3 ms·

> Generally a non-working person makes $0 Not according to Milton Friedman. https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191 https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191

by kr7 11y ago

randyrand 11y ago
Good source. That is of course one valid way to implement it and is essentially BI in calculation. Still even under miltons NIC, an important difference between NIC and BI is intended purpose. BI proponents want enough to live on with little hardship, NIC implies nothing in that regard and most NIC proponents I imagine would be opposed to that. I would not be a proponent of BI for that important 'scalar' reason.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  I agree that the main difference between UBI and NIT is framing, and I prefer UBI for that very reason. It's much simpler to understand, and it separates the notion of creating a social baseline from the tax system. Also, this framing could also make a practical difference to the interface. If the benefit is administrated separately, you don't need to think about tax until you get a job. Having to submit a tax return to get your money is potentially intimidating, not to mention somewhat degrading if it says $0. With UBI, rich and poor alike get the cheque. >BI proponents want enough to live on with little hardship Certainly many do, but I feel this is more of an aspiration than a requirement. I think there are huge economic benefits that will come about from the stability and freedom that even a smaller UBI provides. In the longer term, complete sustenance may become trivial.
  - randyrand 11y ago
    > In the longer term, complete sustenance may become trivial. This can already be done easily with the right mindset. We do not need any more technical advancements to achieve this goal. Water is cheap. Agriculture technology is already amazing. Food can be as little as a few dollars a day if you buy cheap foods (beans, rice, bread, ect). Its possible to live rather well on $300 a month or $3600 a year if you live in the right location, and live within your means. Heck, most of the world already does this. But the problem to living like this in in america is our wealth drives up the cost of certain inherently supply limited resources. The biggest ones being those resources which are tied to land. And the biggest example being shelter. Shelter prices are mainly determined by people 'one upping' each other. Competing with each other. Given these obstacles, the biggest beneficiary of UBI may not be the common person, but land owners. Building skyscrapers is a great partial solution to the problem, but resistance is everywhere.

> Generally a non-working person makes $0 Not according to Milton Friedman. https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191 https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191

by kr7 11y ago

> Generally a non-working person makes $0 Not according to Milton Friedman. https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191 https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM?t=191

randyrand 11y ago

Good source. That is of course one valid way to implement it and is essentially BI in calculation. Still even under miltons NIC, an important difference between NIC and BI is intended purpose. BI proponents want enough to live on with little hardship, NIC implies nothing in that regard and most NIC proponents I imagine would be opposed to that. I would not be a proponent of BI for that important 'scalar' reason.

aninhumer 11y ago
I agree that the main difference between UBI and NIT is framing, and I prefer UBI for that very reason. It's much simpler to understand, and it separates the notion of creating a social baseline from the tax system. Also, this framing could also make a practical difference to the interface. If the benefit is administrated separately, you don't need to think about tax until you get a job. Having to submit a tax return to get your money is potentially intimidating, not to mention somewhat degrading if it says $0. With UBI, rich and poor alike get the cheque. >BI proponents want enough to live on with little hardship Certainly many do, but I feel this is more of an aspiration than a requirement. I think there are huge economic benefits that will come about from the stability and freedom that even a smaller UBI provides. In the longer term, complete sustenance may become trivial.
- randyrand 11y ago
  > In the longer term, complete sustenance may become trivial. This can already be done easily with the right mindset. We do not need any more technical advancements to achieve this goal. Water is cheap. Agriculture technology is already amazing. Food can be as little as a few dollars a day if you buy cheap foods (beans, rice, bread, ect). Its possible to live rather well on $300 a month or $3600 a year if you live in the right location, and live within your means. Heck, most of the world already does this. But the problem to living like this in in america is our wealth drives up the cost of certain inherently supply limited resources. The biggest ones being those resources which are tied to land. And the biggest example being shelter. Shelter prices are mainly determined by people 'one upping' each other. Competing with each other. Given these obstacles, the biggest beneficiary of UBI may not be the common person, but land owners. Building skyscrapers is a great partial solution to the problem, but resistance is everywhere.