It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor!

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
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%.




posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

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%.

Uh the working people get the money too.

Ever heard of Amazon. Already heading to mostly automated.

We already pay those not to work. It's wellfare.

This system replaces wellfare and many models keep the taxes very much the same.

You would be surprised how much it costs for the beauracracy of handouts. This system steanlibes taxes and benefits.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

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.



Exactly wellfare in the US literally stops as soon as you try and better yourself. Take a part time job or go to school for a career sorry no more money we want you to sit at home and do nothing. And benefits all most always pay more than min wage.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
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?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
In the U.S. we are unable to really go to bat for people who have catastrophic illnesses. People don't want to help them - (see Obamacare), so this sure won't fly. Americans don't want to do anything for other people anymore it seems.

With jobs disappearing, we will end up with two classes, like the rest of the world. The rich ones who run everything, and the rest of us who will do their bidding, clean their toilets, and make them sandwiches.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Maybe we stop signing trade agreements that send manufacturing and other blue collar jobs overseas, but just giving away money isn't going to do anything but bankrupt those who already work. We could cut military spending but neither party wants to do that or cut our current entitlements, but people don't want to do that either.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

not unless they have immigrants to fill the gaps, just a thought. although it would mean that they would have to restrict the handout to only people of the EU. Or maybe they have technology in place to take over the average Joes job, or afoot that could be in place when/if the proposal came in to play. More interestingly from a NWO point of view it would bring a large portion of the western world under the same umbrella, but if it meant we could basically live anywhere in Europe that would be a major plus point.
Regards.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22

Extremely good points. Well worth discussing and working out.

However, the flip is what is the consequence of pretending the global job market is going to suddenly get better.

We are automating everything. Somebody needs to start talking about the fact there just won't be enough jobs ever again to make capitalism work like it did in the height of industrialization.

One solution slightly off topic could be when you raise minumum wage which it should have been doing steadily with inflation (not just CPI)
Would be to offset corporate taxes. The shareholders can decide if they think the company should pass the savings to the shareholders or simply just give the executives there bonuses. So bussiness can absorb the new payouts with a tax break.

Basically I am a firm believer that any 40 hr job should provide a minimum of the basic life requirements. The arguement of its not a career avoid serious ethical concerns.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

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?


I totally agree.

Blue collar employment in manufacturing will never again support a large middle class in this country the way it once did and as long as most people are operating under the delusion that it could, we're going to continue to waste time not addressing the reality of our evolving circumstances.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Trade deals are awful I agree and helped get us to where we are faster, but really it was inevitable... if not China, India, Africa etc... then robots and automation. Angeldoll is right, there will be the rich and those who clean their toilets.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Probably deserving of it's own thread, but I feel it adds to the talk of basic income and being responsible towards the less fortunate.


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.


source

I would add that a basic income could be helpful to those that wish to find work. Most jobs you need some stability to work, basic hygiene, decent clothing, a phone and transportation, not easy to provide if your broke.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

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.


Hardly. What are these magic artifacts we need? How long will that take compaired to the collapse? Do we have resources to become a global mass consumer?

You can't just create jobs that such a bs response.

I am buying a tabletop CNC to automate my job. Guess what it saves my joints and time which is money. Thats about it. We can't just keep making throw away junk and continue on this planet.

We will at least need to expand to space for that.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Davg80

...but what and what do we do in the mean time?


It's a self correcting problem if meddling, albeit well meaning people would step aside and allow nature to do it's job unimpeded.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

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.


If the theory holds, it actually results in more people getting jobs because employment criteria now need to compete with the option of someone legitimately choosing to go without the paycheck. It means better terms for the employee and better employees for the business as only people who want to work there will.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Are you arguing that a person cannot become an employer? Employers tend to hire people. Not only that, but it isn't out of the ordinary to employ oneself.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

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?




All a basic income would do is cause rampant inflation. After a brief period of prosperity while people spend their money freely, you would then see all those people back to being broke as the price of goods increase and they waste their money.

If a basic income ever came into fruition, I'm going to open a car rim shop in the hood as everybody is going to be riding on chrome,



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Eventually less and less people will be willing to work, becoming more and more dependent on the government.




posted on May, 23 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

As in Social Darwinism?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join