4 ms·

UBI will not happen. Not because free money are not good for the people — they are. Not because everyone will suddenly get lazy and stop working — they won't.

UBI will not happen. Not because free money are not good for the people — they are. Not because everyone will suddenly get lazy and stop working — they won't. Because UBI is unsustainable and won't last more than a year. There is not enough money for any plausible scenario. That's why. And yes, let's give people "free" money and do nothing about hugely overpriced and corrupt healthcare system, education and things. In fact, let's introduce new obligatory payments for everyone! Who, do you think, might be the most interested in lobbying for _that_?

deanCommie 10y ago
There's more than enough wealth in society to redistribute it from the top 1% to the bottom 50% and give them a living wage. Yeah, the Koch brothers would only be worth 5 billion instead of 40, but somehow I don't think their lifestyle will be altered in any way shape or form. I expect this is probably an unpopular opinion on a forum for entrepreneurs
- atemerev 10y ago
  > There's more than enough wealth in society to redistribute it from the top 1% to the bottom 50% and give them a living wage. No it isn't. Get an Excel and calculate. It will last about a year.
krrrh 10y ago
I upvoted you because you're right with regards to UBI as it's argued for in places like this forum. The same arguments were true the first time these ideas were proposed when it was called Social Credit. However, I suspect that replacing patchwork welfare and social programs with a simplified negative income tax[1] or expansion of the earned income tax credit is a plausible path that could lead towards something like a UBI. This would be welfare-level support, not provide a 'living wage', and not pay out money to anyone who was earning above a basic threshold (at which point they would be paying a positive income tax, just like today). Once something like this is in place I could see the needle being moved over time if the sort of automation that machines give us in the coming decades really is categorically different from the sort of automation that machines have given us in the past 2 centuries (debatable). [1] http://www.economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/milton_friedman_1.html http://www.economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11...
- atemerev 10y ago
  I despise bureaucracy as much as the next person, but replacing welfare programs with negative income tax will not work. There are just too many people and too little money. Welfare programs are specific and target select audience; targeting broad audience will just spread the money to wafer-thin levels. Concerning the automation and sudden increases in productivity — but this was exactly the very same promise that full-scale Communism was expected to deliver in Soviet Union. It was reiterated in internal propaganda endlessly (I still remember that). As every ex-Soviet person knows well, the full-scale Communism (with free basic income, fully automated factories and cities of the future) was promised as early as 1980. Now it is called "post-scarcity". It wasn't delivered then, and I doubt it will be delivered this century.
scarmig 10y ago
In the USA, it is entirely possible to institute a reasonable UBI, on the order of $10k/adult with some fractional amount for their dependents. The question is politics: it'd also require scrapping most of our current welfare programs and instituting Scandinavian levels of taxation. This ends up goring {Republican,Democratic} {donors,clientele demographics}, so I agree that's presently an impossible lift in the USA, but that's a matter of politics, not economics. I'm with you on fixing our broken healthcare and educational systems, but if you think that's any more practicable than a UBI, I've got a free government subsidy to sell you.
- atemerev 10y ago
  You either get Scandinavian welfare and taxation, or (very modest) UBI without any welfare, but still Scandinavian taxation. Will $10000/year cover any medical expenses? It is barely enough for food. Also, taxes in Scandinavia (I lived in Denmark) are not that high. True, there is 50% tax, but no other hidden payments like social security or medical insurance. And medicine and education are free. I'd rather run business with 50% tax and no bureaucracy and no social security payments than pay all this. One of the most expensive and problematic countries to run businesses is France. Scandinavia is piece of cake compared to France.

deanCommie 10y ago

There's more than enough wealth in society to redistribute it from the top 1% to the bottom 50% and give them a living wage. Yeah, the Koch brothers would only be worth 5 billion instead of 40, but somehow I don't think their lifestyle will be altered in any way shape or form. I expect this is probably an unpopular opinion on a forum for entrepreneurs

atemerev 10y ago
> There's more than enough wealth in society to redistribute it from the top 1% to the bottom 50% and give them a living wage. No it isn't. Get an Excel and calculate. It will last about a year.

krrrh 10y ago

I upvoted you because you're right with regards to UBI as it's argued for in places like this forum. The same arguments were true the first time these ideas were proposed when it was called Social Credit. However, I suspect that replacing patchwork welfare and social programs with a simplified negative income tax[1] or expansion of the earned income tax credit is a plausible path that could lead towards something like a UBI. This would be welfare-level support, not provide a 'living wage', and not pay out money to anyone who was earning above a basic threshold (at which point they would be paying a positive income tax, just like today). Once something like this is in place I could see the needle being moved over time if the sort of automation that machines give us in the coming decades really is categorically different from the sort of automation that machines have given us in the past 2 centuries (debatable). [1] http://www.economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/milton_friedman_1.html http://www.economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11...

atemerev 10y ago
I despise bureaucracy as much as the next person, but replacing welfare programs with negative income tax will not work. There are just too many people and too little money. Welfare programs are specific and target select audience; targeting broad audience will just spread the money to wafer-thin levels. Concerning the automation and sudden increases in productivity — but this was exactly the very same promise that full-scale Communism was expected to deliver in Soviet Union. It was reiterated in internal propaganda endlessly (I still remember that). As every ex-Soviet person knows well, the full-scale Communism (with free basic income, fully automated factories and cities of the future) was promised as early as 1980. Now it is called "post-scarcity". It wasn't delivered then, and I doubt it will be delivered this century.

scarmig 10y ago

In the USA, it is entirely possible to institute a reasonable UBI, on the order of $10k/adult with some fractional amount for their dependents. The question is politics: it'd also require scrapping most of our current welfare programs and instituting Scandinavian levels of taxation. This ends up goring {Republican,Democratic} {donors,clientele demographics}, so I agree that's presently an impossible lift in the USA, but that's a matter of politics, not economics. I'm with you on fixing our broken healthcare and educational systems, but if you think that's any more practicable than a UBI, I've got a free government subsidy to sell you.

atemerev 10y ago
You either get Scandinavian welfare and taxation, or (very modest) UBI without any welfare, but still Scandinavian taxation. Will $10000/year cover any medical expenses? It is barely enough for food. Also, taxes in Scandinavia (I lived in Denmark) are not that high. True, there is 50% tax, but no other hidden payments like social security or medical insurance. And medicine and education are free. I'd rather run business with 50% tax and no bureaucracy and no social security payments than pay all this. One of the most expensive and problematic countries to run businesses is France. Scandinavia is piece of cake compared to France.