4 ms·

I don't think there's even a common model, yet. Some are designed only to benefit the poor, like negative income tax rates. It's kind of silly to discuss the d

by duaneb 10y ago

I don't think there's even a common model, yet. Some are designed only to benefit the poor, like negative income tax rates. It's kind of silly to discuss the details when there aren't any. People need to be open to giving cash to the poor to even begin thinking about how best to implement it, and the US at least has been going in the opposite direction since the original Clinton welfare reform, which emphasizes employment assistance over direct monetary assistance, with mixed results.

1123581321 10y ago
I do not agree. Understanding of and agreement on the details makes it possible for people to be open to such a broad idea. Currently, the details are discouraging, so it makes sense for proponents to downplay them, but in the long run, they will have more success solving the prerequisites and working their way up. My opinion is that a career in robotics is the most effective way of solving those prerequisites.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Well, I would investigate negative income tax. I don't know what the current state of the UBI lobby looks like, but there are certainly flavors of UBI that are much more efficient at allocating funds where they are needed most. Negative income tax is just one flavor of the more nuanced strategies. I certainly don't think routing some percentage of money into the governments coffers just to pay out again to the same people paying it would be an attractive option, and that seems like what you're describing. I believe that is by far the least efficient model I've seen. Personally, I think it's throwing money away without also addressing healthcare costs, including nutritional reform. Sugar is only cheap when you ignore the costs of obesity we all bear in increased premiums. This is the only way of which I can conceive to implement some form of cash relief without cutting into benefits.

by duaneb 10y ago

1123581321 10y ago

I do not agree. Understanding of and agreement on the details makes it possible for people to be open to such a broad idea. Currently, the details are discouraging, so it makes sense for proponents to downplay them, but in the long run, they will have more success solving the prerequisites and working their way up. My opinion is that a career in robotics is the most effective way of solving those prerequisites.

duaneb 10y ago
Well, I would investigate negative income tax. I don't know what the current state of the UBI lobby looks like, but there are certainly flavors of UBI that are much more efficient at allocating funds where they are needed most. Negative income tax is just one flavor of the more nuanced strategies. I certainly don't think routing some percentage of money into the governments coffers just to pay out again to the same people paying it would be an attractive option, and that seems like what you're describing. I believe that is by far the least efficient model I've seen. Personally, I think it's throwing money away without also addressing healthcare costs, including nutritional reform. Sugar is only cheap when you ignore the costs of obesity we all bear in increased premiums. This is the only way of which I can conceive to implement some form of cash relief without cutting into benefits.