Universal Basic Income

a reply to: corvuscorrax

At least I do something to earn it and I have marketable skills that I can take around and even start my own home business with. I have done contract work in the past.

Instead this rewards you for simply being alive and producing nothing of worth.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The other option is that people could create a new economy where worth is found in something else.

Sorry to respond to just one line of your post, but "people" did try this.
Recently, even.

A revolutionist group of people who were tired of bankster oppression set out to create a new gold backed currency- this was a year or two ago.
I remember it clearly, because I said in a post here stating that they're calling for war on the banks, and they'd be called a terrorist group asap and bombed into oblivion.

Not more than a month later their whole organization was all about burning children in cages, beheaddings, etc- then they started coordinating 'terror' attacks on various countries, and the whole world started calling out for their destruction.
Funny how quickly their cause was completely redirected once they took on the banks head first.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: lordcomac
It is welfare.

How many times do we have to cover basic monetary function?
If you raise the income of everyone by $x a month, within a year the basic cost of living for everyone will go up by $x a month.

"Universal" income is just another way to spike up minimum wage, which gives anyone making more than minimum wage an effective pay cut- so employers get to make more money.

Does.
Not.
Work.

There is absolutely no reason for UBI to be inherently inflationary.

A UBI replaces and simplifies current welfare payments, that is all. It is entirely possible to make it revenue neutral.

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong- if you give free money to everyone, the market will reflect a drop in the value of currency (since it's not worked for and adds no value) causing an increase in the cost of living by that same amount- only the quality of life will go down because the higher cost of things means the same percentage (which is now more money at the same value) will be going to taxes. Only they have to raise taxes to get the free money to give to everyone.... and that only comes from the tax payers, or from the banksters. Either way we all get robbed.

Unless of course you're saying that this universal income isn't for everyone, in which case it's not universal- it's just stealing from me to give to the bums next door.... Still. If it was universal, it'd be stealing from me to give to me and them, which is basically the same thing.

a reply to: lordcomac

A lot of 'free money' is already given out only with high administration costs of deciding who gets what benefits. If the level is set relatively low in line with current benefit levels and taxes adjusted to take into account the extra earnings (administration that already exists) then there is no net money added.

On that scenario you are removing a level of administration, removing the headache for people to prove entitlement and making it easier for people find work by removing benefits trap.

That scenario is of course assuming you don't want any redistribute or demand effect on the economy.

Also, rather crucially, the relationship between money supply and inflation is far more complicated than you are suggesting.

Its going to have to happen because when there are no jobs, people still need to have money to buy the things all these robots make. The other option is dystopian starvation of the working class.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Miccey


"We have jobs and work because we "want" to
better our selfs and reach a higher understanding"
BOLLOCKS

A job well done gives one a certain degree of satisfaction and fulfillment.

Of course. I can't think of many things worse than not having a job. But we are being introduced to the idea/fact that there will not be a job for many people who genuinely want to work, because of the direction the 21 st Century is taking.
All this is in the thinking and experimental stage, as it should be. We must look ahead and find a plan.

I have spoken to some work colleagues regarding this and how it would chnage their attitude towards work. Most replied they would work less hours than and create a balance between work and life. For eg work 20 hours a week instead of 40. It would keep their income the same as it is now.

So how would this effect inflation?

originally posted by: angeldoll
Of course. I can't think of many things worse than not having a job. But we are being introduced to the idea/fact that there will not be a job for many people who genuinely want to work, because of the direction the 21 st Century is taking.
All this is in the thinking and experimental stage, as it should be. We must look ahead and find a plan.

The OP is about 'A Universal Basic income' which I assume is a basic income

for all? because there will be few jobs with a paid income?


I did say in an earlier post that it would leave a lot of people with a lot of free

time and perhaps they could use that time in caring for the elderly and infirm

who need help which currently isn't there for them.


My grandfather said retirement was the death knell of life, everyone needed a

purpose and something to strive for ...... from experience i can second that!


I hate house work but having to do it, I can agree with "there is a great degree

of satisfaction in doing a job well!"

a reply to: asen_y2k
I think this is part of the plan, people would work less say a 3 day week, which mean there would be more opportunity for people to work.

originally posted by: lordcomac
It is welfare.

How many times do we have to cover basic monetary function?
If you raise the income of everyone by $x a month, within a year the basic cost of living for everyone will go up by $x a month.

"Universal" income is just another way to spike up minimum wage, which gives anyone making more than minimum wage an effective pay cut- so employers get to make more money.

Does.
Not.
Work.

I'm afraid you have missed the point completely. Have good think what the massive flaw in your ultra simplistic economic model is.

Can anyone else see it ? If you can't do a little studying it will do you good.

FYI, the theory of universal income (money flow only) works. The social side (feckless, lazy etc) is something that the experiments have show to be totally wrong. In fact the opposite occurs and work ethic increases but hey ho let's not let facts get in the way of right wing ideology.......

Personally, I'm an advocate of a "basic income." However, absolutely not in our current system. Just changing over to giving everyone money is, in my opinion, pure foolishness.

Like kets said, I think that it should replace current social systems like welfare first and foremost.

Focusing on currency is going to have all of the same issues we currently experience. We would be better served by providing in-home tools to meet basic needs without involving money at all. Giving people the tools to achieve unilaterally yields better results than just giving what that tool will make.

I see that in-home, automated aquaponics systems, advanced energy production, and even items like internet not only meet requirements more fully for the recipient, but for the society in which they reside.

If that is coupled with a real time pay system, that ideally doles out pay for actual work done regardless of "occupation," we can build a system that not only has improved incentives, but can meet general needs of any community size more quickly and efficiently.

Of course, these things would also mean encouraging self-sufficiency, independence, decentralization, and a drastic decreased need for a large government. So..

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: corvuscorrax

At least I do something to earn it and I have marketable skills that I can take around and even start my own home business with. I have done contract work in the past.

Instead this rewards you for simply being alive and producing nothing of worth.

I don't know about that. The simple act of continuing to exist produces a demand for products. People with the skills and desire to create those products will make a lot of money. UBI's don't mean communism where everyone gets the same wage no matter how much/how hard they work.

I'm telling you all,

We can have Universal Income

From selling our personal data to companies so they in turn can make better products we'd actually want and use.

We already do it now sometimes, via surveys, questionnaires and feedback forms.

I'd say our feedback and our personal preferences are very valuable to these companies, if it means them selling more items.

There won't be a negative aspect to this concept if it's done in a way that further promotes communication and improves consumerism for all, not just the seller.

Then you can have free time to do what you want, learn new skills, give back to the world, help others, become an artist.

This is what needs to happen, if we ever want to reach further and further potentials of humanity. Our own limited scope of view will limit our overall contributions to humanity, so why limit ourselves?

a reply to: joemoe


A little research would find that this has already happened. England with an unemployment rate of 5% actually has 1/6 of the entire population on some form of benefit. I'm wondering what the real figure is in Spain. Count them people sickness benefit, disabilities, the workers are already paying for everyone else. It is the workers that finally get some money when it is universal.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
We already tried this hundreds of years ago. William Bradford and the pilgrims did it when they first came to america. Everyone got an equal share of everything and the result was nobody worked. Why would they? There was no incentive. Lots of people died that winter. So next he tried something different. A free market, and what do you know? There was an abundance and the first thanksgiving was had.
*snip*

Hmm. I googled some disagreemnt:
www. slate.com - Thanksgiving socialism: The strange and persistent right-wing myth that Thanksgiving celebrates the pilgrims' discovery of capitalism....

There was no local baron in Plymouth, but it was a commercial project as much as a religious one, and the colonists still had to answer to their investors back in England. It was this, not socialist ideals, that accounted for the common course. Bunker writes, “Far from being a commune, the Mayflower was a common stock: the very words employed in the contract. All the land in the Plymouth Colony, its houses, its tools, and its trading profits (if they appeared) were to belong to a joint-stock company owned by the shareholders as a whole.”

So it's like comparing socialism to a 17th-century agricultural business.

More here:
en.wikipedia.org - Open-field system...

UBI or "Universal Basic Income" ...

It's GOP kryptonite. It goes against every single core belief of conservatives.

Republicans act like vampires threatened with holy water when you mention a basic income. Even the poor Republicans who would benefit from it. They'll recoil and lob nonsensical talking points from conservative AM talk radio pundits at you.

America is at least 50+ years away from this. Americans are to immature and still to tightly brainwashed by corporate interests to demand we be better treated.

It is coming, it cant be helped. AI and robots , self driving buses and semi's.... drones delivering.
Universal income needs to be in place before the jobs all go byebye...... not after.

originally posted by: lordcomac
It is welfare.

How many times do we have to cover basic monetary function?
If you raise the income of everyone by $x a month, within a year the basic cost of living for everyone will go up by $x a month.

"Universal" income is just another way to spike up minimum wage, which gives anyone making more than minimum wage an effective pay cut- so employers get to make more money.

Does.
Not.
Work.

The purpose is to accommodate for an ever-more automated GDP-producing government. As labor becomes less needed, paying those who are unemployed does not increase the overall cash in the economy thus does not create inflation.

Think about it. In a post-employment economy (where we are headed no matter what), how else are we to do it? Just let the well-oiled automation of government pump out resources to the rich but let everybody else starve?

The only way forward is to start implementing basic incomes for citizens now to compensate for automation. What's the point of producing GDP if you're just going to leave your people to starve?

a reply to: Abysha

I think people are missing what it is that I have against this universal free stuff.

Money itself is broken.
Taxing Peter to pay Paul doesn't work. I've been monitoring my cost of living for two years down to the dollar, and I am perfectly comfortable saying that for every $100 I earn, $50 goes to banks and government- and that's before counting the scam that is health insurance!
I see people every day who dontWont work, and instead they eat for free out of my pay. A young woman and her guy friend next door rent an entire house- both receive food stamps, and through low income rental scams they pay little to no rent- but the owners can't lose out, right? My taxes pay 80+% of their rent to the "land Lord" - happens to be the young women's parents.

Enough about how broken welfare is, though- let's get down to the real meat of why this simply can't work.
MONEY can't work. I earn it x they tax it, losers steal it. But what is it?
It's nothing. Banks use fractional reserve lending to make it up.then they charge interest on loans and use the profits to re-lend. 90% off every dollar they lend is free.

The only reason it's not in a free fall now is because people stunt get it for free- only banks do. Start handing out free money to everyone and the value goes away. Farmer John won't trade you beef for paper if he can't turn around and trade that paper for something worth more than the beef.

Anyone who thinks this isn't an awful idea has far too much faith in their currency. Evryone needs to lean back a bit and look at money- it's not going to be around that much longer. National banks aren't trying to phase out cash for no reason- it doesn't work if they can't conceal the lie, and the breaking point is right before printed cash is a more effective toilet paper than the toilet paper you can buy with it.

The population continues to explode without a similar increase in technology or natural resources.
We've tapped our ability to expand resources, yet continue to breed like the 1900's never ended.

Cash is breaking down, redistribution is just one more way to keep those with jobs from gaining ground on those without- because eventually class warfare will turn violent.
All I'm trying to do is get far enough on the employed side of that warfare that I'm not on the front lines when it comes to that- and it seems like every day people are calling for stealing more from me via government to make sure I don't get more than a few days head start.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Miccey


"We have jobs and work because we "want" to
better our selfs and reach a higher understanding"
BOLLOCKS

A job well done gives one a certain degree of satisfaction and fulfillment.

That DEMANDS that you have a job/work that you actually
WANTS to do...

a reply to: asen_y2k

I believe that in the age of corporatism & automation, UBI will eventually prove to be the way forward. The results of the India study referenced in the OP are particularly encouraging - demonstrating that a sensible UBI policy led to an increase in labour, particularly in terms of self-employment (which, in the age of corporatism & automation, is the only feasible alternative for many, many people). Great news.

I look forward to serious, publically accessible, open & honest academic/ political debate about this economic policy. As noted, it costs roughly the same as having a huge, strict selection & metering bureaucracy, so why not? Reduce the paperwork, relieve the daily pressure on citizens, and inspire people to dream, to build, to contribute & to grow.

Most people will take the opportunity to expand their horizons, because most people care about the lessons they teach to their children. Long-term failures to improve on their general starting condition could possibly be handled by a small assessment & support bureaucracy, by which a further percentage would start to use their funds to expand their opportunity base.

Great times await, and hopefully the rhetoric will be replaced with rigorous study, debate, policy formation & trials. As someone who has been very negatively affected by a medical issue preventing work in any ordinary capacity, I can honestly say that UBI, without fear of sanctions or loss of family stability, could quite possibly have helped me towards finding niche opportunities for self-employment which are otherwise unavailable.