FOLLOW BOREME
 
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Why Basic Income?

Why Basic Income?

(7:42) Supporters of the Universal Basic Income say what they like the idea. UBI is a system that replaces all welfare with a basic income for everyone, no matter their wealth or employment status.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (1002 days ago)

It is incorrect to say that Milton Friedman sanctions the Basic Income idea. He was for the negative income tax method instead. There is a difference and people should learn that difference.

The reason companies are creating robots to automate things is due to the high cost of employing people to do the job. If it wasn't so expensive and people had the proper work ethics to show up to work when they are scheduled, then we wouldn't need those robots.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

It is incorrect to say that Milton Friedman sanctions the Basic Income idea. He was for the negative income tax method instead. There is a difference and people should learn that difference.

The reason companies are creating robots to automate things is due to the high cost of employing people to do the job. If it wasn't so expensive and people had the proper work ethics to show up to work when they are scheduled, then we wouldn't need those robots.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1001 days ago)

"It is incorrect to say that Milton Friedman sanctions the Basic Income idea. He was for the negative income tax method instead. There is a difference and people should learn that difference." Sure there's a difference, but the outcome is similar or the same, depending on the details.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

"It is incorrect to say that Milton Friedman sanctions the Basic Income idea. He was for the negative income tax method instead. There is a difference and people should learn that difference." Sure there's a difference, but the outcome is similar or the same, depending on the details.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1001 days ago)

But what do you think of the Basic Income? It means smaller government, so that should please you.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

But what do you think of the Basic Income? It means smaller government, so that should please you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (1001 days ago)

It means larger government. Who is going to regulate it? Government.

You think some of the social programs will go away? Which ones? That was never answered. Welfare is one you would think would go away. So let's imagine that a single woman with 3 children spends all her money on drugs and the kids are still starving. Is society going to allow that or are we going to continue to monitor that and still make sure those children get fed?

Smaller government means that they would not be involved in the negotiations on our pay (no minimum wage). They would not tell us what we need to spend our money on. They wouldn't make regulations that tell us how sturdy our house has to be when we build it. They wouldn't force companies to label all the ingredients on their food products. Are all those government agencies going away with Basic Income? It might because all those workers can just sit at home and do nothing and still get paid but who knows.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

It means larger government. Who is going to regulate it? Government.

You think some of the social programs will go away? Which ones? That was never answered. Welfare is one you would think would go away. So let's imagine that a single woman with 3 children spends all her money on drugs and the kids are still starving. Is society going to allow that or are we going to continue to monitor that and still make sure those children get fed?

Smaller government means that they would not be involved in the negotiations on our pay (no minimum wage). They would not tell us what we need to spend our money on. They wouldn't make regulations that tell us how sturdy our house has to be when we build it. They wouldn't force companies to label all the ingredients on their food products. Are all those government agencies going away with Basic Income? It might because all those workers can just sit at home and do nothing and still get paid but who knows.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1001 days ago)

It means smaller and simpler government, not zero government. In principle, all other welfare would be scrapped including pensions and minimum wage. To make the system work, some basic living expenses (eg. rent and disability benefits) may need to be capped or subsidised.

"So let's imagine that a single woman with 3 children spends all her money on drugs and the kids are still starving. Is society going to allow that or are we going to continue to monitor that and still make sure those children get fed?" That has nothing to do with basic income. That single woman you speak of will abuse her children whether she's on welfare or basic income. How society deals with people like that is a different discussion. As is housing regulation and food labelling.

Would you be comfortable working in a skyscraper in California if there were no building regulations? And surely you want to know what you're eating?

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

It means smaller and simpler government, not zero government. In principle, all other welfare would be scrapped including pensions and minimum wage. To make the system work, some basic living expenses (eg. rent and disability benefits) may need to be capped or subsidised.

"So let's imagine that a single woman with 3 children spends all her money on drugs and the kids are still starving. Is society going to allow that or are we going to continue to monitor that and still make sure those children get fed?" That has nothing to do with basic income. That single woman you speak of will abuse her children whether she's on welfare or basic income. How society deals with people like that is a different discussion. As is housing regulation and food labelling.

Would you be comfortable working in a skyscraper in California if there were no building regulations? And surely you want to know what you're eating?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (1001 days ago)

That single woman gets food stamps today -- not cash. You are limited to what products you can buy with it and drugs is not one of those things you can buy with food stamps. The chances are greater that the children would get fed if they were given food instead of cash.

Like Milton said, you can always trade your box of shredded wheat for drugs but at least it started out as food and it's an extra effort to trade it. You cannot stop all the abuse but the food stamps would be harder to abuse than cash. You would also get less drugs because there is waste in the trade process. In other words, you could buy more drugs with $800 cash than you can with $800 worth of food.

Regarding that skyscraper question, I'm not saying that we should reduce the permit and inspection process. You just stated there would be less government and I was showing you that is not true because all those other services will still be needed.

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

That single woman gets food stamps today -- not cash. You are limited to what products you can buy with it and drugs is not one of those things you can buy with food stamps. The chances are greater that the children would get fed if they were given food instead of cash.

Like Milton said, you can always trade your box of shredded wheat for drugs but at least it started out as food and it's an extra effort to trade it. You cannot stop all the abuse but the food stamps would be harder to abuse than cash. You would also get less drugs because there is waste in the trade process. In other words, you could buy more drugs with $800 cash than you can with $800 worth of food.

Regarding that skyscraper question, I'm not saying that we should reduce the permit and inspection process. You just stated there would be less government and I was showing you that is not true because all those other services will still be needed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: sammcgee (1001 days ago)

wouldnt you rather robots do the work, so you can get out of from behind the desk or what ever repetitive job you slave at every day. you wake up dredding to go to work, wouldnt you rather have tons of free time, to follow your passions. Its a no brainer dude if you need to think about this you need to revaluate your life.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

wouldnt you rather robots do the work, so you can get out of from behind the desk or what ever repetitive job you slave at every day. you wake up dredding to go to work, wouldnt you rather have tons of free time, to follow your passions. Its a no brainer dude if you need to think about this you need to revaluate your life.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (1001 days ago)

If a robot was doing my job and I continued to get paid the same salary that I get today and can then sit at home as if I were retired, of course I would like that better. However, that shouldn't ever happen. My company should not be responsible to continue to pay my salary after I stop working for them.

If 100% of the population stayed home and got paid, who would be the ones paying those salaries? Not corporations because all those people would be home too.

Anyway, the way Basic Income works, everyone will get a payment from the tax dollars collected from other people. Then, if you work, you will earn more money. Even the filthy rich will get their basic income. If you have 300,000 people and give them a basic income of $21,008 (Worked out from the democrats wanting minimum wages of 10.10), then you would need to raise 6.3 Trillion more in taxes each year. Considering the national debt is 18.7 Trillion, that is a lot of money even for a country like the USA.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

If a robot was doing my job and I continued to get paid the same salary that I get today and can then sit at home as if I were retired, of course I would like that better. However, that shouldn't ever happen. My company should not be responsible to continue to pay my salary after I stop working for them.

If 100% of the population stayed home and got paid, who would be the ones paying those salaries? Not corporations because all those people would be home too.

Anyway, the way Basic Income works, everyone will get a payment from the tax dollars collected from other people. Then, if you work, you will earn more money. Even the filthy rich will get their basic income. If you have 300,000 people and give them a basic income of $21,008 (Worked out from the democrats wanting minimum wages of 10.10), then you would need to raise 6.3 Trillion more in taxes each year. Considering the national debt is 18.7 Trillion, that is a lot of money even for a country like the USA.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (1001 days ago)

Correction, that should be 300,000,000 not 300,000

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Correction, that should be 300,000,000 not 300,000

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1001 days ago)

"If a robot was doing my job and I continued to get paid the same salary ..." If a robot was doing your job, you would lose your salary, but still get the basic income. So you can stop stressing. That's one of the benefits of the basic income.

"If 100% of the population stayed home and got paid ..." They wouldn't. People get bored. Those who just want to sit around and do nothing, will be sitting around and doing nothing now. Basic income won't make hard working people lazy, it will give individuals more freedom to choose what they want to do. Surely that's a libertarian ideal?

"If you have 300,000,000 people and give them a basic income of $21,008 ... you would need to raise 6.3 Trillion more in taxes each year." The Finnish model will pay $876 a month ($10,512). That's 3.1 trillion if applied in the US. Also, tax payers would save on current welfare, pensions, food stamps etc. Government would also be much more streamlined with fewer staff and therefore lower running costs.

Also, everybody receives the basic income, so if taxes do rise, it will only affect those where the rise is higher than the "extra" basic income they will be receiving. And people paying that much tax are already filthy rich and wouldn't even notice it.

I can think of some hidden benefits that could arise from the basic income. Let's start a list. I'll kick off:

1. The system would be pretty much fraud free. Apart from multiple identities, there's nothing to defraud.

Can you think of any other hidden benefits?

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

"If a robot was doing my job and I continued to get paid the same salary ..." If a robot was doing your job, you would lose your salary, but still get the basic income. So you can stop stressing. That's one of the benefits of the basic income.

"If 100% of the population stayed home and got paid ..." They wouldn't. People get bored. Those who just want to sit around and do nothing, will be sitting around and doing nothing now. Basic income won't make hard working people lazy, it will give individuals more freedom to choose what they want to do. Surely that's a libertarian ideal?

"If you have 300,000,000 people and give them a basic income of $21,008 ... you would need to raise 6.3 Trillion more in taxes each year." The Finnish model will pay $876 a month ($10,512). That's 3.1 trillion if applied in the US. Also, tax payers would save on current welfare, pensions, food stamps etc. Government would also be much more streamlined with fewer staff and therefore lower running costs.

Also, everybody receives the basic income, so if taxes do rise, it will only affect those where the rise is higher than the "extra" basic income they will be receiving. And people paying that much tax are already filthy rich and wouldn't even notice it.

I can think of some hidden benefits that could arise from the basic income. Let's start a list. I'll kick off:

1. The system would be pretty much fraud free. Apart from multiple identities, there's nothing to defraud.

Can you think of any other hidden benefits?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (1001 days ago)

If a robot does my job and I would lose my salary, then I would still continue to work somewhere. Getting the basic income would not stop me from working because I would like to have more products and services in my life. More money, the better. I would just add that basic income to my current salary.

I might even get a salary increase. If some people wish to go part-time or stop working completely because of the basic income, there will be fewer people competing for my job and my speciality demands a higher salary because few people are qualified to do it. Other non-skilled people would probably get a salary decrease because, from what I understand, the minimum wage laws will be removed.

You think that basic income will save in welfare but $876 a month is not enough to pay for the rent, electricity, and food needs of a woman with three children. Average monthly rent in a City in the USA is $1,890 per month LINK Outside the city, it is still $1,447 per month. A one bedroom apartment that is not suitable for that single woman with three children is $867 to $1,144.

If you think the system will be fraud free, you are underestimating the ability of the people. Fraud is rampant today and it will not stop. They will figure out ways to get more than their fair share, capture money intended for other people, list dependents they do not have, intercept funds, etc.

No, I cannot think of any other hidden benefits. If you have any, you should post them.

How to you think this program is going to be funded? How do we raise an additional 6.3 trillion each year? Tax revenue will go down because fewer people will be working.

Also, why would you take away my pension with the implementation of basic income? That is a reward for working decades for the same company. Today, even with Social Security, I still qualify for pensions. People get different pension amounts depending on what their pay level was when they retired. What it sounds like you're saying is that I can work 50 years of my life and after I'm done working, I will get paid the exact same amount as someone that has never worked a day in their life. That doesn't seem fair to the hard working people.

ReplyVote up (101)down (67)
Original comment

If a robot does my job and I would lose my salary, then I would still continue to work somewhere. Getting the basic income would not stop me from working because I would like to have more products and services in my life. More money, the better. I would just add that basic income to my current salary.

I might even get a salary increase. If some people wish to go part-time or stop working completely because of the basic income, there will be fewer people competing for my job and my speciality demands a higher salary because few people are qualified to do it. Other non-skilled people would probably get a salary decrease because, from what I understand, the minimum wage laws will be removed.

You think that basic income will save in welfare but $876 a month is not enough to pay for the rent, electricity, and food needs of a woman with three children. Average monthly rent in a City in the USA is $1,890 per month LINK Outside the city, it is still $1,447 per month. A one bedroom apartment that is not suitable for that single woman with three children is $867 to $1,144.

If you think the system will be fraud free, you are underestimating the ability of the people. Fraud is rampant today and it will not stop. They will figure out ways to get more than their fair share, capture money intended for other people, list dependents they do not have, intercept funds, etc.

No, I cannot think of any other hidden benefits. If you have any, you should post them.

How to you think this program is going to be funded? How do we raise an additional 6.3 trillion each year? Tax revenue will go down because fewer people will be working.

Also, why would you take away my pension with the implementation of basic income? That is a reward for working decades for the same company. Today, even with Social Security, I still qualify for pensions. People get different pension amounts depending on what their pay level was when they retired. What it sounds like you're saying is that I can work 50 years of my life and after I'm done working, I will get paid the exact same amount as someone that has never worked a day in their life. That doesn't seem fair to the hard working people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1001 days ago)

As usual Walter you only see the supposed "good" benefits of such legislation, the danger lies, as Bastiat and others note, in the unseen consequences, and they are usually bad. As noted, the lack of incentive for one. If those working are taxed too much to support those who are not where's the incentive to keep working? When that breaks down the whole system is lost. Generally speaking I think humans are prone to take the easy road, I don't think this system will work, worse, it could destroy a country and its people.

basic principle of "there is no such thing as a free lunch"

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

As usual Walter you only see the supposed "good" benefits of such legislation, the danger lies, as Bastiat and others note, in the unseen consequences, and they are usually bad. As noted, the lack of incentive for one. If those working are taxed too much to support those who are not where's the incentive to keep working? When that breaks down the whole system is lost. Generally speaking I think humans are prone to take the easy road, I don't think this system will work, worse, it could destroy a country and its people.

basic principle of "there is no such thing as a free lunch"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1001 days ago)

Don't be so negative. Would you sit around all day doing nothing if there was a basic income? Of course you wouldn't. Would you consider working less and spending time with your parents while they are still here, or nurturing your kids, or fulfulling a childhood dream, or taking a punt on a business idea you had ages ago? Maybe.

"... worse, it could destroy a country and its people." I disagree. I think it would enhance the country and its people. In a world where there are more people than jobs, the only people working will be those who choose to, resulting in a more effective work force - a bit like the difference between professional and conscript armies.

"basic principle of "there is no such thing as a free lunch" Basic income is not a free lunch. It is paid for from taxes.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Don't be so negative. Would you sit around all day doing nothing if there was a basic income? Of course you wouldn't. Would you consider working less and spending time with your parents while they are still here, or nurturing your kids, or fulfulling a childhood dream, or taking a punt on a business idea you had ages ago? Maybe.

"... worse, it could destroy a country and its people." I disagree. I think it would enhance the country and its people. In a world where there are more people than jobs, the only people working will be those who choose to, resulting in a more effective work force - a bit like the difference between professional and conscript armies.

"basic principle of "there is no such thing as a free lunch" Basic income is not a free lunch. It is paid for from taxes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1000 days ago)

It's not negativity it's being realistic. The problem with socialists, like yourself, is you see the world through rose coloured glasses and miss the "unseen consequences". Basic income is a free lunch for those who don't work. Not only would I have to pay for my own basic income but others who don't work as well, why would I bother? Just like now, I have enough to live comfortably, as do many of my friends, but due to increasing burdensome regulations, taxes etc. many of us are saying "enough". We could create more jobs but there comes a point where the effort involved is not rewarded enough.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

It's not negativity it's being realistic. The problem with socialists, like yourself, is you see the world through rose coloured glasses and miss the "unseen consequences". Basic income is a free lunch for those who don't work. Not only would I have to pay for my own basic income but others who don't work as well, why would I bother? Just like now, I have enough to live comfortably, as do many of my friends, but due to increasing burdensome regulations, taxes etc. many of us are saying "enough". We could create more jobs but there comes a point where the effort involved is not rewarded enough.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: reality (998 days ago)
Latest comment:

The fact that I need to comment on this video is ridiculous. No one owes anyone anything. The fact that you were born is incredible as well as astonishing. The people that want to take from those who have made their own is terrifying. Just picture your future when you feel comfortable and then someone like you feels like you are living too good and they take from you. When did this ever become socially acceptable. Those who support this idea can take a long walk off a short pier.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

The fact that I need to comment on this video is ridiculous. No one owes anyone anything. The fact that you were born is incredible as well as astonishing. The people that want to take from those who have made their own is terrifying. Just picture your future when you feel comfortable and then someone like you feels like you are living too good and they take from you. When did this ever become socially acceptable. Those who support this idea can take a long walk off a short pier.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Amazon's plan for world domination
Amazon's plan for world domination
Sabotage at Tesla
Sabotage at Tesla
Should we tax the rich more?
Should we tax the rich more?
Brazil's geography problem
Brazil's geography problem
Elon Musk - Tesla is more than just a car company
Elon Musk - Tesla is more than just a car company