4 ms·

The ridiculous treadmill of people saying UBI is going to work despite all evidence to the contrary, apparently a long, long time..

orthecreedence 6y ago
You're right! Let's keep doing what we're doing. It's working great.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  I know you're being sarcastic but I disagree. I think capitalism is fine and we need more of it. We need to get rid of governments and minimise centralisation of power instead. I don't want any more wars, jailing of people committing victimless crimes or people being forced to give up half of their economic output to bureaucrats. Every service offered by the government should be offered by multiple private companies. People in need should get money through voluntary donations, not through taxes forcefully stolen from people.
inglor_cz 6y ago
Citizens of rich oil sheikhdoms in the Gulf have had de-facto UBI, and a high one, for a long time, even though the formalities were a bit muddled. In practice, if you were lucky enough to be born as a Saudi or Qatari citizen, your needs would be covered. It did not lead to any explosion of creativity, arts and science there. People are morbidly obese and spend their money on gambling, drugs and sex. I am not very optimistic about human nature when exposed to easy life.
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  Capitalism + UBI = still capitalism. Of course people are fat and lazy, there's an entire economic apparatus convincing them to be. This is why I prefaced the entire point with "abolish capitalism." If you were financially independent, what would you do or build? I know I'd never stop producing useful things.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    I don't know whether you should be so sure that you're not mixing up cause and effect here. It might as well be that we have the economic apparatus because people naturally gravitate towards becoming fat and lazy. Or, most likely, both options are true to some degree. > I know I'd never stop producing useful things. I think few people are this driven.
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    I'm sure you believe this in good faith, but most human beings are not as driven and are not as good natured as you. This is also why governments or any form or redistribution is inferior to a perfect market without human interference: you will always have bad apples stealing resources or being as inefficient as they can be. I know this because I'm a psychopath, I feel zero guilt or empathy and the thought that someone like me could be in a position of power is downright scary.
- kls 6y ago
  My question and this truly is a question as I am not well read on UBI concepts and social theories is: So it did not bring about nirvana and human nature is well human nature but did it eliminate suffering to a noticeable degree i.e homelessness, poverty, food security, healthcare? It seems to me the two are not directly tied, people are always going to seek out the vices because they are the roots of pleasure but that does not mean that the other side of the equation is negative, if it does eliminate suffering then it would be a net positive. I am not advocating for UBI, I am completely ignorant on the subject, just trying to understand if it did produce positive results against suffering.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    I definitely do not want to diss a concept that hasn't been tried out extensively, though I am more skeptical about it than many others - not least because people tend to discriminate "good" neighbourhoods from "bad" using rent level, so we might just see a general jump in rents and property prices that eats the entire UBI and a new unhappy equilibrium is reached. That said, I think that rich Gulf states show us that it can be overdone, that a completely sheltered life of plenty sucks. It sucks in a very different way than hunger or homelessness, but it gnaws on human psyche too.
yellowapple 6y ago
> despite all evidence to the contrary Do you happen to have some of this evidence on hand? Everything I've read on it suggests the exact opposite: that (at least here in the US) it'll not only work better than existing welfare systems, but would end up being cheaper.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  It's hard to claim something is evidence or counter-evidence of anything in social science. Once you add one or more brains, the complexity skyrockets quite quickly. I think it's a terrible idea for (at least) three reasons: - More money is being forcefully redistributed from people that produce work to people who don't produce. This will make people lazier and less entrepreneurial. Yes, I'm against any form of taxation for the same principle and I think the terrible corporate lifecycle is caused primarily by people not being entrepreneurial enough. - Taxes will increase, pushing businesses even more outside of here. - The more money you give to bureaucrats the more they will keep for themselves, the more they will waste, the more will not go to the economy.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > More money is being forcefully redistributed from people that produce work to people who don't produce. I think it's a bit presumptuous to declare that the people footing the bill are even most of the time (let alone all of the time) producing more work than the people receiving a net income from UBI. I would, indeed, argue the exact opposite: your average warehouse or restaurant or farm worker is almost certainly putting in significantly more labor than your average landlord or C-level executive or Bitcoin hodler while receiving a fraction of the income. This might not be the most popular opinion on a website that revolves specifically around the worship of venture-capital-backed get-rich-quick schemes, but I really have close to zero sympathy for those in the latter category; "won't you please think of the poor billionaires" is, frankly, insulting to those actually working for their money. In any case: > Yes, I'm against any form of taxation for the same principle A land value tax wouldn't have this "problem"; it's arguably the one form of taxation that ain't "theft", since it's actually a service payment (i.e. you pay rent to the government that actually owns land - that is, the basis of a "fee simple" title system as used in e.g. the US and other common-law jurisdictions - in exchange for said government recognizing and enforcing your claim on that land). Even if it came from income taxes (which I'd agree would be a worst-case scenario), I've yet to see a single proposal that taxes anyone other than people who can readily afford those taxes. Taking things to an extreme, a billionaire with a 99% income tax is still overwhelmingly richer than (I suspect) the both of us combined. But this all assumes we'd be pursuing UBI in addition to other welfare systems; I'd argue that ain't necessary. That is: > Taxes will increase, pushing businesses even more outside of here. There's every indication that the overall tax burden for all but the absolute wealthiest Americans would decrease substantially by replacing existing welfare programs with UBI. > The more money you give to bureaucrats the more they will keep for themselves, the more they will waste, the more will not go to the economy. By replacing existing welfare programs with UBI, you eliminate a considerable amount of that bureaucracy. Most of that bureaucracy revolves specifically around determining eligibility; if literally every US citizen is unconditionally eligible for a fixed income, we can immediately replace those bureaucrats with a pretty simple system: def redistribute_tax_as_ubi(amount): for c in citizens: c.send_check(amount / citizens.count) And from there it's just a matter of tuning how much tax needs collected in order to ensure every American can afford basic needs. And at that point, with that UBI flowing, it then becomes entirely unambiguous whether or not someone's poor due to circumstance or bad choices - that is, UBI eliminates that variable, and achieves actual equality of opportunity. As an added bonus: > I think the terrible corporate lifecycle is caused primarily by people not being entrepreneurial enough UBI would directly enable all Americans to pursue entrepreneurial ventures without putting themselves in danger of starvation. People would be more entrepreneurial than ever when they know that even if their startups flop (because let's face it: the vast majority of startups crash and burn) they still have food on the table and roofs (rooves?) over their heads.

orthecreedence 6y ago

You're right! Let's keep doing what we're doing. It's working great.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
I know you're being sarcastic but I disagree. I think capitalism is fine and we need more of it. We need to get rid of governments and minimise centralisation of power instead. I don't want any more wars, jailing of people committing victimless crimes or people being forced to give up half of their economic output to bureaucrats. Every service offered by the government should be offered by multiple private companies. People in need should get money through voluntary donations, not through taxes forcefully stolen from people.

inglor_cz 6y ago

Citizens of rich oil sheikhdoms in the Gulf have had de-facto UBI, and a high one, for a long time, even though the formalities were a bit muddled. In practice, if you were lucky enough to be born as a Saudi or Qatari citizen, your needs would be covered. It did not lead to any explosion of creativity, arts and science there. People are morbidly obese and spend their money on gambling, drugs and sex. I am not very optimistic about human nature when exposed to easy life.

orthecreedence 6y ago
Capitalism + UBI = still capitalism. Of course people are fat and lazy, there's an entire economic apparatus convincing them to be. This is why I prefaced the entire point with "abolish capitalism." If you were financially independent, what would you do or build? I know I'd never stop producing useful things.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  I don't know whether you should be so sure that you're not mixing up cause and effect here. It might as well be that we have the economic apparatus because people naturally gravitate towards becoming fat and lazy. Or, most likely, both options are true to some degree. > I know I'd never stop producing useful things. I think few people are this driven.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  I'm sure you believe this in good faith, but most human beings are not as driven and are not as good natured as you. This is also why governments or any form or redistribution is inferior to a perfect market without human interference: you will always have bad apples stealing resources or being as inefficient as they can be. I know this because I'm a psychopath, I feel zero guilt or empathy and the thought that someone like me could be in a position of power is downright scary.
kls 6y ago
My question and this truly is a question as I am not well read on UBI concepts and social theories is: So it did not bring about nirvana and human nature is well human nature but did it eliminate suffering to a noticeable degree i.e homelessness, poverty, food security, healthcare? It seems to me the two are not directly tied, people are always going to seek out the vices because they are the roots of pleasure but that does not mean that the other side of the equation is negative, if it does eliminate suffering then it would be a net positive. I am not advocating for UBI, I am completely ignorant on the subject, just trying to understand if it did produce positive results against suffering.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  I definitely do not want to diss a concept that hasn't been tried out extensively, though I am more skeptical about it than many others - not least because people tend to discriminate "good" neighbourhoods from "bad" using rent level, so we might just see a general jump in rents and property prices that eats the entire UBI and a new unhappy equilibrium is reached. That said, I think that rich Gulf states show us that it can be overdone, that a completely sheltered life of plenty sucks. It sucks in a very different way than hunger or homelessness, but it gnaws on human psyche too.

yellowapple 6y ago

> despite all evidence to the contrary Do you happen to have some of this evidence on hand? Everything I've read on it suggests the exact opposite: that (at least here in the US) it'll not only work better than existing welfare systems, but would end up being cheaper.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
It's hard to claim something is evidence or counter-evidence of anything in social science. Once you add one or more brains, the complexity skyrockets quite quickly. I think it's a terrible idea for (at least) three reasons: - More money is being forcefully redistributed from people that produce work to people who don't produce. This will make people lazier and less entrepreneurial. Yes, I'm against any form of taxation for the same principle and I think the terrible corporate lifecycle is caused primarily by people not being entrepreneurial enough. - Taxes will increase, pushing businesses even more outside of here. - The more money you give to bureaucrats the more they will keep for themselves, the more they will waste, the more will not go to the economy.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > More money is being forcefully redistributed from people that produce work to people who don't produce. I think it's a bit presumptuous to declare that the people footing the bill are even most of the time (let alone all of the time) producing more work than the people receiving a net income from UBI. I would, indeed, argue the exact opposite: your average warehouse or restaurant or farm worker is almost certainly putting in significantly more labor than your average landlord or C-level executive or Bitcoin hodler while receiving a fraction of the income. This might not be the most popular opinion on a website that revolves specifically around the worship of venture-capital-backed get-rich-quick schemes, but I really have close to zero sympathy for those in the latter category; "won't you please think of the poor billionaires" is, frankly, insulting to those actually working for their money. In any case: > Yes, I'm against any form of taxation for the same principle A land value tax wouldn't have this "problem"; it's arguably the one form of taxation that ain't "theft", since it's actually a service payment (i.e. you pay rent to the government that actually owns land - that is, the basis of a "fee simple" title system as used in e.g. the US and other common-law jurisdictions - in exchange for said government recognizing and enforcing your claim on that land). Even if it came from income taxes (which I'd agree would be a worst-case scenario), I've yet to see a single proposal that taxes anyone other than people who can readily afford those taxes. Taking things to an extreme, a billionaire with a 99% income tax is still overwhelmingly richer than (I suspect) the both of us combined. But this all assumes we'd be pursuing UBI in addition to other welfare systems; I'd argue that ain't necessary. That is: > Taxes will increase, pushing businesses even more outside of here. There's every indication that the overall tax burden for all but the absolute wealthiest Americans would decrease substantially by replacing existing welfare programs with UBI. > The more money you give to bureaucrats the more they will keep for themselves, the more they will waste, the more will not go to the economy. By replacing existing welfare programs with UBI, you eliminate a considerable amount of that bureaucracy. Most of that bureaucracy revolves specifically around determining eligibility; if literally every US citizen is unconditionally eligible for a fixed income, we can immediately replace those bureaucrats with a pretty simple system: def redistribute_tax_as_ubi(amount): for c in citizens: c.send_check(amount / citizens.count) And from there it's just a matter of tuning how much tax needs collected in order to ensure every American can afford basic needs. And at that point, with that UBI flowing, it then becomes entirely unambiguous whether or not someone's poor due to circumstance or bad choices - that is, UBI eliminates that variable, and achieves actual equality of opportunity. As an added bonus: > I think the terrible corporate lifecycle is caused primarily by people not being entrepreneurial enough UBI would directly enable all Americans to pursue entrepreneurial ventures without putting themselves in danger of starvation. People would be more entrepreneurial than ever when they know that even if their startups flop (because let's face it: the vast majority of startups crash and burn) they still have food on the table and roofs (rooves?) over their heads.