6 ms·

> If I had a shitty, dead-end job, and someone offered me (eg.) 80% of an average paycheck in my country, FOREVER(!), i'd probably quit, and live off UBI, and d

by mercer 6y ago

> If I had a shitty, dead-end job, and someone offered me (eg.) 80% of an average paycheck in my country, FOREVER(!), i'd probably quit, and live off UBI, and do other stuff (fun for me, but litle of value to to wider society, and with probably zero tax money to feed the UBI system). ...or, probably move somewhere, where I can get more for that amount of money. While I do think this might be what some people will do, I think that over time, as we get used to such a thing, this is not at all what most people will do. I've had periods of years in my life where I didn't have to think about money. After a short period of faffing off, I started doing all sorts of stuff. Some of it of direct value to society (volunteering) and some of it perhaps indirectly so (teaching myself new skills, working on 'products' that could be useful). I mean, even just spending time with others who themselves had it in short supply and valued my company could be considered 'useful to society'. What I do know is that all of this time spent was generally more useful than a number of years of inane bullshit I worked on for various companies (getting paid well, but not really feeling satisfied with the result). So many projects that just stopped because of some decision higher up. So much work poured into websites that offer no value to society either. And the stress and depressions that goes with it leading to me being a 'burden' on society by using my health care bux on mental health care. I'm not a rare case. Of course, this is anecdotal. But the assumption that people will just be lazy and offer nothing to society if they can is equally anecdotal, and honestly goes against everything I see in about 99% of the people around me. People want to be useful. People want to be valued and needed. People want to be creative. I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else).

jonkho 6y ago
Fair enough, but I’m more concerned if UBI turned out to be a bad policy, would it be repealed? Practically speaking, the government has a poor track record of back pedaling on bad policies once they are in place.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  I'm skeptical about this too.... especialy if the UBI was the 'thing' that got them elected in the first place. And people would be protesting because they'd be losing 'free money'.
- mercer 6y ago
  Possibly. it's an interesting point. I'd say no, though. My experience so far has been that my government has had no problems repealing (to various degrees) things like health care, education/student loans, or public ownership of various things. From my limited knowledge this has been similar in much of the Western world, at least.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    Better question is, after they took away/shrunk down the service, did they lower the taxes because of that cost saving? In slovenia, we still have the "financial crisis" (2008) 22% VAT, which we "temporary" increased back then (from 20%).
    - mercer 6y ago
      To a degree I feel discussing this is a distraction of my basic point (we have become productive enough even in just a few decades to indulge in these experiments). But honestly I think it's a great point. Our taxes did not go down, as far as I know. I'll check in one of the coming days, but I'd be shocked to find out it did...
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
> I've had periods of years in my life where I didn't have to think about money. After a short period of faffing off, I started doing all sorts of stuff. Some of it of direct value to society (volunteering) and some of it perhaps indirectly so (teaching myself new skills, working on 'products' that could be useful). I mean, even just spending time with others who themselves had it in short supply and valued my company could be considered 'useful to society'. Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society. > People want to be useful. People want to be valued and needed. People want to be creative. Of course people want to be useful and creative. But peoples usefullness and creativeness has to create atlest 2xUBI of taxes (one that goes back to the worker and one that goes to someone who get UBI but doesnt work) + all the other costs. If you're capable of doing stuff you like, being creative, liking that work, and creating that much income, why are you not doing it now? > I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else). Problem with this society is, that it also requires people who are working, to cover the cost of the poeple who are not working. Curretnly most countries do that for a very small percentage of unemployed (welfare), and most people in those countries are already complaining about the high taxes. If you raise the taxes on the people left working, and let others live relatively normal lives without working, you'll get less and less of the former and more of the later. Yes, non-workers will create music, art, will travel, write blogs, etc., but none of that generates enough income to cover even their own cost.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  >Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society. I challenge your assumption that someone's worth to society can be accounted for by tax revenue.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
golf3 6y ago
This program has to work for the least common denominator. I think a common pitfall is intelligent people designing systems in a bubble of intelligent friends then wondering why it fails spectacularly in public.

by mercer 6y ago

jonkho 6y ago

Fair enough, but I’m more concerned if UBI turned out to be a bad policy, would it be repealed? Practically speaking, the government has a poor track record of back pedaling on bad policies once they are in place.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
I'm skeptical about this too.... especialy if the UBI was the 'thing' that got them elected in the first place. And people would be protesting because they'd be losing 'free money'.
mercer 6y ago
Possibly. it's an interesting point. I'd say no, though. My experience so far has been that my government has had no problems repealing (to various degrees) things like health care, education/student loans, or public ownership of various things. From my limited knowledge this has been similar in much of the Western world, at least.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  Better question is, after they took away/shrunk down the service, did they lower the taxes because of that cost saving? In slovenia, we still have the "financial crisis" (2008) 22% VAT, which we "temporary" increased back then (from 20%).
  - mercer 6y ago
    To a degree I feel discussing this is a distraction of my basic point (we have become productive enough even in just a few decades to indulge in these experiments). But honestly I think it's a great point. Our taxes did not go down, as far as I know. I'll check in one of the coming days, but I'd be shocked to find out it did...

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

> I've had periods of years in my life where I didn't have to think about money. After a short period of faffing off, I started doing all sorts of stuff. Some of it of direct value to society (volunteering) and some of it perhaps indirectly so (teaching myself new skills, working on 'products' that could be useful). I mean, even just spending time with others who themselves had it in short supply and valued my company could be considered 'useful to society'. Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society. > People want to be useful. People want to be valued and needed. People want to be creative. Of course people want to be useful and creative. But peoples usefullness and creativeness has to create atlest 2xUBI of taxes (one that goes back to the worker and one that goes to someone who get UBI but doesnt work) + all the other costs. If you're capable of doing stuff you like, being creative, liking that work, and creating that much income, why are you not doing it now? > I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else). Problem with this society is, that it also requires people who are working, to cover the cost of the poeple who are not working. Curretnly most countries do that for a very small percentage of unemployed (welfare), and most people in those countries are already complaining about the high taxes. If you raise the taxes on the people left working, and let others live relatively normal lives without working, you'll get less and less of the former and more of the later. Yes, non-workers will create music, art, will travel, write blogs, etc., but none of that generates enough income to cover even their own cost.

bluntfang 6y ago
>Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society. I challenge your assumption that someone's worth to society can be accounted for by tax revenue.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago

golf3 6y ago

This program has to work for the least common denominator. I think a common pitfall is intelligent people designing systems in a bubble of intelligent friends then wondering why it fails spectacularly in public.