LogFAQs > #938323724

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Nancy Pelosi wants UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME now because of what COVID-19 did!!!
Zeus 04/29/20 5:42:53 PM #18:	streamofthesky posted... UBI provides enough income to survive on (food, shelther, clothing, healthcare). The incentive to work is if you'd like to have more than the bare minimum needed to live off of. Ideally it's paid for by taxing company profits (at point of sale, none of the inversion crap) and only giving tax breaks for having lots of U.S. employees. That way either they're providing lots of jobs, or if they're making money w/o doing that (whether via outsourcing or automation) they get hit w/ a big tax bill that's used to fund UBI to make up for the lack of jobs available. If nobody is working then the level of productivity won't be enough to sustain that bare minimum, unless the system is fully automated which it obviously isn't anywhere close to being. The idea that it could be generated through taxing companies when nobody is working at those companies is ludicrous. YoukaiSlayer posted... There also undeniably will be people that don't work under UBI that would if it wasn't there but I'm not convinced it'd actually be that many people. Welfare already exists. Welfare is both stigmatized, has at least some controls designed to limit it (even if the enforcement is clearly inadequate), and in many cases only supplements what people already make. UBI would not. YoukaiSlayer posted... On the other hand, people would probably be quicker and more aggressively investing in automation if theres no concern about getting rid of jobs people need to survive. Automation innovations have nothing to do with a concern for workers, they have to do with achieving productivity at a lower price point. The only reason that automation hasn't gone further is that it's currently too expensive to automate many jobs. Fam_Fam posted... why do people against UBI think that people would rather barely have enough to live than work and have money to pay for entertainment, travel, buy "luxury" items, tecnology, etc.? most people don't want to sit at home and do nothing (especially if they could go out and make money). this quarantine should make that clear. there will always be people who want to make more money, and UBI isn't going to stop that. and if there are people who don't want to work who are satisfied with their UBI based on their cost of living, making more jobs available to others, that's totally fine by me. Why do people expect that UBI will be either be sustainable at basic needs (if nobody is working) or that it would stop at basic needs? When has a government program ever known limits without hitting a hard wall, collapsing disastrously, or being reined in by an opposing party which sees the flaws? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:938323724] in Nancy Pelo... [t:78637084]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>UBI provides enough income to survive on (food, shelther, clothing, healthcare). The incentive to work is if you'd like to have more than the bare minimum needed to live off of. Ideally it's paid for by taxing company profits (at point of sale, none of the inversion crap) and only giving tax breaks for having lots of U.S. employees. That way either they're providing lots of jobs, or if they're making money w/o doing that (whether via outsourcing or automation) they get hit w/ a big tax bill that's used to fund UBI to make up for the lack of jobs available.</quote> If nobody is working then the level of productivity won't be enough to sustain that bare minimum, unless the system is fully automated which it obviously isn't anywhere close to being. The idea that it could be generated through taxing companies when nobody is working at those companies is ludicrous. YoukaiSlayer posted... </cite> <quote>There also undeniably will be people that don't work under UBI that would if it wasn't there but I'm not convinced it'd actually be that many people. Welfare already exists.</quote> Welfare is both stigmatized, has at least some controls designed to limit it (even if the enforcement is clearly inadequate), and in many cases only supplements what people already make. UBI would not. YoukaiSlayer posted... </cite> <quote>On the other hand, people would probably be quicker and more aggressively investing in automation if theres no concern about getting rid of jobs people need to survive.</quote> Automation innovations have nothing to do with a concern for workers, they have to do with achieving productivity at a lower price point. The only reason that automation hasn't gone further is that it's currently too expensive to automate many jobs. Fam_Fam posted... </cite> <quote>why do people against UBI think that people would rather barely have enough to live than work and have money to pay for entertainment, travel, buy "luxury" items, tecnology, etc.? most people don't want to sit at home and do nothing (especially if they could go out and make money). this quarantine should make that clear. there will always be people who want to make more money, and UBI isn't going to stop that. and if there are people who don't want to work who are satisfied with their UBI based on their cost of living, making more jobs available to others, that's totally fine by me.</quote> Why do people expect that UBI will be either be sustainable at basic needs (if nobody is working) or that it would stop at basic needs? When has a government program ever known limits without hitting a hard wall, collapsing disastrously, or being reined in by an opposing party which sees the flaws? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1