It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: schuyler
It's probably a risk of taking this idea to the extremes to criticize it, but basically you still have to have some people do the work. Consumers need something to consume, and that stuff doesn't get on the shelves by itself. Unless robots do literally everything, including management, people are still required. It's going to be awhile before robots and AI are to the point of doing everything. So you run the risk of creating a slave class while everyone else can sit around on the dole. The people pulling the carts full of deadbeats are not going to like it unless they are highly rewarded. And if you create two classes, you know darn well the deadbeats are going to be resentful of the rich cart pullers--just like today. 47% of people in the US pay no federal income tax at all. The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. Those 47% who pay nothing highly resent the 10% who pay 70%.
originally posted by: Maxatoria
Its been worked out and at a certain level it can work (here in the UK at least) as it reduces the states cost in providing benefits etc.
The main thing is it will make people feel like they have more money and thus will spend it and generate tax revenue.
It requires changes in the UK tax system so no personal allowance before tax so you earn a pound and the state gets 30%ish of it in tax & ni but that should be offset with the fact theres no artificial limits on employment so no just doing 16 hours as if you do anymore you lose a mega lump of benefits etc.
Its was worked out that about £70 a week would be doable with no net affect on the system IIRC due to the savings on all the back office and admin that goes around sorting out all the benefits system.
Its not a bad idea and worth a trial somewhere as it may free many more people from the system so they can go out and earn more.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Davg80
It's related to a conversation that the entire West needs to have. The industrial age is over in the West, it's not coming back. We need something to replace it ...but what and what do we do in the mean time?
Last year, a HUD study found that giving families permanent subsidies, like a housing choice voucher, is more effective in preventing homelessness than other interventions, like short-term rental assistance or temporary housing. It also helps keep families together. A 2014 study from the Central Florida Commission on Homelessness estimated that it cost the state over $31,000 each year for each chronically homeless person, compared to just $10,000 to provide them with permanent housing, job training, and health care.
Using those findings, ending homelessness in the United States would likely require less than 1 percent of next year’s military expenditures.
originally posted by: TheTory
Everyone is worried about having a job but care little about creating jobs for themselves and for others, which is part of the problem. With the rise of automation, we will also see the rise of self-employment and craftsmanship, as machines will be unable to provide that value. A basic wage will only hinder progress such as that.
originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Kali74
So how does paying people for nothing solve that? And doesn't that put a higher tax burden on the few with jobs? I seriously don't get it.
originally posted by: eluryh22
Leaving my "people should be responsible for themselves" general mentality aside for a moment....I'm curious about three things....
1) Cost: What is the net gain or loss between the current welfare systems vs this "new" system. If it will cost more, how much more and who is expected to pay for it? (To me, "rich" is a relative term and means different things to different people).
2) Unintended consequences: I could be wrong but it seems as though a lot of people are making the assumption that introducing this new dynamic will not affect all other parts of life.
- Lets say you give each person $2,500 per month.
- As things are now (in my neck of the woods) an one bedroom apartment with basic amenities can cost around $1,600 per month.
- If suddenly there are thousands upon thousands of additional people that could now afford the $1,600 per month apartment, why would a landlord not raise the cost of the apartment based on this new demand? I propose that costs for all sorts of "things" would go up incredibly if something like this were to be enacted.
3) People are People: What happens when people blow through their monthly pittance without taking care of their basic needs? Are we suddenly going to let people start starving to death in the street? Or, more likely, are we going to have to keep up with dedicated food and shelter programs in ADDITION to this "new" thing?