by Jirmeria » Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:33 pm
by Venerable Bede » Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:54 pm
by Major-Tom » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:30 pm
by Chessmistress » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:32 pm
by Venerable Bede » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:33 pm
Major-Tom wrote:I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.
Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.
by Cetacea » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:33 pm
Venerable Bede wrote:I think your heart is in the right place, but the state should be addressing the disease more than symptom: money like this would probably go more to consumerism than improving quality of life.
by Major-Tom » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:35 pm
Venerable Bede wrote:Major-Tom wrote:I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.
Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.
A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.
by Community Values » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:38 pm
by Chessmistress » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:42 pm
If you are sitting at a desk, driving a taxi or carrying a hod, stop for a moment and ask: could a robot or machine do this job better?
The answer, unfortunately for you, is probably - yes.
The debate about whether machines will eliminate the need for human employment is no longer just academic.
Boston Consulting Group predicts that by 2025, up to a quarter of jobs will be replaced by either smart software or robots, while a study from Oxford University has suggested that 35% of existing UK jobs are at risk of automation in the next 20 years.
Office workers who do repetitive jobs such as writing reports or drawing up spreadsheets are easily replaced with software
The armored towers of multinational corporations rise above the ruins of the democracies that gave them birth.
Soldiers of the Yakuza defend them.
by Chessmistress » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:48 pm
Venerable Bede wrote:Major-Tom wrote:I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.
Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.
A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.
by IceBuddha » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:53 pm
by The Liberated Territories » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:59 pm
by Venerable Bede » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:08 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Venerable Bede wrote:A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.
A small amount of money isn't meant to lift people out of poverty: it's meant to avoid that they feel the need to place a bullet in the head of people with more money. Or even eat them.
by The Romulan Republic » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:23 pm
by Chessmistress » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:40 pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:I am a strong supporter, for three main reasons.
1. No one should be denied necessities, or the chance to have a decent life, simply because they are poor. Contrary to Right wing rhetoric, not all poor people are that way simply because they're lazy, and even if they were, laziness should not be punished with death or a lifetime of suffering. Enough with the "Kick a man while he's down" school of economics.
2. Their is a real possibility that automation, in coming years, will result in their simply not being jobs for much of the population. Meaning that we have a choice between much of the population, possibly a majority, being unable to support themselves (a recipe for armed revolt and extremism, which we've already seen quite a bit of with things like the Arab Spring and the election of Trump), and providing everyone with an assurance of a decent life regardless of weather they can make enough money for it.
3. Their are some careers which contribute to society, but are not considerably lucrative, or not immediately so. Take local theatre. Very few people (if any) make a lot of money doing it, but it contributes to the economy, entertainment, and culture of a community. Or take an entrepreneur, who wants to create a new invention or start a new business but can't, because he doesn't have the time and money to start and has to worry about where he gets the next paycheque.
A universal income would allow people to take more risks and make more contributions which contribute to society without being immediately lucrative.
The Romulan Republic wrote:My big concern is that introducing universal basic income is used as an excuse to say that other programs, like public health care or education, are no longer necessary, with universal income potentially not being enough to make up the difference. And some recipients making poor use of the money they get and then not having enough for essentials.
Universal basic income can work if it is done in tandem with a public health care system and affordable housing.
by New Werpland » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:45 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Venerable Bede wrote:A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.
I should've rephrased that. It acts as a way to alleviate the most crippling symptoms of poverty to help those who maybe can't help themselves land back on their feet for a little while. And even then, poverty in America, for example, has only increased, so it goes to show that perhaps welfare programs and "throwing money at it" needs to be re-evaluated.
by Setgavarius » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:48 pm
by Daburuetchi » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:51 pm
by Daburuetchi » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:53 pm
The Liberated Territories wrote:I don't think so. Any UBI would be highly inflationary unless it is purely provided by cash transfers, which I do not see happening.
by Setgavarius » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:54 pm
Daburuetchi wrote:Tbh I hate all these attempts to have capitalism without class conflict. That's the essence of modernity: let's consume but in a "safe" way. Yes I would support UBI but the whole circlejerk around it is annoying
by The Romulan Republic » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:54 pm
by Setgavarius » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:56 pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:Fortunately the idea does seem to be gaining traction. It was recently reported that in Canada, Ontario will do a test run of basic income in some areas, and some of the local politicians on the west coast are discussing it too.
by Daburuetchi » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:58 pm
Setgavarius wrote:Daburuetchi wrote:Tbh I hate all these attempts to have capitalism without class conflict. That's the essence of modernity: let's consume but in a "safe" way. Yes I would support UBI but the whole circlejerk around it is annoying
Well, it's the only way to keep the luddite rebellion from occurring which doesn't involve extermination.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Elejamie, Ifreann, Keltionialang, Likhinia, Neanderthaland, New-Minneapolis, Niolia, Ors Might, Philjia, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Shrillland, Southland, Statesburg, Tarsonis, Trollgaard, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement