Universal Basic Income

[SirAF]

No one makes that sort of money on their own. They may have a good idea that spurns a great business but the money is made of the sweat of other. Even the super wealth Gates, Bezos, Buffet, Zuckerberg) generally want to pay more tax and give back.

Probably, but it is still wrong to pull the "what do they need/deserve a hundred million for?" (my comment wasn't in relation to tax) Either way, as you say, many of the wealthy pay a lot of tax as they should.

 

[Cassidy]

Edit : if rent and housing is included as bare minimum you can be assured the rent prices will go up . Because everyone can afford it.

You obviously should have a regulated rental market. Commodities which are necessities for survival should not be subject to free market economics. That doesn't even have anything to do with UBI. There should never be a case where someone cannot afford housing.

 

[SteveTheRed]

If you think that's the final number you're far off.

If this scheme gets in motion majority of the working forces who pays tax will quit their job in favor of free monthly salary.

The effect will multiply the deficit by alot more than 14bn.

The high paid workers probably still works, but those that got paid less will simply do nothing as it still pays the same amount of money.

While pursuing life interest sounds hipster and utopian in the real world things needs to be produced. Foods, clothing, labor, capital... without the incentives to work you can get paid 2k/mth but if there's no farmer who tends their crop because they got paid for not doing anything your 2k will be worthless. We'll end up having to pay very high price for a piece of bread because the baker would need to get more than 2k to want to work his bread.

It's a bit extreme, but I understand your point.

However the number I posted was £7,500 a year...I can't see the government giving our £2k a month! That is absurd. The current national minimum wage would put someone working full time earning about £14,500 gross, £2k a month is double that...no wonder we would fall into hard times in your scenario

 

[Cassidy]

Because the money has to come from somewhere.




From where i live 1000gbp can make me life like a king. Honestly.

Your country would be the target of ssn fraud from all over the world. Migration would be massive.

It may seems ok for a short term but the ramification of this is not as simple as a few studies with limited sample

I agree that is an issue, but you also have the same issue with benefits anyway.
Also things like UBI are not solutions in isolation. Just because there are issues doesn't mean they cannot be solved.

 

[NoLogo]

From where i live 1000gbp can make me life like a king. Honestly.

But than this of course wouldn't be the basic income where you live. It's not the same in every country of course.

Your country would be the target of ssn fraud from all over the world. Migration would be massive.

Easily solvable. You need to be a legal citizen for 10+ years to be eligible. Oh and it's not like people aren't already trying that with the current system.

It may seems ok for a short term but the ramification of this is not as simple as a few studies with limited sample

What? I'm not talking about test examples with UBI but with the fact that most people find a majority of their lives meaning in their work and family so most people would not simply stop working, especially if that meant they would earn much less all of a sudden.

Bare minimum according to whose standard? A roof on the top of your head? Or a bland bread enough to survive?

I don't know where you are from but in Germany, where I'm from, we actually have institutions that actually calculate things like that, for example a line of poverty, meaning how much money one needs to earn to not count as poor and such things. Hell our social services already do calculate how money money a is needed per person to live and not starve in our country so it wouldn't be a problem to determine the threshold for UBI either.

 

[Mike Schatner]

Probably, but it is still wrong to pull the "what do they need/deserve a hundred million for?" (my comment wasn't in relation to tax) Either way, as you say, many of the wealthy pay a lot of tax as they should.

I actually said they WANT to may more tax. Gates was on CNN last week and said he has paid $10 billion in taxes and that is far too low. Bezos has said he should pay more tax, and Buffet was upset he benefited by $25-30 billion form the recent tax cuts. I think you get to a point earnings/wealth wise when greed diminishes.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Because the money has to come from somewhere.




From where i live 1000gbp can make me life like a king. Honestly.

Your country would be the target of ssn fraud from all over the world. Migration would be massive.

It may seems ok for a short term but the ramification of this is not as simple as a few studies with limited sample

How is that an answer to the question?

I run a factory that produces goods and pays corporate tax.

My 150 employee got paid monthly wage of around 100 pound per month ( according to regional minimum wages )

If they got a monthly benefit of say 100 pounds per week they'd all quit their job.

And the taxpayer (me) in this case will be fecked and properly screwed. For them to work the same job I'd probably have to double or triple the 100 pounds i gave them.

The products i made will cost 3 times more expensive. So it'll be back to square one. And

that's assuming my workers are motivated by more money and not simply be content to live a quite comfortable life for doing nothing

But again this is missing the point.

Lets say tomorrow you find a machine that can do the work of all 150 employees and now you only need to employ 10 of them to repair and maintain the machine. The year after that you get a machine that can do most of that work and you reduce the amount of people you need to employ to 2 or 3. So you've now gone from spending £15000 on monthly wages to a much lower figure than that.

And your competitors have also done the same thing, so now there's 147 people out of work x however many similar companies there are, but this pattern repeats elsewhere.

It might not happen tomorrow, but it will happen.

So what happens? Well wealth coalesce around those who own the new tech right? So happy days as a business owner, you've cut costs and increased your margin. You're going to get filthy stinking rich. But what happens if all of these people out of jobs then can't get more work because all jobs are going the same way? Without a consumer to sell your product too, because they're too busy working out where the next meal is coming from, you're fairly quickly going to go out of business no matter how low your costs are.

The traditional view will argue that there will always be new jobs created as a result of automation to replace those lost, but that seems incredibly optimistic this time round. I really do think that opposition to UBI rooted in traditional economic 'good sense' just ignores the main reason people have begun to argue it will be necessary.

 

[Javi]

You obviously should have a regulated rental market. Commodities which are necessities for survival should not be subject to free market economics. That doesn't even have anything to do with UBI. There should never be a case where someone cannot afford housing.

Let @Sky1981 demonstrate first why rent would go up if we assume that there is no supply side restrictions in place. People will still want to pay as little rent as possible in order to have more money for other things and if there is competition between house owners why exactly would all of a sudden prices shoot up? It's a different matter if you don't hand out money to citizens but state that the govt. will take care of rent but that's not the idea.

 

[NoLogo]

Edit : if rent and housing is included as bare minimum you can be assured the rent prices will go up . Because everyone can afford it.

Well they rise anyways even if you can't afford it as long as there are people who can. That being said again, the people you are afraid of who would just be lazy with UBI laying back would still be the poorest people in the country, it alone wouldn't make you rich enough to just live like a king without work, or at least that should be the aim, the incentives to work are still there if you want a better life for yourself and your family.

 

[SirAF]

I actually said they WANT to may more tax. Gates was on CNN last week and said he has paid $10 billion in taxes and that is far too low. Bezos has said he should pay more tax, and Buffet was upset he benefited by $25-30 billion form the recent tax cuts. I think you get to a point earnings/wealth wise when greed diminishes.

Fair enough, I don't disagree.

 

[SteveTheRed]

Isn't the Universal Basic Income paid to everyone regardless of if you are working or not?

@Sky1981 So the scenario mentioned of someone earning £100 a week, then finding out they get £100 a week for doing nothing- quit their jobs and disaster for the shop/warehouse etc. Surely they would just view it as a pay rise? Continue to do the job they were doing but earning twice as much.

 

[Ish]

This will be quite interesting. Might first thought/reasoning is that you're going to be stuck with the free rider problem. Give people enough to survive, and decent portion will prefer to sit home and do nothing - diminishing the GDP/their contribution to society. But each country is different wrt their population dynamics/citizens.

Though it might be a little easier adapted for the developed world, which is a shame, because I'd say it's probably needed a bit more in the developing world as poverty and unemployment (I'd assume - without stats checking in fairness) are higher.

 

[Silva]

Isn't the Universal Basic Income paid to everyone regardless of if you are working or not?

@Sky1981 So the scenario mentioned of someone earning £100 a week, then finding out they get £100 a week for doing nothing- quit their jobs and disaster for the shop/warehouse etc. Surely they would just view it as a pay rise? Continue to do the job they were doing but earning twice as much.

people earning £100 are living in poverty, they won't quit

 

[NoLogo]

Isn't the Universal Basic Income paid to everyone regardless of if you are working or not?

@Sky1981 So the scenario mentioned of someone earning £100 a week, then finding out they get £100 a week for doing nothing- quit their jobs and disaster for the shop/warehouse etc. Surely they would just view it as a pay rise? Continue to do the job they were doing but earning twice as much.

Yes. Normally the idea is to pay the money to every citizen regardless of employment status. In return this would be off-set by taxation of course. Means net someone who is unemployed would have more of his UBI left over than someone who works but the one who works would still have more in his pocket come the end of the month. For example everyone gets £100 a week UBI and the factory work gets another £100 a week pay, means that after taxation eh would probably end up with £175 a week instead of £100 a week like the guy who does nothing.

So yeah you might be able to get by without working but your living standard would certainly go down.

 

[NoLogo]

This will be quite interesting. Might first thought/reasoning is that you're going to be stuck with the free rider problem. Give people enough to survive, and decent portion will prefer to sit home and do nothing - diminishing the GDP/their contribution to society. But each country is different wrt their population dynamics/citizens.

Though it might be a little easier adapted for the developed world, which is a shame, because I'd say it's probably needed a bit more in the developing world as poverty and unemployment (I'd assume - without stats checking in fairness) are higher.

It is certainly depending on the country you live in. If the work you do is already so badly payed that just having UBI won't be much of a downgrade and you are unable to find any purpose or sense in this work, yeah you might run into the problem. I would also agree that this is certainly much more a topic in the developed world where the well payed, available work gets more and more highly specialized and a lot of people, even with a decent degree will run into more and more trouble finding jobs due to automation but that is also something that I'm sure will hit the developing world sooner or later to a similar extend.

 

[Ish]

It is certainly depending on the country you live in. If the work you do is already so badly payed that just having UBI won't be much of a downgrade and you are unable to find any purpose or sense in this work, yeah you might run into the problem. I would also agree that this is certainly much more a topic in the developed world where the well payed, available work gets more and more highly specialized and a lot of people, even with a decent degree will run into more and more trouble finding jobs due to automation but that is also something that I'm sure will hit the developing world sooner or later to a similar extend.

Yeah, during our Masters course a few years ago (Development Finance) we had a few topics about how, to protect our economy and grow our GDP, the developing world needs to transition from a labour/resources economy, to a services one. Which is a bit of an issue as we have a skills shortage and also, transitioning to a services economy will lead to even more unemployment (as natural resources run out or automation occurs, manual labour will be less of a requirement). All very interesting topics.

But yeah, the UBI concept will be very difficult to implement in the developing world. At least for now, IMO.

 

[Cassidy]

This will be quite interesting. Might first thought/reasoning is that you're going to be stuck with the free rider problem. Give people enough to survive, and decent portion will prefer to sit home and do nothing - diminishing the GDP/their contribution to society. But each country is different wrt their population dynamics/citizens.

Though it might be a little easier adapted for the developed world, which is a shame, because I'd say it's probably needed a bit more in the developing world as poverty and unemployment (I'd assume - without stats checking in fairness) are higher.

I would argue that diminishing GDP is a totally separate thing to contribution to society.
I would also argue that transitioning to a slower growth economy in future would likely benefit society.

 

[SteveTheRed]

people earning £100 are living in poverty, they won't quit

yes exactly, it's different to the current situation we have where some people who are earning as much money from benefits as other who work. Both in relative poverty but one does nothing and the other working full time.

The idea of UBI being paid to everyone regardless would mean those who are working are getting the normal salary + UBI is a great idea. There will inevitably be those who just accept UBI and don't look for work, but at least there is an incentive to look for work as everything you earn will be on top of UBI.

 

[Ish]

I would argue that diminishing GDP is a totally separate thing to contribution to society.
I would also argue that transitioning to a slower growth economy in future would likely benefit society.

On the bolded bit, I agree if we're going to get technical i.e. you can contribute to society without necessarily contributing to GDP. What i meant though, was mainly from a monetary pov. i.e. there'll be a decrease in GDP without a necessary positive impact on any benefit/contribution to society.

The free rider problem.

 

[2 Neville's]

I have just come back from a talk on new mobility and automation in transport. What I saw and heard has me utterly convinced that automation will cull the vast majority of professions. Maybe not in my lifetime but by the end of this century.

I'll just give one example: I work in engineering and I do a lot of large scale strategic modelling for transport forecasts. Over the next decade all new vehicles will be connected to the internet and to each other. All data will be stored in the cloud: Average speeds, origin and destinations, length of trips, accidents, congestion, queuing, peak times etc. Everything you need to know to build a transport model to inform future construction and policies.

All the time, money and work needed just to collect and insert that info into a model will be nullified. Months of work done in seconds. We use software that practically runs itself, we can create macro's and code to automate basic processes that take humans hours or days. If we can engineer self driving cars I am convinced that we can engineer software that requires the basic, if any, level of human input. If that comes to fruition, a large chunk of civil engineering becomes redundant. A job that required me to do 4 years of university is eradicated.

Is UBI the answer? I'm unsure. I think we are more likely to see large scale warfare before a practically cashless, non-profit driven society. What I am sure of is that AI and automation is coming and we need solutions for the issues it brings.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

The increase of income disparity and the feeling of more and more people feeling left behind by a globalized world are the direct cause of this unrest.

It's just a question of adapting. Globalization is not going to go away. Brexit or America First would not stop globalization. I was reading an article on miners jobs in midwest USA. As focus gets on nuclear or clean/alternate energy, it is inevitable that fossil fuels see a decline. Giving free money away would not solve this. There should be a more focus on re-skilling people.

I'm perfectly happy in moving towards universal free healthcare, but not for free cash.

Because the modern society is build in that way that doesn't give too much chances to most of people. Top 1% have more money than bottom 90 percent and the difference is going to increase with automation.

Why does someone deserves 100 billion dollars? If you don't think that there is not something wrong that some people have a hundred billions while a large percentage of society doesn't have food and a house, then there isn't a point on continuing this discussion.

It's just a fact that some are smarter than others, more intelligent than others, more creative than others and the wealth (though not always) reflect the inequality in talents. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg earned their money by making a contribution that most of use everyday. Calling it 'undeserved' is just plain nonsense. They earn more than you and me for a well known and specific reason.

Because we live in 2018 and having a roof over your head and food on the table shouldn't be a struggle.

I don't really get the idea that time progresses everyone will somehow automatically get wealthier. And by 2030 everyone should not struggle to own a apartment and car? Is this how the thinking goes?

 

[Sky1981]

Isn't the Universal Basic Income paid to everyone regardless of if you are working or not?

@Sky1981 So the scenario mentioned of someone earning £100 a week, then finding out they get £100 a week for doing nothing- quit their jobs and disaster for the shop/warehouse etc. Surely they would just view it as a pay rise? Continue to do the job they were doing but earning twice as much.

Notnm in my country trust me

 

[NoLogo]

It's just a question of adapting. Globalization is not going to go away. Brexit or America First would not stop globalization. I was reading an article on miners jobs in midwest USA. As focus gets on nuclear or clean/alternate energy, it is inevitable that fossil fuels see a decline. Giving free money away would not solve this. There should be a more focus on re-skilling people.

I'm perfectly happy in moving towards universal free healthcare, but not for free cash.

I know that nationalism isn't going to solve anything. I also don't completely disagree that giving free money is the end all be all but I'm 100% certain that re-skilling is impossible. You are not going to make a computer scientist or a even a big data analyst out of a coal miner. Maybe 10% could make that transition but you know the rest simply can't. If it was easy there would be no shortage of people in that field.

So that leaves us with two solutions, either create completely new jobs that are still easy to do or well pay a certain percentage just for existing. If we fail with that the future will only see more and more of radical fringe parties gaining power since they will promise the people that they know the solution to their problems.

It's a difficult question to solve and I hope we can do it in time because I think we don't have too much left. If within the next 10-15 years the self driving cars are legalized in the majority of western countries we will start running into problems sooner rather than later. I reckon there will be another 10 years time in which self driving cars will need a human as a backup driver in the seat but I'm almost certain that by 2050 at the latest we'll have lost one of the biggest employment sectors in the world entirely to automation.

Another alternative of course would be to split work hours in those jobs that are still available and everyone just working 20 instead of 40 hours but of course that would leave almost everyone poorer even those who still have a job that's not victim to automation.

 

[barros]

It's just a question of adapting. Globalization is not going to go away. Brexit or America First would not stop globalization. I was reading an article on miners jobs in midwest USA. As focus gets on nuclear or clean/alternate energy, it is inevitable that fossil fuels see a decline. Giving free money away would not solve this. There should be a more focus on re-skilling people.

I'm perfectly happy in moving towards universal free healthcare, but not for free cash.



It's just a fact that some are smarter than others, more intelligent than others, more creative than others and the wealth (though not always) reflect the inequality in talents. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg earned their money by making a contribution that most of use everyday. Calling it 'undeserved' is just plain nonsense. They earn more than you and me for a well known and specific reason.



I don't really get the idea that time progresses everyone will somehow automatically get wealthier. And by 2030 everyone should not struggle to own a apartment and car? Is this how the thinking goes?

^
This
If welfare costs so much then universal basic income would be a disaster

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I know that nationalism isn't going to solve anything. I also don't completely disagree that giving free money is the end all be all but I'm 100% certain that re-skilling is impossible. You are not going to make a computer scientist or a even a big data analyst out of a coal miner. Maybe 10% could make that transition but you know the rest simply can't. If it was easy there would be no shortage of people in that field.

So that leaves us with two solutions, either create completely new jobs that are still easy to do or well pay a certain percentage just for existing. If we fail with that the future will only see more and more of radical fringe parties gaining power since they will promise the people that they know the solution to their problems.

It's a difficult question to solve and I hope we can do it in time because I think we don't have too much left. If within the next 10-15 years the self driving cars are legalized in the majority of western countries we will start running into problems sooner rather than later. I reckon there will be another 10 years time in which self driving cars will need a human as a backup driver in the seat but I'm almost certain that by 2050 at the latest we'll have lost one of the biggest employment sectors in the world entirely to automation.

Another alternative of course would be to split work hours in those jobs that are still available and everyone just working 20 instead of 40 hours but of course that would leave almost everyone poorer even those who still have a job that's not victim to automation.

The point on self-driving cars is a valid point. As a society maybe we should determine that such improvements in technology are not actually beneficial to the society and we should put a stop to it (at least for now). Amazon's drone delivery is another example. Some steps to ensure that we do not over-automate should be taken. We have human resources and we need to keep them in play.

Simple fact is that there are loads of low skilled / minimum wage jobs that are available and people don't want to do it. In Singapore, my friend who was running a bar even found it difficult to attract bartenders / waiters etc because people just don't want to do those jobs. People will prefer to remain unemployed and get basic income that despite having abundance of labour force we'll have self created a false cycle of unemployment and add more burden to taxpayers.

 

[NinjaFletch]

It's just a question of adapting. Globalization is not going to go away. Brexit or America First would not stop globalization. I was reading an article on miners jobs in midwest USA. As focus gets on nuclear or clean/alternate energy, it is inevitable that fossil fuels see a decline. Giving free money away would not solve this. There should be a more focus on re-skilling people.

I'm perfectly happy in moving towards universal free healthcare, but not for free cash.

And what if we hypothetically reach a point where automation means there are simply not enough jobs to go around no matter how much you reskill people?

 

[afrocentricity]

@Edgar Allan Pillow You think attempting to stop the progression of science and technology is better than 'free money'?

 

[SirAF]

I don't really get the idea that time progresses everyone will somehow automatically get wealthier. And by 2030 everyone should not struggle to own a apartment and car? Is this how the thinking goes?

We’re just talking about basic needs: housing and food. I don’t think anyone is saying that poeple should be able to live in a luxurious fashion without working.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I think it doesn't touch healthcare in a country like the UK. It would make all the other welfare payments redundant (except disability benefits) which is where people take the money from.

Ok so in Universal Healthcare countries, it doesn't touch healthcare but it does replace other forms of wellfare except disability. So assuming that means social security, unemployment and other forms of assistance.

Do you have any research on this?

Seems like an interesting concept but the devil is in the details for something like this

 

[Cassidy]

It's just a question of adapting. Globalization is not going to go away. Brexit or America First would not stop globalization. I was reading an article on miners jobs in midwest USA. As focus gets on nuclear or clean/alternate energy, it is inevitable that fossil fuels see a decline. Giving free money away would not solve this. There should be a more focus on re-skilling people.

I'm perfectly happy in moving towards universal free healthcare, but not for free cash.



It's just a fact that some are smarter than others, more intelligent than others, more creative than others and the wealth (though not always) reflect the inequality in talents. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg earned their money by making a contribution that most of use everyday. Calling it 'undeserved' is just plain nonsense. They earn more than you and me for a well known and specific reason.



I don't really get the idea that time progresses everyone will somehow automatically get wealthier. And by 2030 everyone should not struggle to own a apartment and car? Is this how the thinking goes?

Universal Basic Income doesn't stop people earning more money than others. It does ensure people who are, less talented as you put it, have enough income to live.

But they should just go and get jobs...

Well actually many of these low skilled jobs will not exist in the future, also many of these people contribute to society on a level which is not measured by their income.

Ok lets focus on re-skilling people, this for many reasons I believe won't be the issue, especially with the changes coming in technology and automation.

Lets imagine for a second a world where driverless cars are the norm, there is no longer a need for a cab driver (which taxi company like Uber etc is going to want to pay drivers when they can just buy cars that drive themselves?)

This future is coming, an economy that is heavily reliant on a working labour force, is going to have a huge problem when it cannot produce the jobs to service its citizens. It also poses a question, is it really the best way to organise as a society?

This should include the fact that we shouldn't just invent jobs that don't actually need to exist just so we can give people and income and pretend its because they are contributing. We should also acknowledge the fact that existing and being a consumer is a contribution, as well as there being many ways to contribute which will not generate an income.

Uber could make a lot more money if all their cars where driverless, only if the consumer base had some income to actually consume their service.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Indeed, if you take away the incentive to succeed, and by that contribute via tax, you'll get a society of underachieving slobs.

How does providing a social safety net take away the incentive to succeed?

I have definitely heard arguments like that from conservatives in theory but haven't seen anything to back it up.

I, for one, would not have my ambition to succeed inhibited a single bit just because I got a €500 safety net payment.

I would suggest that anyone whose "incentive to succeed" is removed by just €500 a month never had an "incentive to succeed" in the first place.

In modern society people don't work in the salt mines.

Educate yourself, get a good job, earn money and contribute to society. It is simple really.

Rewarding underachievement will never be beneficial.

But modern society doesn't currently reward based on contribution to society.

 

[SirAF]

How does providing a social safety net take away the incentive to succeed?

I have definitely heard arguments like that from conservatives in theory but haven't seen anything to back it up.

I, for one, would not have my ambition to succeed inhibited a single bit just because I got a €500 safety net payment.

I would suggest that anyone whose "incentive to succeed" is removed by just €500 a month never had an "incentive to succeed" in the first place.



But modern society doesn't currently reward based on contribution to society.

I think this is spot on.

€500 would probably be enough to make sure that people are not starving, but it is nowhere enough to make someone go «oh right, I’m guaranteed 500 a month so I might just sack off the idea of an education and working».

 

[afrocentricity]

There will be all kinds of unintended consequences. Some good ones I'm sure but possibly some bad ones too.

 

[Cassidy]

There will be all kinds of unintended consequences. Some good ones I'm sure but possibly some bad ones too.

Agree with this, I don't think its something you can put in just as its own policy for one, and secondly I think if you were to do something like it you would have to accept things like, well some people will just free ride (we already have that problem).

Also depending on the agendas of the implementers of the policy, it can be used to achieve some unsavoury things, and also some good things.

I do not believe there can be any policy that exists now, or that is new that doesn't have some negative consequences.

 

[pascell]

So if this came in, people who sit on their arse everyday collecting their benefits, would get more money for doing so?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

And what if we hypothetically reach a point where automation means there are simply not enough jobs to go around no matter how much you reskill people?

And hypothetically as population keep growing, how much would you keep spending on giving free cash? And to counter inflation, would you keep hiking the basic income across the board too? I feel this would be an ever increasing burden on society.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

It can happen during this century, but we are far away from it happening, so it ain't happening within the next 10-20 years.

Even the hard optimists like Kurzweil don't predict a singularity till around 2045-2048 iirc

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@Edgar Allan Pillow You think attempting to stop the progression of science and technology is better than 'free money'?

Not really. Not having drones or automated drivers doesn't stop progress of Science. They can still do research on that. I fear these would just drive unemployment.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Universal Basic Income doesn't stop people earning more money than others. It does ensure people who are, less talented as you put it, have enough income to live.

But they should just go and get jobs...

Well actually many of these low skilled jobs will not exist in the future, also many of these people contribute to society on a level which is not measured by their income.

See having a Universal Basic income eliminates minimum wage jobs. You'll never get a person to wait at tables or tend a bar and similar. They'd rather sit at home and get cash, when businesses who depend on these jobs would be left with no one to employ. Having a Universal Basic income will directly drive unemployment. You are basically paying a big segment of people to stop working, which is a ridiculous concept.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Why do the poor deserve it?

Why do the current rich deserve all their money?

Did Paris Hilton "deserve" the billions she inherited by simply winning the genetic loterry? Or to go further.
Does Stan Kroenke deserve his billions simply because he married into the Walton family and strong armed/conned/bribed local governments into supporting their wealth redistribution scams?
Did Donald Trump "deserve" all the money he made by first manipulating the tax payers into giving him a golden ticket deal in the 1970s that relied on political connections Tammany Hall style (Roy Cohn was scum of the earth but made a lot of money) and then just stiffing the tax payers with his debts caused by his mistakes?
Do the rich extremist middle east royalty families deserve their billions simply because their ancestor chopped off the heads of their rivals 200 years ago and they got lucky that their tribal land sat on billions of dollars of natural resources?
Did John Paulson deserve his billions because he recognized how flawed our financial deregulation and instead of doing something to benefit society he greedily just bet against the MBS derivatives to make himself personally wealthy at the cost of tax payers?
Enron, Bears, Lehmann, World Com all make billions of profits by doing things directly detrimental to society as a whole. Yet they "deserved" their fortune and the poor whose work indirectly enabled all these ill gotten fortunes don't "deserve" anything?
Countrywide's head crook Angelo Mozilo deserves old school Tower of London treatment not getting to keep his hundreds of millions of stolen profits.


Nah, feck that mate. One argument that is very, very wrong is this implied idea that everyone that is currently hundred-millionaires or billionaires somehow "deserves" their fortunes. Our current system already rewards scandalous hustlers with billions in ill gotten profits. Yet somehow they "deserve" that?

Savings and Loan con in 87, energy deregulation cons in 90s, the CFMA and FSMA that allowed insane profit to greedy financial services at the cost of billions to taxpayers, etc. let alone the billions in oil royalty not a penny of which is "deserved". oligarchs around the world who are basically gangsters from Vincent Tan to The Roman. I see far more ill gotten billions in finance hustles of the last 40 years in the States than you could ever give the poor in "welfare".