I have no doubt that it'll be implemented within the next 50 years for western countries. This will be due to so many jobs being replaced by machines, that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around.
I believe it's VERY important that people who work dont get their basic income reduced 1:1 for the money they earn. It should be something like $0.25 basic income reduction for every $1 you earn. This encourages people to actually work (unlike unemployment benefits at the moment - in which people can either work a shitty job, or do nothing, and get the same amount).
Obviously a lot of people will work, as humans are greedy fucks who always want more.
I mostly really sorry for all the NEETs today, who have JUST missed out on this. I can't imagine how stress free life will become when you know you'll always be okay, and have an income, no matter what.
>$0.25 basic income reduction for every $1 you earn
That's dumb, you're disincentivising work. Here's how you do Basic Income:
>All welfare is now cancelled >Every citizen that permanently lives in the nation over 18 years of age gets a monthly cheque equivalent to $20K annually, indexed to inflation >Under 18's get a reduced amount (goes to the parents) >Close tax loopholes, increase tax rate on high earners (tax system is unchanged; the 20K is taxed as ordinary income, but the first 20K of earnings in a year faces a 0% rate. Obviously, higher earners pay way more than 20K in tax/year) >beyond this the competitive market works as normal >people who don't want to live on 20K/year have jobs >people who don't mind living on 20K/year still play a vital role in creating demand for business goods and services
My solution isn't really disincentivising work. If basic income is 20k and i earn 20k, it would only reduce the basic income by 5k, so i'd get 35k.
You're suggesting people get 20k regardless of income from work?
Other than that, most of your points are correct.
The US tried that with unemployment benefits diminishing with earned income. It didn't work and they instead introduced the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The effect is more psychological than financial.
I don't think that's applicable here. As the sample of people that was 'tried' on - was people who were unemployed.
These people are the kinds of people who simply do not want to work. These would be the people who take the 20k and are happy with it.
This really says nothing about the other 95%+ of the population.
Think about it this way (I'll make the reduction .5:1 to make the math easier):
So, you get the 20K and then there's this job you can take that pays $20/hour. Under your system, the effective wage would be $10/hour for the first 2000 hours of the year, and then $20/hour for every extra hour.
Your system greatly disincentivises entry into the labour market because people are generally loss averse, and will focus more on the loss of guaranteed income than the potential gain that could come from searching for a job. The psychological loss will dissuade many from even searching for a job, even when they might have otherwise worked (and possibly contributed enough tax to offset the savings of docking the basic income).
Obviously the numbers I used are ridiculous because 40hours*50 weeks = 2000, but I think you get what I'm saying.
I think it's just about finding a balance.
Of course 0.5:1 is quite a big disincentive. 0.25 is pretty low.
I think 0.1:1 would even be fine. The main point is that super wealthy people would not receive the benefit.
Maybe the best solution would be to have it like tax brackets.
First 10000 you earn does not effect your basic income.
Next 10000 reduces basic at 0.2:1
Next 10000 reduces at 0.4:1
Next 10000 reduces at 0.6:1
and so on.
You mean like... a progressive taxation system? Now you're just approaching what I mentioned in the first place.
Wouldn't a guaranteed income result in generally higher prices? Like landlords whom turn up the rent because they know you just got a fat raise
Only naive morons think this shit will ever happen. It's mostly unemployed dweebs on /r/futurology thinking that if they talk about it enough, itll actually happen.
>if we hand people free money it'll motivate them to work
I think a welfare state is more cost effective, more politically viable and over the better option. I don't understand why UBI is pushed forth so much.
Yes, exactly. It would cause a sudden spike to inflation and the cost of living would readjust itself to a situation where people are no better off in real terms.
If there was a guaranteed income of say 20k you can bet the average NEETs yearly combined rent, utilities, gas and food would suddenly cost close to 20k. The landlords and providers of services/goods aren't stupid, if they know that there's all this extra cash being pumped into the economy they'll damn well try to get a slice of it. Worse still, this increased cost of living would impact everybody - even non NEETs. Congratulations, your 25k a year job just got devalued to 5k in real terms. Why bother working if that's the case? It would increase the rich-poor divide.
That is not at all accurate.
It entirely depends on whether it's a buyer's or a seller's market and how much competition there is in said market.
Rent would go up.
Utilities probably too.
But inflation wouldn't completely counter the raise. People would still come out ahead.
And no it definitely won't increase wealth or income inequality. That's just nonsensical.
Please don't use bogus economics on Veeky Forums. Keep that shit on /pol/.
But if 20k becomes the new 0k, someone who gets 25k will still get 45k but effectively still just 25k... if that makes sense. And since everyone that would otherwise have zero income will have atleast housing, electricity and bread? I'm not biased just genuinely curious
I think everyone should get $0. If you want more, work. If you can't work, die.
I like the sound of this system. The numbers work, and even the average person can easily understand it!
The sad thing is that the rich and corporations already have unconditional income on a massive scale from the government but they've still managed to convince the general public that it's impossible to provide basic subsistence to those who need it.
Basic income won't work because people can't into saving or being frugal. The majority of people would use it to immediately buy new iPhone or TV and then demand more money for dem projets.
Maybe it could work if people get 10 bucks a day every day but large amounts would be squandered.
>the rich get money from the governments What? Also where in the west are people left to starve?
This, means testing is there for a reason, unless were going to let idiots die in the street that pissed away this month's cheque. The basic income shit also plays right into the hand of oligarchs own everything -> full entitlement state. If you think that wouldnt turn into a dystopia you are badly mistaken. Here's your bread ration for the day. Even the natives understood sustainability and not producing more mouths than you can feed
Ultimately welfare should be given out through a basic income system, right now there are a retarded amount of checks and balances to the point where people who actually need welfare can't get it. All of these checks and balances also cost the taxpayer money to administer. So not only are you going to be able to provide more assistance to the poor, you will have smaller government too.
>the inflation meme The prices of inelastic goods will not go up.
Progressive groups are pushing towards socialized housing as a form of welfare, stable housing is very important for moving up in the world. Not to mention that it is a huge cost in any household, it's a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere in the budget, and total cost of ownership is less for organizations that own multiple properties.
I don't think it'll happen. It's like a financial nuclear bomb. Plus, getting rid of existing programs will be very tough, many federal employees entrenched there will fight you
essentially the current system. GREAT!
It's the current year I mean come on!
You are ok. OP is kind of an fag.
It's not really an awful idea but I fucking hate the people who pretentiously parade it around like it's the only objectively correct thing to do. It's like "support basic income or you're literally Hitler". Like your pic OP. What you don't agree with basic income? Then you're a backwards idiot! Fuck that noise.
It's an ok idea, maybe. I think rumors of mass unemployment from automation are very overhyped. Besides, there are a lot of benefits from working. It's good to work, we shouldn't create a culture that encourages people not to.
i think it would be nice sentiment at one hand that would be pretty useful for people to really find their way in life or have a break, and only fuel inflation in practice and it would be a form of universal welfare.
what basic income would do is eliminate/replace state pension and unemployment but... if you get $20k for free than an other $20k will worth a lot less to you. if you don't even get an other 20k working then you will definitely not work. if you have an other 20k for working or more then basically we just had hyperinflation. as the currency supply skyrocketed compared to all the assets and performance.
This wouldn't work because of an aging population who can't work (due to age and medical reasons) and having millions of sacks of shit (nig nogs, trailer trash, etc) who won't work out of laziness.
>increase tax rate on high earners And there you have it folks, every time without fail. >Hard working successful people have too much money! Let's take the money they earned and redistribute it to the lazy and unmotivated, that will surely motivate them to begin contributing to society! Fuck off and grow up. A universal basic income would absolutely destroy every Western country unless it was also coupled with mandatory labour programs after so many years of unemployment and immigration was entirely restricted. Otherwise enjoy every third world shitskin on the planet doing everything in their power to sneak in and plant roots. It'll be fucking pandemonium.
i think the shitskins are doing this anyways user
Exactly. Now multiply that incentive to immigrate exponentially and ask yourself what the result will be.
i'm fairly sure that only citizens would get the base income. now someone have to work instead of them right? it could in theory work out all right. it's just these shitskins are so backwards rapey and violent.
I'm 100% against it. I don't think people have a right to a comfortable life. You aren't entitled to shit just because some skank and her he bitch husband pumped out a baby too worthless to get a job.
This perfect fantasy world fantasy you lot live in is funny though.
>You aren't entitled to shit hello frank underwood
>if this is implemented, I would probably still go to work to not be fucking bored and to justify my existence
Am I the only one?
Hello unemployed Neet
You realize that the vast majority of people would simply lose their minds if they had nothing productive to do all day? Not to mention that being a loser that does nothing with their life makes you a social outcast.
It's not that poors don't want to work, for the most part they don't have a fair shot at success.
And immigrants don't get benefits right away, you should know better. They have to integrate into society like the rest of us or they get shipped back and be useful in order to get here in the first place.
You need to stop focusing on the exceptions to the rules, and think about the majority of people who would benefit, making society better as a whole.
I want you guys to look at Native American / First Nation / Aboriginal reservations.
I want you to see what happens when you remove people from participating the economy. When you disincentive self improvement. When you essentially guarantee their eternal well being and turn money into a way to buy drugs and alcohol.
Maybe this is the Protestant in me but people NEED work. They need something to do with their lives. Sitting idle and waiting for a welfare check is emotionally and mentally destructive.
This will be the biggest question of our generation. It's not simply about if we can afford it financially. This is the first time we are considering removing the eternal peasant underclass from the global economy and leaving them to rot. This isn't good for ANYONE.
wrong i'm in the top 2% employed and trying to scrape into the top 1% investing on the side and all. it would be nice to have a security net you can count on i think i could take more risks chase my dreams more aggressively. invest freely into things i see enticing. i could start over anytime wouldn't be put to the street that's nice you know. i would like that.
and i think it's all about human dignity. begging welfare and charity is demeaning and humiliating. people should be able to live a decent life even if they are unemployable. doesn't mean they can't do anything. online activism blogging organizing stuff pursuing their interests these things could produce value to society even if nobody would give money for them. that's the thing with capitalism: in practice it's not about providing value it's about profit. providing value is just how you get profit if you can't otherwise.
We also destroyed their lifestyle and forced them to integrate into ours in order to survive.
>What's everyone's thoughts on basic income?
Entirely possible and desirable both economically (human, social capital increase hugely and exponentially) and politically (Higher equality of opportunity, more meritocracy as more opportunity for the best, even in bad places, can succeed from merit.
To not create huge budget deficits though you'd probably have to clamp down on tax avoidence, evasion and private subsidies (w/e good reason) to fund it at the start until the consumer demand aspect raises the economy itself from increased consumer spending.
For stability it may be an idea to increase it gradually if it were introduced or else high demand may risk inflation.
On your picture, unconditional basic income is a left-right issue. The left wish for greater equality of social, political and economic opportunities whilst the right wish for greater inequality which I find laughable (or purely self-interest ofc) when you see the data and how much more equal the 70s were and how successful the results were.
Stop with the noble savagery. Participation in economics and politics is not the White Man's Burden. I would hope that had we not 'destroyed' them that they wouldn't be roaming the Plains hunting buffalo and wearing loincloths in 2016.
We want the simple, concise, and racist observation that had we not touched their perfect little savage lives, they would be so much happier, much like how we perceive zoo animals removed from the jungles.
These are human beings. At one point, your ancestors hunted animals, regardless of your skin color or ethnic origin. It does not mean you are forever cursed to sadness unless you return to the tribal hut.
The reservation money has only served to remove these people from the societies they are located within. They are non-participants, by and large. And I don't think that bothers those in positions of political and economic power.
Nigger please. There is plenty of space for a terrible stone age lifestyle, it's just a really awful way of life.
i think everyone should get the basic income.
whether youre a billionaire or a tramp in the street, just a flat rate of 15k/yr or so just to make sure that people can afford the bare necessities. after theyve been afforded those, they can either waste away, or be motivated to achieve more than the bare minimum.
itll make it a lot better for innovation imho as well. imagine being an inventor or entrepreneur that doesnt have to have to take some 3 month manual labor gig just to keep the lights on in between projects. itll be sweet.
the whole point of basic income is so people can afford the bare necessities, it isnt supposed to provide more than the minimum, food, shelter, utilities.
also, no it wouldnt. because youd still make 25k/yr at your job, plus 20k/yr from basic income = 45k/yr. not 5k.
if youre 20k went to paying living expensives, you still have 25k to save/spend for that year..
I was just busting your balls m8 because the frank underwood comment made me laugh.
> many federal employees entrenched there will fight you
so? theyll be doing the exact same thing if they were given basic income as they were at work.
sitting on their ass collecting a paycheck. federal employees are cancer
it's friggen GAY if you ask me
It just simply wasn't their choice to give it all up, and they are rightfully pissed off that their society was destroyed without their consent. All of the stuff in the world can't buy your dignity back. It's the same thing with ex-slaves and other victims of government-perpetrated violence.
All we can hope to do is provide them the ability to be successful in our society. If they choose to waste it all away, that's their decision, but hopefully their children or their children's children get their act together some day. We owe it to them for our crimes as a society.
This is also a complete derail and has nothing to do with basic income because the vast majority of the population hasn't been a victim of violence on a systematic scale, which was what I was trying to get at in the first place.
Negative income tax is more pragmatic
Why does basic income have to be a livable income on the first place? Otherwise it's a really good idea
A smarter idea would be for the gov't to incentivize employment, aka give people office jobs and shit
Basic income may indeed be needed when automation takes over all jobs. It's not a question of If anymore, but When
It would keep the proles in line
>I can't imagine how stress free life will become when you know you'll always be okay, and have an income, no matter what
Social Security is already a basic income scheme, just for old people and retards/disabled only
>A smarter idea would be for the gov't to incentivize employment, aka give people office jobs and shit You mean create busywork? I'd rather just give people money so that they have the opportunity to do something actually productive with their time.
the argument against basic income in this thread boils down to moral hazard, aka giving people money will make them lazy
I don't agree. A drunk will be a drunk whether he is given money by the gov't or not. If not he'll steal, beg, or work a shit job
To combat this, a busywork job would be seen as less of a moral hazard
by making people literal slaves? if the drunk wants to contribute his money to more booze, and make the local liquor store money, he can go ahead.
just the the innovator that is working on his project for 5 years and lives off of that 20k/yr, lets just give them some busy work so we can feel better about ourselves knowing we arent handing some bums money.
why do you care what people do with their time? let it be automated and give the people their time, who knows they may come up with some cool shit that could surprise you. not to mention less violent crimes, which is nice.
huge penalties for violent crimes, no penalties for non violent crimes, and basic income so everyone can afford the minimum needed to live. let them decide to make more or not, im sure people will still want to make more.
as for the ones who dont, its not like theyll be hoarding that money, itll go right to the people who wouldve taken it anyways. atleast this time those people had a bed and some food.
Absolutely horrible. No one is entitled to anything, especially an income without working. Work or die. That's life. It's perfect and fair. Fuck these limp wristed commies destroying this country
>offering someone a govt job is making them slaves
dude where did you make that conclusion?
>No one is entitled to anything by that logic I should be able to kill you with no repercussions
yeah, no one is entitled to it.
however when we can afford to do it, easily, theres no reason not to. youre literally just letting everyone get cucked, when theres no reason to be cucked. we should care for our fellow beings and not be edge lords about everything. have a bit of decency and realize how much better people would be if they didnt have to stress and cry and beg just to keep their lights on for their kids. sure, maybe they shouldnt have had kids, but its done. we have the resources to help. and with more and more of our lives becoming automated, it only makes sense that we continue to automate other portions of our life, such as a basic income.
unless youre calling for a massive depopulation campaign to be carried out, thats really what its coming to.
not enough jobs for people means you either have to provide a basic income, or watch them die. not everyone can make it to the top of the ladder to be competitive and make it.
so which is it? let a huge portion of the population slowly die and start to riot and basically a dystopian world forms to keep the peasants in line/kill them and the upper class shielded from having to deal with it. or, give them a basic income and deal with the fact that a few of them are going to just smoke pot and get drunk all day, but know that everyone is atleast free to do what they want with their time since again most things are automated at this time.
>let a huge portion of the population slowly die and start to riot and basically a dystopian world forms to keep the peasants in line/kill them and the upper class shielded from having to deal with it
I am absolutely okay with this
>give them a basic income and deal with the fact that a few of them are going to just smoke pot and get drunk all day, but know that everyone is atleast free to do what they want with their time since again most things are automated at this time
I'd rather die than live in a society like this. I nauseous reading this. People should work to get the things they want, it shouldn't be handed to them. Hard work builds better people and better societies. There will always be winners and losers, you just have to make sure you're a winner. And if you're not, yes, you can absolutely fuck off and die. Or live in the ghetto or whatever it is poor people do.
by you saying they had to have some busy type of job to be eligible for basic income.
just make it universal.
i can feel the teenage angst from here.
grow up user, thats not how you treat people. the strong have an obligation to protect those who cannot protect or help themselves. hopefully one day you understand this, and if not i feel truly sorry for you.
The only teenage angst is that coming from you. Successful people have no obligation to people who have failed in life.
You sound like some edgy 20-something college student who admires Marx. It is you that needs to grow up.
we shouldve be striving towards an almost fully automated society, to leave the people free to participate in arts, sciences, engineering, and exploration. we're a rich enough society that this should be achievable in a few generations at most. i dont see why everyone is so adverse towards this change. imagine having food, power, travel, all essentially automated. it would skyrocket our potential to move forward as human beings. more time and resources spent on space/sea exploration, inventing new technologies all day. because no one has to worry about being able just to fucking stay alive.
23 year old small business owner actually.
yes, successful people have no inherent responsibility. however if you have any conscience at all you can see how ridiculous it is that youd rather have a mass extermination in lieu of well, just letting them live?
you sound like a sociopath.
>i dont see why everyone is so adverse towards this change
Because it's not fucking natural and would destroy society. Stop with this philosophy bullshit. You're on the wrong board. You have no understanding of basic economics or finance
>small business owner
Running a lemonade stand doesn't count kiddo. Let me know when you've hit 30.
You sound like a Bernie supporter
>implying having daily tasks and functions automated is natural.
instead of telling me how wrong i am, how about you contribute some substance to the topic? all youre doing is putting up a mirror to my posts saying "NO YOU ARE!" and telling me how wrong i am, while not point out anything specific. you arent even contributing any ideas or anything of use to this discussion.
quit shit posting or have an actual discussion with me.
This would be ideal, though since we're not quite there yet in terms of tax income negative income tax rate would be better.
you sound like a 17 year old living in his moms upper class basement.
i can throw insults too. just like you can keep evading the fact that you arent contributing ass to this discussion.
The problem with this kind of system is that you need to drastically increase immigration requirements.
It would have to be something to the point where you can only receive benefits if your parents are natural born citizens and you are a natural born citizen, or else there would be a horde of third worlders trying to come here to live like NEET kings.
Basically it won't happen w/o a national socialist country or a World government and in the next 50-100 years.
>Successful people have no obligation to people who have failed in life.
le taxation is theft le social security and medicaid should be destroyed le obamacare is bad
*tips don't tread on me hat*
>Because it's not fucking natural *appeal to nature*
>you can only receive benefits if your parents are natural born citizens and you are a natural born citizen
pretty much how Japan handles it
>Please don't use bogus economics on Veeky Forums. Keep that shit on /pol/.
This was a good post until this line.
>keep your disagreements with naive masturbatory communist fantasies on /pol/ shitlord
LOL, no. Think bigger. The rank-and-file people won't make these decisions. The higher up decision makers about social programs have a lot to lose, since they are highly paid.
Basically, if you were an administrator of a big social program would you be for laying yourself off and taking a paycut from 200k to 20k? Not a chance.
no, but they dont have to. whoever they receive their funding from for that program would simply stop sending it money. theyd be forced to deal with it. thats what happens when you have a job, someone higher up can call down and say "yeah, were cutting your department, sorry, heres your severance and good luck."
itd go the exact same way it would as if a corporation was shutting down one of its departments.
Can't wait for it to be implemented desu. The sooner the better
>I have no doubt that it'll be implemented within the next 50 years for western countries.
It is implemented in the majority of them. Once you introduced social welfare payments, you automatically introduce a de-factor minimum below which wages cannot be sustained for anything but temporary/exceptional circumstances. I am not actually against social welfare btw.
So this entire "basic income" debate is complete bullshit from the start. Does your country have social Welfare? If yes, you already have "basic income". If no, then why are you wasting time on a "basic income" debate instead of debating social welfare?
This is all mostly pointless anyway. Our economic system is a dysfunctional shambles and desperate measures like basic income or negative rates are band-aids on cancer. We need a crash, freefall, until we hit rock bottom. It's the only way to clean out these Augean stables.
The system has to fail.
>If no, then why are you wasting time on a "basic income" debate instead of debating social welfare?
the implication is that all social welfare systems would be replaced by basic income
my country is planning 550e basic income for neets and im going to inherit an apartment so gonna do just fine
wagies on respiratory support
>3 work hard and follow ur heart and chase and do your passions everything will be ok and work out in the end Go out and do it Veeky Forumsnessman
>wagies on respiratory support Made me kek. I'm stealing that one.
what happens if a person spends their basic income before the next year? do they die?
i have a hard time believing welfare would be removed, think of the chilluns
I don't believe this will happen. A machine that can perform the kind of tasks any retard human can do simply cannot be produced for cheaper than the cost of humans. It is all very well developing the concept of a human-replacing machine, but to actually get it mass-produced affordably to replace humans? Won't happen. The "NEETs" of tomorrow will be drafted soldiers fighting resource wars, not sitting around consuming these depleting resources while offering no value.
Why do you think Europe is so happy to import millions of "refugees"? It is because of declining birth rates and the need for more bodies to do monkey work. Trust me, if Eurotrash governments thought they could replace humans with machines they would not be allowing this massive immigration.
It won't and can't be, at least in the US
This is one of the many lies that basic income is based on.
The US has more illegals than the entire population of Scandinavia
We also have no real boarder security, so BI becomes a massive money pit really fast.
I refuse to believe anyone that says these loopholes would be fixed under BI. It's a pipe dream
Not to mention the political aspects of it. The US Democratic party is dependent and panders to on voters on welfare.
A basic income would mean a welfare cut to a lot of generational welfare queens and it would allow them to vote more on their beliefs than just for welfare, such as Hispanic Catholics that holds conservative views, but vote Dem because they believe it's best for their welfare. Blacks also hold very conservative views, but vote opposite
Basic income could potentially ruin an entire US party.
You're more likely to see a Republican following through on it than a Democrat
Basic income can only work in a homogeneous society with closed borders
How is an undocumented illegal immigrant going to get a check from the government?
>close tax loopholes It's funny, I've never met a person who used this phrase and could define what they meant by "tax loopholes"
Same way they use WIC and SNAP now
The middle class should be able to opt out of Social Security though. Also the ACA (Obamacare)is a good concept, and I get that the President is trying to provide the foundation for universal heathcare, but forcing people to buy insurance is a bit much
>machines you mean immigrants? you FUCKING RETARD
>basic income how old are you? if the government was concerned with your ability to purchase certain goods or services, they would just regulate the prices down so that they would be more affordable. handing out cash to spend across the board is an extra step that sounds like you got it out of a sci fi novel for teens. what would literally any government do with that kind of responsibility?
>stress free life 20% of people were considered happy in the 50s. 20% are considered happy now. in 50 years, 20% will be considered happy. stress is a human quality, not a financial situation.
>opt out of Social Security
Why would the parasite allow the host to choose not to let themselves be sucked dry?
If you are currently under 40 years old, SS will have such a negative ROI that you would need to live to be ~120 years old for it to break even.
It's even higher if you assume they are going to keep raising the minimum age to as high as 70.
Not even close to the current system.
I agree, you work or you die. Pick one.
If we somehow manage to fill more needs than our human hands can fill. If.