3 ms·
I'd assume that we would eventually make that distribution as efficient as possible with automation. I'd further assume that any money you make gets channeled t
by delinka 8y ago
I'd assume that we would eventually make that distribution as efficient as possible with automation. I'd further assume that any money you make gets channeled through this system so that you have to earn past $30K to see any more money in your account.
nit:
ten trillion two hundred forty two billion nine hundred sixty million and no thousands ;-)
How about "over $10.2 trillion"?
- skrowl 8y agoGood call mate!
- bacro 8y agotwo hundred forty TWO billion to be correct :P
- delinka 8y agofixed - I was going to correct his interpretation, but then decided to spell it all out ... I'm lame
- jacoblambda 8y agoThe issue with your suggestion is that it dis-incentivises work which is one of the problems UBI tries to solve about welfare systems. Currently the issue is "why would I work more than X amount if that means that I make less than if I worked less than that (welfare + work)?" but with your system it becomes "If I am relatively unskilled, why would I try to work at all if that means that I will receive almost no compensation beyond what the government already gives me?". UBI is supposed to support people so that they can do the work that they believe is most valuable and to prevent people from being dis-incentivised from pursuing work. It has other goals as well such as eliminating other welfare services, removing minimum wage, and incentivising moving away from cities but those first two are the primary reasons.
- delinka 8y agoThat's fine. It just makes the distribution system that much more efficient - the same amount for everyone. Then we could afford a flat tax rate for everyone simplifying taxation as well.