Current Events > UBI will be a serious debate topic in 20 years

(+) Yeah! (+)

Calling it now. Check back with me in 2040.

---

well at least we're acknowledging it's not a serious debate topic right now

---

What is this? 1890?

---

no it won't, it doesn't work on any scale

Uh, sure. *sets watch*

---

Yang 2040

doubt it

I predict the oligarchy to continue to take control as the US resembles something more akin to Russia

---

Kaiganeer posted...

no it won't, it doesn't work on any scale

It does, but it's not sustainable at any scale.

Yang was just a few election cycles too early

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

It does, but it's not sustainable at any scale.

It's highly scalable with the use of a VAT (value-added tax). Do research before you start spouting false claims.

Unlike a tax imposed on accumulated assets, the VATs implicit wealth tax is very difficult to avoid or evade and does not require the valuation of assets....

One hundred sixty-eight countries have a VAT.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/01/30/how-a-vat-could-tax-the-rich-and-pay-for-universal-basic-income/

---

Confirm.

Automation is just going to get better and better taking away human jobs. Something will need to be done.

---

Check out burnout rates among current professions and ask if the solution long term is give unskilled people money, or get unskilled labor into jobs that are overworking their people right now, even if it mean them having to become skilled at more than stocking shelves and running a cash register.

---

Hairistotle posted...

UBI just seems like a scam to get poor people off welfare

It wont work, either they establish it on top of welfare or they be allowed to implement it at all.

And even then I imagine it causing far more damage to community's then welfares ever done.

---

I love how dismissive people in America STILL are of the potential of any possible stupid thing happening.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

It's highly scalable with the use of a VAT (value-added tax). Do research before you start spouting false claims.

Yet, none of the 168 VAT countries have a UBI, at least that I'm aware of.
Canada has attempted a UBI on at least one occasion, but nothing came of it.

Gamefaqs might be dead in 20 years

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Yet, none of the 168 VAT countries have a UBI, at least that I'm aware of.
Canada has attempted a UBI on at least one occasion, but nothing came of it.

Alaska has been doing a variation of it for over 30 years.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/alaska-free-money-residents-hints-how-universal-basic-income-may-work

Countries like finland are testing small samples sizes currently, with great results.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/universal-basic-income-finland-ontario-stockton_n_5c5c3679e4b00187b558e5ab


---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Alaska has been doing a variation of it for over 30 years.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/alaska-free-money-residents-hints-how-universal-basic-income-may-work

Interesting.
Strange how that article is sharply negative about it, though. What's that about?

Countries like finland are testing small samples sizes currently, with great results.

The problem with "small sample sizes" is that it (like the oil-funded Alaska thing up there) depends on a external revenue model, which is where the sustainability gets questionable.
It'll likely end up like the time(s) Canada gave it a go, where it works great for the few hundred people in the pilot program, but can't figure out how to make it work with several million.
The nightmare scenario is Venezuela, where it's funded by nationalized natural resources that suddenly tank in the global market.

But, the core sustainability problem is that wealth is more mobile than poverty (see also: France). Figure out a way around that, and utopia results.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The problem with "small sample sizes" is that it (like the oil-funded Alaska thing up there) depends on a external revenue model, which is where the sustainability gets questionable

Again, you dont understand how VAT works. Yang and MANY others have already done the math on using VAT combined with spending cuts. Whether politicians want to implement is irrelevant. It's mathematically sustainable by design.


---

UBi will be necessary in the future

automation will go beyond the scope of normal progress with AI improvements

karlpilkington4 posted...

Again, you dont understand how VAT works.

Why do you assume that?
VAT isn't a magical money machine. It's just functionally a flat consupmtion tax collected at a different step in the process than a sales tax.

karlpilkington4 posted...

Countries like finland are testing small samples sizes currently, with great results.

i'm from finland. the test was ended because they concluded that it did not/would not work

Kaiganeer posted...

i'm from finland. the test was ended because they concluded that it did not/would not work

Do you have any specific details?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Do you have any specific details?

https://tinyurl.com/y5fo3y3u

the experiment over in sweden showed similar results

Kaiganeer posted...

https://tinyurl.com/y5fo3y3u

the experiment over in sweden showed similar results

It literally just says the experiment was undercut by bureaucracy, though

---

I suspect that most of us will see it in our lifetime but it's probably quite a ways off. It's definitely a good idea to debate it and try to figure out workable solutions before it becomes a crisis though.

---

Kaiganeer posted...

i'm from finland. the test was ended because they concluded that it did not/would not work

Is that your "professional" analysis?

However, the Finnish government introduced a new activation policy into the Finnish unemployment system at the beginning of 2018 that is, during the second year of the experiment which contaminated the control group. It is now no longer possible to see if the differences between the experiment and control groups are due to basic income or due to tougher conditionality faced by the control group.
It is also important to note that labour markets did not pick up before early 2018. That means there could be more visible effects in 2018, but if that is the case, we cannot really know if that was related to basic income.

---

Two people agreeing they each should get $1000 a month means they have to scrape together $2000 each month between them.
That's the inherent flaw, right there, as simply as it can be illustrated.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Two people agreeing they each should get $1000 a month means they have to scrape together $2000 each month between them.
That's the inherent flaw, right there, as simply as it can be illustrated.

I literally have no idea what this is even suppose to mean. It certainly isn't "simply illustrated".

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

I literally have no idea what this is even suppose to mean. It certainly isn't "simply illustrated".

That's the minimum scaling possible.

A thousand people agreeing on a $1000 UBI needs they have to collect $1,000,000 each month.

255 million means $255 billion each month, or $3,060,000,000,000 each year. That would be about 70% of the entire US budget and 16% of the entire US GDP, and it all assumes that children don't exist.

The numbers can work, if you're willing to take significant cuts to everything else, assume that GDP and revenues will remain the same (or somehow increase without then needing a larger UBI), and pretend that wealth won't mysteriously vanish for "reasons".