You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Universal Basic Income is a fairy-tale. Can someone please explain to me how this idea makes any sense.
This system of free wealth for everyone, that just keeps on flowing month after month, without the need for work, how does this function? Where does the free wealth come from?
A major revenue flow would be by taxing automated systems which replace (lower level) jobs. The current UBI debate is entirely AI/Singularity fuelled.
Taxing automated machinery enough to pay the salary of the worker that was displaced, will remove the financial justification for the new machinery. Since the government does NOT own that business, they do not have the right to make that decision.
Socialism is an economic cancer that is 100% fatal, 100% of the time.
:'(It’s not necessarily socialism in the communist way. Y’all need to learn that there’s 256 shades of grey. Welfare states can work well, but they are very challenging systems to tune. See Finland and Norway, while totally “socialist” - since labeling black or white style is the popular thing to do - they are among the best faring states.
The UK would have had a better fare too if it weren’t so darn obsessed by austerity. After all, the UK is the most socialist country of all (together with Canada) with the NHS.
But yes, the current UBI buzz is entirely knee jerk based because of the next industrial revolution.
UBI is not the solution but at least it will reset the clock to early 60s and totally revive entrepreneurial vibe and opportunities. All tests so far have proven that people do not just sit on their ass when given the opportunity to not need to worry about their monthly dues. So in a sense take from those who kill job opportunities and make disposable income available to those without jobs.
The problem is thinking like ‘it’s a cancer’ and that most governments are focused not on investing but on cuts. That breaks the income/tax circle.
I know that the government doesn’t own the machinery but the companies can sod off to the countries where they will not be taxed if they do not want to be part of the system. And you will notice, that worldwide, incentives for companies are always because of what they can contribute to the economy... which is always measured first in form of jobs created.
So if they want to automate that’s fine... but there’s a cost to it (and honestly, I’m not a fan of work for life or anything like that... I’ve not benefited any dime of support for a quarter of a decade and that in’t bound to change as a digital nomad). We have a problem, it’s called population size and we all know that “when the people have nothing to lose anymore they lose it”. So we need to adapt the system to work for everyone.
If that’s a cancer... then I will gladly be terminal.
But the real cancer is greed though. Systems which exponential favor the top and lobbying. If we could just get rid from all tax deductions above xx... there would be way less issues. Have a look into how much tax $tarfck$ and amazon pay everywhere.
We will have to agree to disagree. I have not seen anyone on the government dole make a job for anyone, discounting drug sales!
I watched a very good woman, mortgage her house, and build a company that employed 26 people. You are telling me she did not deserve the profit, when she took all the risks?
The big corporations do NOT make up a decent source for jobs. Here in the US 95% of all employment comes from small businesses. These are the ones most easily destroyed by government intrusion.
One other thing most people do NOT understand, if you add 10% to a corporation tax rate, their prices will go up by 12 to 14%. Corporations do NOT pay any taxes, EVER! The end user pays the Entire tax load when they consume the product. I have sat in on these meetings, so I can tell you that is accurate, from direct experience.
A little bit of socialism is like a little bit pregnant; it all ends up the same way, it is only a difference of the time it takes to arrive at the destination. There is a difference between healthy and hanging in. The Countries you list that are socialists will continue low level growth at best, but they will never thrive. With no personal reward, Why work hard? Coast and collect, but no matter how big the system, it must fail eventually, because it does not make any excess.
It is simple math, spend more than you make, and you go broke. Our biggest problem today is a near fatal dose of socialism.
Socialism has but one goal, and the communists understood this :
~ Nikita Khrushchev
Be Blessed!
:)At least she had a house to mortgage.
That is all.
As for that quote, I’m sorry. Socialism is not communism. Communism is socialism but as a socialist I don’t believe believe in extremes and black or white.
But if that’s the opponent... then there’s indeed is not a possible discussion. Even not an agreement to disagree.
As for taxes... yes, that’s how market operate. And that is totally fine. It’s the vicious circle which oils the machine. Take the taxes away and we only get closed “my corner” spots. At which point... sorry for your belief but the earth is killing itself, well mostly it’s population, and that comes mostly from people who discount the option to work together that system.
Feel free to bash socialism, here’s hoping you will have enough to pay for a spot on whichever planet because the capitalist only method will not save us. Nor will it lead to a livable plant.
And, yes... calling it the “dole” is helpful in removing the stigma and turning it into empowering. That’s why UBI aims to be universal. No matter how much one has. So the stigma is removed for those who suffer it.
Enjoy your time left here. :)
Actually, I intend to enjoy my time left here. I actually am John Gault. There is nothing I can not build, with my own hands. I have a functioning generator that runs on magnetic fuel to power the homestead I am building.
When the Socialist spending here stops the economy, and the entire World falls into the socialist abyss. I will be comfortable, herbally medicated, and well fed, by my own hand.
Those too lazy to work, or too incompetent, that rely on the government, will be in real trouble.
Our difference is primarily that I feel those who work, should benefit from that work. Those who can work, but refuse, should get very hungry, to give them something to think about. Those who can not work should be taken care of.
Taking from one person that works, to give to another that refuses to work, is not taxes, it is theft.
Taxes are for schools, roads, police, and to care for the indigent.
I am not bashing Socialism, I am an Engineer, and I am saying that the numbers do not add up. Any system, that has more going out than coming in, is bankrupt. The Numbers show disaster, it just takes longer for a larger system to fail!
Show me any Socialists country that is a century old, and making a profit. One that is innovating and pushing Word class technology, and I will become interested.
Because a country that is a leader, and a century old, is never Socialists based.
The most successful Socialists country was Germany in the 1930s...at least they were World class innovators!
:)Yes, regarding the question of advanced technology taking everyone's jobs, I didn't mention this in my blog as I wanted to keep it short.
Whether or not this future comes is open to debate. But it is certain that we do not live in that world today, there is still a great need for human labour currently. Yet I hear some suggestions that UBI should be implemented soon, in the next few years. We are still far from a world where machines look after our every need.
It is worth noting that previous tech advances have created more jobs than they destroy, higher level jobs that are more satisfying to people are created, lower level drudgery is taken over by machines. There has been many panics in the past about mass joblessness that would arise from technology, but it has never happened. This time may be different, or it may not be, but we should acknowledge previous concerns have always been false alarms so far.
Also, we must have an understanding of basic economics here. Taxing the machines makes no sense, as in practice it would amount to another sales tax. The companies owning the machines would have to pass on their increased costs for paying the tax to their customers, ultimately that is me and you.
For example, if a self driving taxi were taxed to pay for UBI, the cost of that tax bill would be passed on to the customers of the taxi. The ultra cheap transportation we could all enjoy would be denied. We would have expensive taxis fares, in order that we can raise the money to pay for free money for all. Again, I point to the circularity of this, why make the world more expensive to fund UBI?
Great answer.
This is how the cycle works (and should work). The main thing here is that disposable income can be available. Without that the companies have nobody to sell to - or only a very small group which will gradually erode due to the exponential curve it creates.
Remember that when cities create incentives to house factories, it’s all about the jobs created. Because income/wages are needed for everything else to thrive. That is the reason why taxing the machine units is being raised... not as a communist folly, no, but as an integral part of the cycle of markets.
Now, despite my defense here, don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe UBI is the solution. Not if as the de facto outcome as knee jerk. A program like UBI only works is the understanding of the program is high. Yes, there will always be bottom feeders who don’t do anything, but from the other end humans are humans and the greed gene is a real one thus the capitalist cycle will only be kickstarted again. Not having to worry about monthly dues will liberate mindsets and actually stimulate (few holistic studies have all shown that a majority of participants actually get their ass off the ground).
Yet...
Economics basic math disagrees about your self-driving cab argument. Key is to tax in the sense that the math doesn’t become more expensive for the company, if the automation is taxed higher... it won’t happen and no low-level jobs will be lost. As such there will not be an increase in cost for the customer.
And thus... the world wouldn’t be more expensive. That’s the circularoity of it. Companies won’t revolutionize if it costs them more. That’s not how their fiduciary duties work either. ¯_(ツ)_/¯