Poll: Universal basic income?
Poll Options
View poll results: Universal basic income?
I dig it
23 62%
No it's mad
14 38%
Voters: 37.
Page 1 of 3
#1
A basic income (also called unconditional basic income, Citizen's Income, basic income guarantee, universal basic income or universal demogrant) is a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere.


What do you think of this system? It replaces welfare and benefits. Seems like a policy that could have appeal for the right and for the left.

Share ur thoughts

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#2
That's so basic.


Maybe if it was a boller income it would b eyyy
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#3
I wouldn't mind it tbh

I'd rather have some money in the bank than be broke and worry about the economy.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
There shall be a stop to this madness. The battle is not over. My tasty licks aren't going anywhere.

Quote by The_Blode
^ I've just realised if you say Simple Plan's 2011 effort "Get Your Heart On!" really fast in a Southern American accent, it sounds gross. . .like sexual gross!

Quote by Necroheadbanger
Hello.
I'm looking for professional bongo-ists and triangle-ists to make a Progressive Technical Brutal Death Metal band
(will be called AxOxJxLxAxIxVxXxUxWxZxQxUxRxWxGxJxSxAxLxKxMxNxHxUxGxAxAxWxVxCxBxZxVx)
(Don't even ask what it means)


https://soundcloud.com/95dank



#4
Pair this with universal healthcare, and I'm down.

Down to violently overthrow the bourgeois capitalist system and create a dictatorship of the proletariat.
I like St. Anger. Ridicule me, daddy

Quote by ErikLensherr

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#6
Quote by StewieSwan
and who exactly is going to pay for it?


we all are

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#7
Quote by StewieSwan
and who exactly is going to pay for it?


the 1% obv


or due to a future robot heavy industry combined with a stagnant population limiting resource use, it ends up being super affordable and so we have a utopian society where everyone just chills
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#8
Quote by theguitarist
the 1% obv


or robot heavy industry with stagnant population so it's affordable and we have a utopian society with loads of resources where everyone just chills


star trek basically

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#10
so like no questions asked benefits? yeah sounds fine but you would have to be careful not to devalue the currency by handing out too much and subsequently fucking over those who are unable to work.
#11
Quote by EndTheRapture51
we all are


what a delightfully European paradox
Check out my band Disturbed
#12
Quote by StewieSwan
what a delightfully European paradox


businesses will have to pay their employees much less as they're just topping up the universal income and thus can be taxed more heavily

it would increase entrepreneurship

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#13
I'm legit pro basic income in principle but my concern is on markets bumping up the cost of things the basic income should cover, like food, utilities and house prices/rent. can't remember if there was a good explanation of how that could be dealt with.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#14
Quote by kalypto
so like no questions asked benefits? yeah sounds fine but you would have to be careful not to devalue the currency by handing out too much and subsequently fucking over those who are unable to work.


just enough to live on at first i guess

so whilst you wouldn't perhaps be able to afford everything you wanted without a job, you would still be able to pay rent, buy food etc. if you couldn't work or were made unemployed

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#15
It will be possible, and in fact, necessary once automation is in full force.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#16
Gommunism is the only logical conclusion of advanced automation.
I like St. Anger. Ridicule me, daddy

Quote by ErikLensherr

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#17
Supply and demand + increasing the money supply. Maybe when we're mining asteroids and sending them back on the quantum bullet train from Mars back to Earth we could get rid of this ""scarcity"", but don't hold your breath hippies, you still have to work even then.
#18
Quote by EndTheRapture51
just enough to live on at first i guess

so whilst you wouldn't perhaps be able to afford everything you wanted without a job, you would still be able to pay rent, buy food etc. if you couldn't work or were made unemployed

sounds great... in a perfect world

however people are greedy and the system would be exploited by the business owners by raising the prices of their products,

why not just guarantee people a house to live in, clean water and energy and nutritional food to eat.
#19
Quote by EndTheRapture51
star trek basically


yea a lot of recent sci-fi has humanity living for ages but people aren't that much into having loads of kids over the time so you just get people roaming around in idyllic comfort

that's usually until some alien jerks turn up and start shit of course.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#20
Quote by EndTheRapture51
businesses will have to pay their employees much less as they're just topping up the universal income and thus can be taxed more heavily

it would increase entrepreneurship


Seems like it would hit small businesses and startups a lot harder than it would businesses that are already large and established.
Quote by Hal-Sephira

We all have the rights to be mad

So does you
#21
I'm not exactly well versed in this kind of thing, but that to me reads like pseudo-communism.

Also how exactly does that benefit rich people? Surely getting $$$ from the government for existing is only going to help the people at the bottom of the ladder.
Last edited by Random3 at Feb 2, 2017,
#22
It sounds like it would create more problems than it solves. It doesn't make sense to get free money if you are employed and earning a decent wage and there's no point in paying tax if the government is just going to give you some of that money back and call it income.
I have nothing important to say
#23
Quote by Fat Lard
Supply and demand + increasing the money supply. Maybe when we're mining asteroids and sending them back on the quantum bullet train from Mars back to Earth we could get rid of this ""scarcity"", but don't hold your breath hippies, you still have to work even then.
This isn't increasing the money supply, it's redistributing wealth that already exists.

Also, some of the money will have to go on extermination camps for accountants.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#24
against. We already have enough lazy bastards sponging off the working folks. I have no problem helping single mothers and such, but entire generations of welfare queens is another story.
#25
It's a nice idea and i believe it's already in place in some Scandinavian countries but I'm pretty sure they suffer from massive inflation because of it. Applying it to a much larger economy like the UK or US (for example) would make it very hard to implement.

Like Kalypto said, much better trying to guarantee housing as a basic right for everyone.
My old signature was too long. Have a daisy.

#26
Quote by slapsymcdougal
This isn't increasing the money supply, it's redistributing wealth that already exists.

Also, some of the money will have to go on extermination camps for accountants.


Effectively it kind of is (M1 and M2's and whatnot innit). If people have more disposable income, a lot of that's going to be disposed of rather than being as much invested/reinvested as it was. That'll probably change rates and have other effects as well.
#27
Quote by Fat Lard
Effectively it kind of is (M1 and M2's and whatnot innit). If people have more disposable income, a lot of that's going to be disposed of rather than being as much invested/reinvested as it was. That'll probably change rates and have other effects as well.
So it's going to circulate more. How is that a bad thing?
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#28
much like all of the reforms and improvements that happened back in the 1900s its a necessary change in order to prevent capitalism from collapsing and to suppress the radical left. as automation and technology advances i see a universal basic income as unavoidable in order to suppress communism and to maintain power. there are too many fundamental problems with capitalism in its current state for it to survive without such adjustments
#29
slapsymcdougal I didn't say it was a bad or good thing, but don't be surprised to see the market go nuts due to unforeseen changes in economic investment, or $300 cups of Starbucks coffee
#30
Quote by slapsymcdougal
So it's going to circulate more. How is that a bad thing?


Increasing cash flow is generally a good thing as long as it's done in a relatively controlled manner. In fact, it's essential for stimulating and growing any economy. The problem is that when something like what's proposed is done on such a large scale, it can easily lead to runaway inflation. Employers have to incentivize employment in jobs that are no longer done out of necessity (most likely through higher wages), the price of products rise as a result, since people can afford it they buy at higher prices, thus causing the basic cost of living to rise even more, government has to divvy out more money to support basic standards of living, and repeat. That's not even taking into account things that could affect the market like availability and disadvantageous technological advancements.

So lets say we can control inflation and people want to work just as hard as they are now, we now have to talk about how to distribute the income. Does everyone get the same amount? Do we give more to older people? What about adjustments for race or non-UBI income? Maybe the amount you get also depends on the number of dependents you can claim? Maybe if you live in a shitty place you get more money so the place you live in gets less shitty? The question of whether or not distribution of funds should be equal isn't an open and shut case.

Assuming we dodge inflation, unemployment issues, and figure out how to distribute all of this money, what do you do about getting people into jobs that HAVE to be done but no one wants to do? Distribution of the workforce in a society where people no longer have to take jobs they may not like seems like another huge issue to get over.

I'm all for universal basic income but lets not pretend like it's going to be a cakewalk to get through if it's implemented.
Quote by Hal-Sephira

We all have the rights to be mad

So does you
Last edited by Victory2134 at Feb 2, 2017,
#31
Quote by Thrashtastic15
i see a universal basic income as unavoidable in order to suppress communism


Can someone explain this? I don't understand how giving a flat amount of money to all people in a country for simply living in that country is anything other than a step towards communism.
#32
Quote by Random3
Can someone explain this? I don't understand how giving a flat amount of money to all people in a country for simply living in that country is anything other than a step towards communism.
way to be optimistic!

because with the direction ai and automation is headed we are going to have serious issues creating enough jobs for the population. you give some concessions to band-aid fix the systemic issues to take the wind out of the sails of actual radical leftism which has very compelling answers to the problems we will face in the future. if you look historically which i hinted at in my previous post you can see similar tactics happening to try and suppress the socialist movement and maintain power & capitalism.
#33
Great idea that way lazy ass people could make as much as a hard working person
"A well-wound coil is a well-wound coil regardless if it's wound with professional equipment, or if somebody's great-grandmother winds it to an old French recipe with Napoleon's modified coffee grinder and chops off the wire after a mile with an antique guillotine!"
- Bill Lawrence

Come and be with me
Live my twisted dream
Pro devoted pledge
Time for primal concrete sledge

#34
Quote by Evilnine
Great idea that way lazy ass people could make as much as a hard working person


The idea of it being universal means that even hard working people would get it mate.
Quote by Hal-Sephira

We all have the rights to be mad

So does you
#35
Quote by Evilnine
Great idea that way lazy ass people could make as much as a hard working person
if u read the like 3 sentence quote that gives u the tl;dr for what it is u would see that u can still work and make extra money as addition. you arent very smart are u
#36
yes please
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#37
Quote by Victory2134
Increasing cash flow is generally a good thing as long as it's done in a relatively controlled manner. In fact, it's essential for stimulating and growing any economy. The problem is that when something like what's proposed is done on such a large scale, it can easily lead to runaway inflation. Employers have to incentivize employment in jobs that are no longer done out of necessity (most likely through higher wages), the price of products rise as a result, since people can afford it they buy at higher prices, thus causing the basic cost of living to rise even more, government has to divvy out more money to support basic standards of living, and repeat. That's not even taking into account things that could affect the market like availability and disadvantageous technological advancements.

So lets say we can control inflation and people want to work just as hard as they are now, we now have to talk about how to distribute the income. Does everyone get the same amount? Do we give more to older people? What about adjustments for race or non-UBI income? Maybe the amount you get also depends on the number of dependents you can claim? Maybe if you live in a shitty place you get more money so the place you live in gets less shitty? The question of whether or not distribution of funds should be equal isn't an open and shut case.

Assuming we dodge inflation, unemployment issues, and figure out how to distribute all of this money, what do you do about getting people into jobs that HAVE to be done but no one wants to do? Distribution of the workforce in a society where people no longer have to take jobs they may not like seems like another huge issue to get over.

I'm all for universal basic income but lets not pretend like it's going to be a cakewalk to get through if it's implemented.
As had been mentioned before my reply, one requirement for this would be the automation of as many of those shitty jobs as possible. The nature of the proposed basic income - that it covers the very basics, and little else - provides impetus for people to take jobs that are not first choice, but are better than not working.
It's not a thing I would anticipate seeing in the next few decades, if it becomes a thing in my lifetime at all,

Quote by Fat Lard
slapsymcdougal I didn't say it was a bad or good thing, but don't be surprised to see the market go nuts due to unforeseen changes in economic investment, or $300 cups of Starbucks coffee
Yes, because I'd just make this happen starting tomorrow. No warning.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#38
Random3 a UBI would still incentivize people to work, unlike a negative income tax which is more libertarian territory and would incentivize people to keep below pushing out more output. Libertarian thought is generally better than commie thought besides that, and either way, more money to the people is better than more money to the gubmint IMO.

Quote by slapsymcdougal
Yes, because I'd just make this happen starting tomorrow. No warning.


Absolute M A D M A N
Last edited by Fat Lard at Feb 2, 2017,
#40
I'm still not quite sure I understand this. Maybe it's my fault. I'll simplify the numbers here but this is what I don't get.

Person A works at McDonalds. They earn £10,000 a year. They pay 10% of this as tax, totalling £1000. The government pays them back a basic income supplement of £5000 a year.

Person B works as a neurosurgeon. They earn £100,000 a year. They pay 10% of this as tax, totalling £10,000. The government pays them back a basic income supplement of £5000 a year.

Why would person B benefit in any way from this system?
Page 1 of 3