Universal Basic Income

What are the pros and cons of implementing a system of universal basic income in a wealthy economy?

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.co.uk/news/business/news/universal-basic-income-finland-useless-says-trade-union-a7571966.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

who's going to pay for it? taxpayers?

redistribution of wealth kills entrepreneurial incentive, the economy would decline

Pros:
>replaces welfare, foodstamps, etc. with an expanded social security-esque program that trusts people to make their own decisions about how to spend money
>since it's unconditional, it doesn't disincentivize working
>can be combined with a FairTax-esque system to create a progressive consumption tax
>would cut down enormously on government bureaucracy for welfare etc.

Cons:
>obscenely expensive
>lots of poor people are actually too dumb to make their own financial decisions
>anyone with a net worth over $1,000,000 doesn't need it but we have to give it to them anyway (because it's unconditional)
>we'd probably have to give it to illegal immigrants too
>really just unbelievably expensive
>seriously
>it would cost more than social security and all welfare combined

Top 10% already pay for virtually everything. What will be enough for you fucking people?

People would get lazy and stop working so an easy solution to that is to implement it in cycles such as 3 years with UBI and 5 years without it

I can think of no pros. If you can't support yourself and no one wants to support you, buh bye.

Pros

>utopia

Cons

>its pure fantasy

The fallacy of socialism is that it thinks it can solve inequality, as if somehow it can stop politicians from being corrupt or Jamal from spending his entire check on spinning rims and Jordans

The American education system is a perfect example of trying to solve a cultural problem with increased government spending.

Until proven otherwise, you're not going to be able to implement UBI in the US and eliminate other forms of entitlements or allowing it to be abused by illegals.

already tried
doesn't work: independent.co.uk/news/business/news/universal-basic-income-finland-useless-says-trade-union-a7571966.html
and you cant blame it on black people/welfare queens.

It's probably a key ingredient for the creatively based economy to finally boom.

>creatively based economy
that's called capitalism

commie here...

>People would get lazy and stop working
this. sadly, people need motivation to work, and most people don't even care about their jobs.
IMO, this is a social problem: motivation comes from having objectives in your life, be them buying stuff, getting pussy, raising your children, helping humanity, etc. if you are not motivated, or if you don't feel like you can achieve your objectives (for whatever reason: insecurty, a shitty social environment, etc), that generates conflict, and you end up doing alcohol/drugs, partying a lot, or simply wasting time.

we'd need a way to motivate people, to make it VERY clear that they NEED to work and to contribute to society/their families/whatever

IMO, it would be way better if we simply guaranteed everyone their basic needs: food, health, a roof where to live relatively well. clearly, this wouldn't solve ALL their problems, but at least people would be sure they wouldn't die of some curable illness. we also have to assure productive people a good life, and that their efforts won't be wasted

these are complex problems, and you have to be very naive to think you can solve them simply by giving money to people. these problems are solved by the society as a whole, through social pressure on individuals (at least)

>inb4 all commies want free shit
>inb4 "state communism"
go read a book

We want Jamal buying rims to stimulate the robo rim economy.

>go read a book

Why do psuedointellecuals always fall back on this line as a defensive mechanism for their own intellectual insecurity?

>telling people to stop being ignorant about basic definitions is the same as "defensive mechanism for their own intellectual insecurity" by psuedointellecuals
whatever, m8

They can't help it. If their aguement can't be superior then they need to feel that way.

Pros:
>Free money

Cons:
>Who pays for this shit?

>who's going to pay for it?
Ban fractional reserve banking and instead use controlled currency expansion to fund the federal government. Wow, that was hard.

>Muh kills entrepreneurial incentive

They'll still make more if they earn more.

How about this:
UBI isn't monetary -- instead, it's goods and services that are provided to citizens of syndicates. States are replaced by syndicates or opt-in communities that collectively own and manage robots and automated labor. Food, water, shelter, internet, shelter, and a firearm are provided to all members of a syndicate. Capitalism and the free market still exist. UBI is only there to insure a basic standard of living.

It's better than the current welfare system since there are no cliffs with UBI. However it is far from the most optimal anti-poverty policy. EITC is both more efficient and more fair.

Who knew monetary policy could be so easy!

Ahh yes, the Zimbabwe strategy. A very underrated monetary policy.

>implying that private entities aren't already doing this for their own benefit
>implying that we couldn't harness that in order to eliminate taxes altogether
Africa is just retarded

this could work but it smells like communism

It sounds like post-scarcity socialism to me.
And to be fair, socialism is the only sane system in a post-scarcity society.
Assuming such a thing ever exists, of course.

This,
I would support this, except I wouldn't because it would cost more than ss and welfare combined and I would never use it and I know already people who live by doing nearly no work and are fine in this country anyway

But I like the premise better

>no internet though my dude, you're just encouraging the NEETs

Been trying to avoid socialism as the term usually implies a state

Taxes would contribute to the proposed UBI very minimally.
Why would NEETs be a problem? I have a pretty limited understanding of economy; I genuinely want to know.

Free rider problem.

I think it would be up to the local syndicates to decide how to handle this. If most goods are generated through automation there's less of a need for a workforce and taxation.

I don't mind the idea of boosting the purchasing power of consumers, so as to stimulate the economy. But it would be extremely expensive, so much so that we would have to abolish all other forms of welfare in order to sustain it. And even then there are ethical concerns about the systematic cultivation of the worst classes of society. People hate to hear this, but there are some people who deserve to be poor. The economy should be used to make the nation and its people stronger, and not to sustain a worthless class, be it international finance, or incompetence druggies.

Class Cooperation > Class Warfare

>>since it's unconditional, it doesn't disincentivize working

>really just unbelievably expensive
>seriously
>it would cost more than social security and all welfare combined
This. People who are in favor of UBI don't seem to realize how expensive it would be. Even if you set UBI at only $5000 per year per person, it would cost 1.5 trillion dollars. That's almost three times the US military budget.

Also NEETs are generally just fags, I mean no internet is a bit too much disincentive for our day and age, but post scarcity, hell go crazy

How can anyone honestly be worried about people not being incentivized to work when our primary problems right now are job shortages and unemployment? UBI would just take the stress off of the labor markets and make it easier to get a job if you really want one, while also raising wages through more competition for workers. Even a small UBI would raise wages enough to eliminate the need for larger entitlement spending.

All landlords would collectively increase their rents thus you would effectively create an economy that transfers money to them.

UBI tards argue that since you're not printing any new money there should be no inflation but it's actually the easy access to funds that causes price spikes in certain sectors.

Just look at fucking higher education market in US.

no one would vote this in without cleaning up immigrants/refugees from the country first, and preventing any more from seeping in.

Im surprised no one has mentioned they shitty argument

"if we have UBI then lots of people will become great artists, musicians etc"

In the UK we have a high level of social security (free house, money, education etc)

You almost never get anyone with this background doing anything productive

UBI shouldn't be enough for a lifestyle. Not even rent. It should be $70 a week so you don't have an excuse to steal to eat.

>All landlords would collectively increase their rents thus you would effectively create an economy that transfers money to them.

lmao that is absurd.

We don't. A single man above 18 with no (((disabilities))) will not get any of those things except for £50 ish per week which he won't get for long. Compared to for example Ireland, Spain, Germany, our welfare system is quite harsh.

You should stop believing what you see in the papers, like how Brexit will save the NHS.

This is literally Illuminati shit right here, i mean a small % of the populous will have the incentive to work, but not out of greed for $ but for wanting power and the rest will be Wall-e fat asses

>incentive
m8, that's 2 grand people have to spend. Any entrepreneur would get mega rich

If everyone is given a universal base income, nothing would get done and the value of currency would be dropped to make up for the amount that everyone is getting, making it instantly obsolete.

The only reason a European country can do it is if only one country is doing it while sharing the euro with the other countries in the EU. But if every country did it, then it would instantly collapse the economy and kill us all.

Let's do it...

Pros:
A fair alternative to the current, overly complex and dysgenic welfare system. It's also great to keep over-taxation in check because socialists won't be allowed to keep coming up with more and more bullshit taxes for bullshit programs.

Cons:
None.

This guy gets it.

>There's no way landlords would increase how much they charge because they know that tennants can afford it.

Just look at San Francisco.

you can't make a nation wealthy by giving things away.

Can't wait until crypto currency takes over and crushes the dreams of you wannabe commie dictators while bringing new levels of prosperity to hard working, intelligent people all over the world.

that is not how crypto currencies work. they are a knee jerk reaction to governments trying to kill cash. the black market want's to stay black. that's all.

It's not a knee jerk reaction. It is a digital cash system that can't be shut down. That's something that people have been trying to do for a while.

Besides that what money do you think people would prefer. The one that loses a large amount of value every year to pay for ubi or one that holds it's value while also having other benefits like being able to buy drugs online?

dude cryptos are an attempt at a modern cash substitute. that's all they are. they won't magically solve the problems of the economy. especially as they present more problems they solve.

the ubi is a totally different issue altogether. i don't think it can work at all. but something like it will be tried soon enough. ubi will without doubt lead to steep inflation or even hyperinflation. but this is not a fault of money nor is really a problem. who the fuck keeps cash in the pillowcase anymore? inflation does not affect wealth in assets much. the meme about money having to keep it's value is retarded. if the money keeps it's purchasing value till the end of month it's pretty much fine enough to be used as money. as money devalues prices and wages go up. investments also go up stocks bonds real estate, etc... it's not a problem.

problem arises when money devalues too fast to be even used for groceries. that's called hyperinflation. i have lived in a few such episodes it's not the end of all or anything. the poor are largely unaffected as they simply spend their wage the rich are largely unaffected as their assets are inflation proof only the middle class is affected but they can cope easily enough.

The income after redistribution would be tiny, like not even a livable wage. So, I don't understand why people are imagining that everyone is just going to stop working. Maybe people decide to cut down their hours but... who's that harming? Most people would just keep working as normal.

Only when we have reached post-scarcity and complete automation would people be able to quit work permanently. But then, who fucking cares if they do as it'll have no effect on you.