Universal Basic Income

[kbate]

yes, ubi - a bad idea from 1966 resurrected, except now we can focus on immigrants instead of blacks because racist of course.

 

[hsnh]

ILLEGAL immigrants.

None of them complained about Legal Immigrants.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No just where have I heard that before? Hmmmm?

Ishmael

I need to get those files transferred.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, according to my friends & relatives the Democrats' war was carried against the mid to upper middle class (millionaires included), who are listed as "very high income" by Obamacare, for example.
-- They've been trying to gradually gut the Middle Class under the pretense of "They should help thy neighbour".

By the same token, why do Republicans always make it sound as if the two (the 40 billionaires who own Washington and the middle to upper Middle Class) are joined to the hip?
"You attack the mid- to Upper Middle Class, you therefore inadvertently attack the 40 billionaires who own Washington?"
Those are two separate classes.

Reps. seem just as disingenuous as Dems. are, to me.




* The massive concentration of the World's wealth in the hands of just a few occurred just in the last 3 decades, and it was made possible by the neoliberal globalist policies that were put in place after the 70's.

Ever hear of "Robber Barons?" And that was back when money was sound, not fiat money.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, you want to live like an animal and play "survival of the fittest".

I don't want to live like an animal, I know you like to think that's what it's like without the state wiping your ass but just because you can't adult doesn't mean nobody else can.


And everyone is playing survival of the fittest......like it or not you can't avoid that game.

There's a place for low functioning beasts like you, it's called a jungle.

LOL I'm not the one who needs the nanny state to go rob other people so I don't starve to death.

 

[Phelia]

To the steady stream of those in forceful opposition: do you have a single study or data point to back up your position? I have included multiple. If it's as obvious as you say, it should be easy to disprove, right? So I wonder why no-one's managed it...

Ok. I'm game. On what terms would you like to be rigorously intellectual in a discussion of UBI? I would suggest we rigorously stick to economic theory, to start, and call each other out when we stray from economic theory. Agreed?

Super. I'll start. I'm going to stay within Marxian economic theory as I understand it.

As long as the producers of the value get to determine how it is appropriated and to whom it can be distributed, then that is a system that makes sense. So I ask you again, who decides?

Uh, no. First, I imagine your "understanding" of any sort of economic theory leaves much to be desired, but it's also tremendously stupid to evaluate something based on an outdated theoretical construct. Indeed, that's the sort of thing a fool suggests when trying to sound intelligent. Second, it is not my job to make this case for you. I have already linked to numerous resources that I've used to educate myself, and you should be perfectly capable of doing the same.

Briefly, it is simple to evaluate UBI, and conceptually, it can exist within a number of economic theories. There are a few pretty obvious questions we need to answer:

1. Would there be negative effects (e.g. significant decrease in productivity/motivation to work)?
The honest answer is we don't know the impacts of a large-scale UBI and there would certainly be implications of a radically different socioeconomic structure (both good and bad). However, the boogeyman that come up when people talk about UBI (encouraging laziness, lack of accountability, etc.) simply don't happen whenever we've experimented. People want to work. When you give people money, they spend it responsibly. That we think otherwise the the result of a decades-long campaign to sell us on a myth of "personal responsibility" while those in power continue to generate money out of nothing.

2. Will it have the intended positive effects (e.g. a more equitable and productive society)?
Again, actual results (not misguided assumptions and opinions) have been promising. Even in instances where individuals have chosen to work less, it is typically new parents and teenagers, which is probably a good thing.

3. Who gets paid, and how much? Can we afford it?
Obviously, these are big questions, and I won't pretend to have the answers, but I've posted a proposal that shows how we could start paying every person in the US $4,632 per person, today, without increasing taxes or touching SS, medicare, or medicaid. Anyone who dismisses UBI entirely because of these questions is being either inexcusably lazy or willfully dishonest. The reality is that as disgusting as the current administration is, we do not live in a society that would let someone starve to death, so we pay for poverty anyway. Pretty much universally, giving people money directly is more effective than complicated administration systems with largely arbitrary requirements (which is why the idea has bipartisan support amongst anti-nanny-state libertarians).

4. How do we get there?
Honestly, I think the biggest hurdle is a mindset shift. The idea of getting money for nothing is as unthinkable as ideas like giving women the right to vote or outlawing child labor were just decades ago, and it's super frustrating, because who the fuck are you protecting? Are the biggest "value creators" in the status quo really worth protecting? Do you really think an investment banker contributes 100x the value of the person who picks up your trash? Imagine both disappearing - which one would you miss first?

There is an app for that:

http://equitableapp.com/

As seen in The Atlantic!

Never mind the fallacy that the above app is based on that each demographic is not putting in varying degrees of effort, that there is greater reward for jobs of higher risk, and that some put in more hours actually working, or do overtime vs taking every available sick day (and then some.)

That app is a literal joke. Just like you!

yes, ubi - a bad idea from 1966 resurrected, except now we can focus on immigrants instead of blacks because racist of course.

The idea has been around for centuries and has been supported by varied thinkers: Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell among many others.

But please, let's not let truth and evidence get in the way of everyone's right to immediately double down on their own misguided opinions and assumptions. Why question anything when you already have very strong feelings about what is or isn't true?

 

[Wrong Element]

Is this the same basic idea as Milton Friedman's "negative income tax?"

 

[OldJourno]

This concept also assumes that people freed from the slavery of work will simply act in love and charity, or as Fortune’s Kevin O’ Marah says, have “the freedom to realize our personal best.” The key flaw in this thinking is that work somehow stifles our personal best, while leisure allows us to achieve it. However, if work presented a barrier to altruism and realizing one’s “personal best,” then public housing communities would be places of love, safety and entrepreneurial ventures. Instead, they are cesspools of violence, disintegrated families and crime.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/50023

 

[Ishmael]

Is this the same basic idea as Milton Friedman's "negative income tax?"

The devil is in the details as they say. Friedman's didn't look anything like what's proposed, nor did share the same goals.

I notice that Zuckerberg has chimed in, again, in favor of it. He should be asked exactly how many of his employees he pays to do absolutely nothing?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The devil is in the details as they say. Friedman's didn't look anything like what's proposed, nor did share the same goals.

I notice that Zuckerberg has chimed in, again, in favor of it. He should be asked exactly how many of his employees he pays to do absolutely nothing?

Ishmael

And if he's willing to surrender everything he has above the UBI level...





He doesn't realize that the majority (mob rule/Democracy) would actually vote for that. After all, HE DIDN'T BUILD THAT!!!

 

[hznh]

And if he's willing to surrender everything he has above the UBI level...





He doesn't realize that the majority (mob rule/Democracy) would actually vote for that. After all, HE DIDN'T BUILD THAT!!!

It's a little early to be getting into the fire water, isn't it, kemosabe?

 

[hsnh]

It's a little early to be getting into the fire water, isn't it, kemosabe?

This is one of those little things that make you think: "Now I moved from 90% to being 100% sure who's behind this alt."

 

[hznh]

This is one of those little things that make you think: "Now I moved from 90% to being 100% sure who's behind this alt."

This is one of those little things that make you think: "Hashdrag really is as fucking stupid as everyone thinks."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is one of those little things that make you think: "Now I moved from 90% to being 100% sure who's behind this alt."

No doubt.






The only answer is 'Laurel.'

 

[Wordsworth]

This concept also assumes that people freed from the slavery of work will simply act in love and charity, or as Fortune’s Kevin O’ Marah says, have “the freedom to realize our personal best.” The key flaw in this thinking is that work somehow stifles our personal best, while leisure allows us to achieve it. However, if work presented a barrier to altruism and realizing one’s “personal best,” then public housing communities would be places of love, safety and entrepreneurial ventures. Instead, they are cesspools of violence, disintegrated families and

It isn't just the Puritans, there exist many societies wherein the value of work is emphasised. Pensioners that still engage in work or various charity tasks demonstrate much better cognitive function and live longer.

"Retiring" before you have had the chance to become something to define yourself by is good for no one.

I'm on the fence whether it's nature versus nurture, but most men get their sense of identity and their self esteem from what it is they do for a living. Many men in council flats do nothing and their behaviour demonstrates that that's the value they see in themselves and others.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It isn't just the Puritans there are many societies where the value of work is emphasised. Retirees that still engage in work or various volunteer tasks demonstrate much better cognitive function and live longer.

"Retiring" before you've ever had a chance to become something to define yourself by is good for no one.

I'm on the fence whether it's nature versus nurture but most men get their sense of identity and their self esteem from what it is they do for a living. Many men in counsel flats do nothing and their behavior demonstrates that that's the value they see in themselves and others.

Good post.

However, I am one who never got my self-worth from what I did for a living. I have had many "adventures" in making a living and enjoyed all of them, but none of them defined me. My sense of being larger than life pretty much defined me.

 

[BotanyBoy]

To the steady stream of those in forceful opposition: do you have a single study or data point to back up your position?

The fact that nobody has ever been able to provide so much as food for everyone much less a base income without totally destroying their country in the process.

I have included multiple. If it's as obvious as you say, it should be easy to disprove, right? So I wonder why no-one's managed it...

You've included some theories.

It's never been done so I have hard time seeing how there has been studies on it or how we're going to come up with over 12 trillion/yr without jacking taxes through the roof just because someone an interest in doing UBI says so.

Anyone being honest would say we don't have a fucking clue how UBI would change a country, much less the USA.

Dreamy hopeful socialist think it will bring about the Marxist utopia....history says there is more than a good chance it will end in total disaster.

I'm going with history over hopeful socialist ideology.

But please, let's not let truth and evidence get in the way of everyone's right to immediately double down on their own misguided opinions and assumptions.

What opinions and assumptions are misguided? Exactly.....

Why question anything when you already have very strong feelings about what is or isn't true?

You mean like your strong feelings that UBI is the sure fire bullet to utopian paradise and anyone who questions that is misguided???

Right....

 

[hznh]

Good post.

However, I am one who never got my self-worth from what I did for a living. I have had many "adventures" in making a living and enjoyed all of them, but none of them defined me. My sense of being larger than life pretty much defined me.

El oh el, drunkie. You smoke 'em too many peace pipe.

 

[kbate]

To the steady stream of those in forceful opposition: do you have a single study or data point to back up your position? I have included multiple. If it's as obvious as you say, it should be easy to disprove, right? So I wonder why no-one's managed it...



Uh, no. First, I imagine your "understanding" of any sort of economic theory leaves much to be desired, but it's also tremendously stupid to evaluate something based on an outdated theoretical construct. Indeed, that's the sort of thing a fool suggests when trying to sound intelligent. Second, it is not my job to make this case for you. I have already linked to numerous resources that I've used to educate myself, and you should be perfectly capable of doing the same.

Briefly, it is simple to evaluate UBI, and conceptually, it can exist within a number of economic theories. There are a few pretty obvious questions we need to answer:

1. Would there be negative effects (e.g. significant decrease in productivity/motivation to work)?
The honest answer is we don't know the impacts of a large-scale UBI and there would certainly be implications of a radically different socioeconomic structure (both good and bad). However, the boogeyman that come up when people talk about UBI (encouraging laziness, lack of accountability, etc.) simply don't happen whenever we've experimented. People want to work. When you give people money, they spend it responsibly. That we think otherwise the the result of a decades-long campaign to sell us on a myth of "personal responsibility" while those in power continue to generate money out of nothing.

2. Will it have the intended positive effects (e.g. a more equitable and productive society)?
Again, actual results (not misguided assumptions and opinions) have been promising. Even in instances where individuals have chosen to work less, it is typically new parents and teenagers, which is probably a good thing.

3. Who gets paid, and how much? Can we afford it?
Obviously, these are big questions, and I won't pretend to have the answers, but I've posted a proposal that shows how we could start paying every person in the US $4,632 per person, today, without increasing taxes or touching SS, medicare, or medicaid. Anyone who dismisses UBI entirely because of these questions is being either inexcusably lazy or willfully dishonest. The reality is that as disgusting as the current administration is, we do not live in a society that would let someone starve to death, so we pay for poverty anyway. Pretty much universally, giving people money directly is more effective than complicated administration systems with largely arbitrary requirements (which is why the idea has bipartisan support amongst anti-nanny-state libertarians).

4. How do we get there?
Honestly, I think the biggest hurdle is a mindset shift. The idea of getting money for nothing is as unthinkable as ideas like giving women the right to vote or outlawing child labor were just decades ago, and it's super frustrating, because who the fuck are you protecting? Are the biggest "value creators" in the status quo really worth protecting? Do you really think an investment banker contributes 100x the value of the person who picks up your trash? Imagine both disappearing - which one would you miss first?



That app is a literal joke. Just like you!



The idea has been around for centuries and has been supported by varied thinkers: Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell among many others.

But please, let's not let truth and evidence get in the way of everyone's right to immediately double down on their own misguided opinions and assumptions. Why question anything when you already have very strong feelings about what is or isn't true?

Wow. a wiki warrior - who obviously has NOT read beyond a google search of the topic.

but yeah. . . truth.

 

[LadyFunkenblack]

Wow. a wiki warrior - who obviously has NOT read beyond a google search of the topic.

but yeah. . . truth.

You just another entitled white bitch. Fuck you, and fuck your oppressive noise.

 

[Kazakhstan]

https://cuckoovineblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/thumbs-up-borat.jpg

A whopper for only a dollar! God bless America!

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You just another entitled white bitch. Fuck you, and fuck your oppressive noise.

Well your situation could be worse, you could be arguing with a child like AJ. Wait, you're wasting time with Kbate. Same difference.

Seriously, put her on ignore. Kbate is twice as dense as a black hole and half as bright.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I don't want to live like an animal

Yeah you do. Animal skin, club and all. At least you're smart enough to be asexual so your idiot genes won't propagate. Praise natural selection!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah you do. Animal skin, club and all.

Making shit up to keep your narrative going this early on? Pathetic....even for you.

At least you're smart enough to be asexual so your idiot genes won't propagate. Praise natural selection!

True but I have a twin sister and she's crankin' em out, so not entirely.

 

[Phelia]

Is this the same basic idea as Milton Friedman's "negative income tax?"

Yep, helicopter money. It's being piloted in Finland and now Ontario, yay!!! Highly recommend that Bregman book I mentioned - you'll fucking love it!!!

I notice that Zuckerberg has chimed in, again, in favor of it. He should be asked exactly how many of his employees he pays to do absolutely nothing?

Ishmael

WOW!!! GREAT point, bro!!! Call him and tell him that! He is going to think you are a fucking GENIUS! You blew this shit to SMITHEREENS! WOWEEEEEE

The fact that nobody has ever been able to provide so much as food for everyone much less a base income without totally destroying their country in the process.

You've included some theories.

It's never been done so I have hard time seeing how there has been studies on it or how we're going to come up with over 12 trillion/yr without jacking taxes through the roof just because someone an interest in doing UBI says so.

Anyone being honest would say we don't have a fucking clue how UBI would change a country, much less the USA.

Dreamy hopeful socialist think it will bring about the Marxist utopia....history says there is more than a good chance it will end in total disaster.

I'm going with history over hopeful socialist ideology.

What opinions and assumptions are misguided? Exactly.....

You mean like your strong feelings that UBI is the sure fire bullet to utopian paradise and anyone who questions that is misguided???

Right....

Aside from the almost insulting absurdity of your opening "logic," I am not going to engage with a brick wall. There's data, it exists, I've linked multiple sources in this thread. I do not give a fuck about what you have a hard time seeing. Bye!

Wow. a wiki warrior - who obviously has NOT read beyond a google search of the topic.

but yeah. . . truth.

Lol! Says the one who walked in without a clue what she was talking about and nothing of value to contribute. This, ladies and germs, is what we in the biz call "projection." I know you're literate, so I'm happy to provide a reading list if you're interested in learning more. But you'll probably be happier in your safe space thread