con trick in history is the right wingers getting the poor to vote for their own victimisation). The current generation will earn less and own less that the one before. How much you inherit will become even more important. Social mobility has gone down the crapper.
A UBI will be a necessity because without one we will have societal disintegration and economic collapse. The profit motive will still be there as the UNI won't be above subsistence level.
Even if this were not true the current system is terrible and expensive to run.
a) The current system is terrible, and b) the % increase won't be palatable to the rich or the middle class and c) why not try something better that will address future needs?
UBI is simpler and cheaper to administer.
Ballpark figures are that many developed nations will spend a third or a bit more of their income on welfare and at least a third of that on administration. So a conservative estimate is that you would save between 5 and 10% of government income in admin costs alone. A huge saving.
A true UBI would do away with the need for an aged pension as well as official retirement ages.
That is a non sequitur as the reason we need a UBI is because the number of jobs will reduce.
What has that got to do with UBI?
Last edited:
It'll be corporation and Business taxes that'll pay for it and everything else. Who else will be earning money to tax?
Taxing a UBI is redundant.
Taxing a UBI is redundant.
Interesting watch. He starts talking about UBI about ten minutes in.
Cheers, will watch in a mo.
Hot sure if it was posted but the BBC have a short video on Finland's experiment.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180316-the-free-money-programme-that-turns-lives-around
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180316-the-free-money-programme-that-turns-lives-around
25-minute interview here with a labour organiser opposed to UBI:
http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/RadioArchive/2018/18_03_15.mp3
(from 8- 25 mins, before the interview is a brief rant about Trump's trade tariffs)
Edit - I think the most pertinent point is that capitalism cannot survive when you essentially give all workers what is effectively a guaranteed stable strike fund. A genuine UBI does not make sense (other than as a very minimal dole) within the logic of a labour market. So you will either have drastic/total cuts to other benefits, or a miserably low UBI, or some exceptions to the "universal", etc, and most of those are seriously expensive too.
http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/RadioArchive/2018/18_03_15.mp3
(from 8- 25 mins, before the interview is a brief rant about Trump's trade tariffs)
Edit - I think the most pertinent point is that capitalism cannot survive when you essentially give all workers what is effectively a guaranteed stable strike fund. A genuine UBI does not make sense (other than as a very minimal dole) within the logic of a labour market. So you will either have drastic/total cuts to other benefits, or a miserably low UBI, or some exceptions to the "universal", etc, and most of those are seriously expensive too.
Last edited: