Current Events > if the US doesnt implement Uiniversal Basic Income by the *end of the pandemic,

(+) Yeah! (+)

MabusIncarnate posted...

The Republicans will never let it happen, let's be real. They gotta help those poor millionaires with their taxes and fuck poverty.

So bill gates, huge republican?

Uiniversal

What would be the rate then?

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Ah yes the 1% of our budget that goes to foreign aid would surely pay for UBI.

Democrats put in that bill, gender studies in other country. That money could have gone to. Oh snap.

Sure, if they give me the option to opt out and be tax exempt for opting out, since they aren't giving me $1K a month... otherwise, that $1K a month is simply money to pay my taxes with.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

A lot of tags in this topic proving to be extremely accurate.

Implement UBI now or risk the results of mass unemployment in the future. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention.

Hell, I was homeless and unemployable *before* Covid.

Going forward from here, my life is pretty much fucked beyond repair.
---

kinetika_ posted...

Sure, if they give me the option to opt out and be tax exempt for opting out, since they aren't giving me $1K a month... otherwise, that $1K a month is simply money to pay my taxes with.

Why would they do that? It would just make it more expensive by adding unnecessary bureaucracy. Not sure what you just letting them hold the money would do for you either. Having it count as you making 12k less in income would have to make you more than 12k dollars + whatever your returns would have been for however youd have invested it. Which sounds unlikely. Cause 12k in untaxed income is worth less than just the 12k youd have given up in exchange.

---

21WIVES_CHILL posted...

Why should people that dont work be paid?

---

Why should people have to work?

---

Dark_SilverX posted...

Can't happen. We have to support the other countries, silly goose.

You mean destabilize them

---

Kingbuffet posted...

Youre ignorant if you dont think it will happen, watch a video of a Amazon warehouse then come back make the same statement

It's not going to happen. Republicans will literally let you die before they give poors free money. And Democrats will half-assedly fight for itm

---

MabusIncarnate posted...

The Republicans will never let it happen, let's be real. They gotta help those poor millionaires with their taxes and fuck poverty.

The who? They don't control anything anymore. They have zero power.
---

Bleuets posted...

problem is nobody would work. That means nobody would be there to run businesses.

UBI would ideally only cover for basic living expenses.

Americans will still work because we're too materialistic to give up our Playstations and 82 inch TVs

---

Give me 12k a year and Ill still work. If you give it to every adult and not just head of house, thats 24k in my pocket extra. Add per kid. Thats 36k.

I would still work and that would just go into my spending account while my work income will go to my retirement and other expenses.

---

_Savage posted...

It's like he's never heard of entrepreneurs. Or the people who stand to make more money by staying at their jobs...

I know entrepereneurs. Most can be some of the laziest people I know, only wanting to do the "fun" parts of the job. Strategic planning, design, brainstorming ideas, they love that stuff. Payroll, data collection and analysis, taxes, paperwork in general, I had to drag my old boss to his desk witha net to do those kind of things.

It's not that people wouldn't work, but you'd have a hell of a time getting your garbage hauled off, your toilets cleaned, any job with the risk of running into a bitchy Karen, sewer maintenance, only to give a few examples. Robots aren't doing all the work yet.

---

muchdran posted...

Democrats put in that bill, gender studies in other country. That money could have gone to. Oh snap.

If you distributed the entire foreign aid budget to Americans you'd get something like $100 a year. There's your UBI bro!

Broseph "I'm totally on the left" Stalin defending oversized military budgets now.
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

It's not that people wouldn't work, but you'd have a hell of a time getting your garbage hauled off, your toilets cleaned, any job with the risk of running into a bitchy Karen, sewer maintenance, only to give a few examples. Robots aren't doing all the work yet.

I mean that's kind of the whole point. Without the fear of starvation forcing workers to accept shitty wages and work conditions, those employers would have to actually put in effort towards attracting qualified workers.

---

HalSteinbrenner posted...

Broseph "I'm totally on the left" Stalin defending oversized military budgets now.

The US doesn't have an oversized military budget. You're just looking at nominal figures because you really don't understand the information you absorb, you can only parrot it.

And the idea that liberal democracy should defend itself isn't really right-wing. You will find a lot of right-wingers attacking NATO and supporting isolationism since Trump came along, however.

Because meddling in foreign affairs that have nothing to do with us all the time is defending our democracy. We'd be a 3rd world country if we didn't go to Korea,Vietnam,Cambodia,Somalia,Iraq,Libya,Iraq,Aghanististan,Iraq, and Libya.
---

HalSteinbrenner posted...

Because meddling in foreign affairs that have nothing to do with us all the time is defending our democracy.

Do you have an argument here that isn't a copy pasted statement from the Kremlin?

The what now
---

Yeah, let's give lazy fuckers even more reason to stay as lazy fuckers.

cardoor123 posted...

Yeah, let's give lazy fuckers even more reason to stay as lazy fuckers.

Alaska is one of the hardest working states in America
---

UBI could do a lot of good if it were combined with existing public services, but it's intended as a replacement for them.

ultimately it's not a solution -- giving $500 a piece to 5 tenants is effectively just giving $2500 to their landlord. it would be better to cut the landlord out of the equation entirely and just have free housing for all.

---

But $2500 goes to their landlord and now they have $2500 more to spend on basic necessities.
---

Too many people would stop working and take the UBI therefore it would become unsustainable.

---

Monolith1676 posted...

Too many people would stop working and take the UBI therefore it would become unsustainable.

What's your source on this or your educational credentials to back up such an assertion?

_Rinku_ posted...

What's your source on this or your educational credentials to back up such an assertion?

It is in an inference from what we are seeing from unemployment.

---

Monolith1676 posted...

Too many people would stop working and take the UBI therefore it would become unsustainable.

This has literally been proven false.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

It is in an inference from what we are seeing from unemployment.

What data are you basing this "inference" on? What has been your education in learning to interpret this data? Have you taken even one Statistics class?

HalSteinbrenner posted...

This has literally been proven false.

We can't prove it false until when if/it happens.

---

HalSteinbrenner posted...

But $2500 goes to their landlord and now they have $2500 more to spend on basic necessities.

the landlord is probably not using that money for basic necessities

---

Monolith1676 posted...

We can't prove it false until when if/it happens.

Alaska, countries in europe
---

averagejoel posted...

the landlord is probably not using that money for basic necessities

Bruh

It's $2500 extra the person doesn't have to spend
---

HalSteinbrenner posted...

Bruh

It's $2500 extra the person doesn't have to spend

it's $2500 being given to the landlord by the government

---

The US will never be anywhere close to the first country in the world to do this.

---

Trumble posted...

The US will never be anywhere close to the first country in the world to do this.

Which one will?

---

averagejoel posted...

UBI could do a lot of good if it were combined with existing public services, but it's intended as a replacement for them.

ultimately it's not a solution -- giving $500 a piece to 5 tenants is effectively just giving $2500 to their landlord. it would be better to cut the landlord out of the equation entirely and just have free housing for all.

No it isnt. Giving free houses reduces the power people have and due to the bureaucracy involved makes things like moving much more of a hassle. Providing people with money directly provides them with support to leave bad situations like terrible landlords. Providing all those services directly will never be better than providing a generic resource to acquire the services. The simpler your safety net is, the less it costs to run which means more of it goes out to the population. By strengthening the bottom of society with no strings attached money, you enable them to make changes to benefit themselves.
By attaching shit like means testing and usage requirements/restrictions you consume an excessive amount of the peoples time and make it harder to change their situation since doing so risks loss of benefits.

---

uwnim posted...

Giving free houses reduces the power people have

it reduces the power that landlords have. which is a good thing.

people with money directly provides them with support to leave bad situations like terrible landlords.

taking landlords out of the equation entirely would do this much more effectively

Providing all those services directly will never be better than providing a generic resource to acquire the services. The simpler your safety net is, the less it costs to run which means more of it goes out to the population.

those two sentences directly contradict each other: landlords are an unnecessary middle man. all they do is leech resources away from their tenants. removing them from the equation would drastically lower costs because there would be no third party sucking money out and contributing nothing.

By strengthening the bottom of society with no strings attached money, you enable them to make changes to benefit themselves.

by strengthening the bottom of society with no strings attached housing, food, and other essential services, you do the same thing. but you have the added benefit of not causing a massive upward transfer of wealth.

By attaching shit like means testing and usage requirements/restrictions you consume an excessive amount of the peoples time and make it harder to change their situation since doing so risks loss of benefits.

not sure where you got this from, but I never said anything about means testing, or about usage requirements/restrictions

---

Trumble posted...

The US will never be anywhere close to the first country in the world to do this.

Milton Friedman actually convinced Nixon to support his version of UBI, but it never passed congress. We did eventually get the EITC though which has been extremely successful in lowering poverty.

averagejoel posted...

not sure where you got this from, but I never said anything about means testing, or about usage requirements/restrictions

Means testing, no(this just gets easier to tack on when the safety net becomes hyper focused). Requirements/restrictions you did though, you are arguing to provide for each category separately which requires that(i.e. you can't take some of your housing distribution and apply it towards better food).
averagejoel posted...

by strengthening the bottom of society with no strings attached housing, food, and other essential services, you do the same thing. but you have the added benefit of not causing a massive upward transfer of wealth.

Your idea has strings though and no it doesn't. It locks people into place. Eh, can't say I care much about how many numbers someone has on paper. Real resources though are a concern, like buying up massive amounts of water and other such things that have actual consequences. Ways to prevent that though(i.e. water is considered part of the country and therefore owned solely by the government, water bodies may be leased to, but never actually owned by individual people/companies)

For the rest, landlords are absolutely leeches. You will get no argument about that from me. Where I will disagree is with the idea that a middleman cannot have value. They can make things work more smoothly than it would by having a massive centralized agency try to handle everything. However they should be leashed. Private land ownership should not exist since any land within a country would belong to the country. Could use "landlords" as middlemen between the government and the populace to get the land utilized and be granted a small percentage of the collected rents in return.

---

Some lazy ass people here

---

uwnim posted...

Requirements/restrictions you did though, you are arguing to provide for each category separately which requires that(i.e. you can't take some of your housing distribution and apply it towards better food).

no, requirements/restrictions would be giving someone a certain amount of money and saying that it can only be used for food (or rent or whatever). this is just giving those things directly. also I used housing as the example, but the same thing should absolutely be done with food.

Eh, can't say I care much about how many numbers someone has on paper.

you should. the ability to accumulate wealth is one of the major sources of problems in the world. arguably the major source of problems. either way, it's very important that that be prevented from happening, and one way to start that process is by removing the possibility of essential services (like housing and food) being treated as for-profit investments.

Real resources though are a concern, like buying up massive amounts of water and other such things that have actual consequences. Ways to prevent that though(i.e. water is considered part of the country and therefore owned solely by the government, water bodies may be leased to, but never actually owned by individual people/companies)

yes. and... that is exactly what I'm suggesting as the solution

Where I will disagree is with the idea that a middleman cannot have value. They can make things work more smoothly than it would by having a massive centralized agency try to handle everything. However they should be leashed. Private land ownership should not exist since any land within a country would belong to the country. Could use "landlords" as middlemen between the government and the populace to get the land utilized and be granted a small percentage of the collected rents in return.

okay this is something that I could potentially get behind, provided that the "landlord" actually did things and directly contributed to the equation. like acting as a steward of the property.

(big semantic tangent: I use "landlord" in quotation marks because this would be a very different function from what landlords currently do -- they would be making money by doing things rather than just by owning things -- to the extent that I don't think they should be called the same thing. not entirely sure what another name would be though)

---

Currently: No.

But I feel like Andrew Yang was spot on when he talked about the need for it in the future due to automation. So in the future? Yes.

---

Bump

---