6 ms·

So where will the money come from?

• doliveira 4y ago
  Taxes, oil revenue, even private entities...
  • easytiger 4y ago
    So you don't know?
    • doliveira 4y ago
      That's a very weird response. I'm obviously just talking about the inflation claim you brought up, pointing out possible sources of income for the program without "printing money". Not sure how "you don't know exactly so I'm right" fits here. There's probably even a named fallacy for what you're doing here.
      • easytiger 4y ago
        Because I believe you have not thought this through and are using incredibly vague hand waving to justify a policy which can't be afforded. A ubi would be required such that it would fulfill the entirety of the persons need thus eliminating other benefits such as housing costs.(that being the main argument put forth in its favour) Do some basic arithmetic and tell me how you come up with that money please.
        • doliveira 4y ago
          I was quite explicit in my comment about what particular scenario I was addressing: that inflation would rise as result of redirecting already existing money. That's literally all of my main point. Whether or not it can fit a government budget is a separate discussion. But I'll just say I'm very weary of these "destroying entire fields of research with basic arithmetic".
          • easytiger 4y ago
            So, in short, you cannot even postulate regarding how a UBI could possibly be funded with any concrete data, but are clearly a fan of the concept?
            • doliveira 4y ago
              I'm not really gonna continue, feel free to have the last word if that's so important to you emotionally to the point of completely ignoring your interlocutor.
            • deleted 4y ago
              [deleted]
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
        • Rury 4y ago
          >A ubi would be required such that it would fulfill the entirety of the persons need This is an incorrect view, perhaps you've been mislead or misunderstand? UBI is a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly. That's it. The goals of a basic income system are to help alleviate poverty, not necessarily guarantee everyone's needs are fulfilled. Look. Here's one way UBI could be done: 1) Create a tax on someone/something 2) From the money gained from said tax, redistribute it equally to everyone in society Everyone now has a basic income. That's what universal basic income is. Social security is essentially basic income, it's just not universal, as it's only given to old folks who previously paid into it. No ones arguing (or they at least shouldn't be) that it will guarantee everyone with enough money for everything they need (just as social security doesn't). But it can be done, and it can help alleviate poverty, particularly in the case for people who have absolutely 0 income.
          • easytiger 4y ago
            > This is an incorrect view, perhaps you've been mislead or misunderstand? UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits. So in a European country for example would replace all cash, housing, child, family, disability benefits. Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits. This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless. > o ones arguing (or they at least shouldn't be) that it will guarantee everyone with enough money for everything they need Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas.
            • Rury 4y ago
              >UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits... It could certainly be done that way. It also doesn't have to be. >Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits. Sure lumping all benefits into one could reduce costs in overhead, but that doesn't mean there is no point to having separate benefits, as UBI is not means tested, and lumping means tested benefits into it would then get rid of any means. Now, whether this should be done or not is a matter of opinion, and one of which I'm not particularly arguing about. I'm merely showing you what UBI is, that it can be afforded, and that it can help alleviate poverty. I'm not arguing that it will provide enough income to meet everyones needs, nor arguing that we should implement it. >This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless. I find this a non sequitur. A non-zero amount is still an amount. If you argue I need to provide a number to prove that taxes can yield non-zero income/amounts, then I find you're being ridiculous. >Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas I would suggest not lumping all UBI advocates as sharing the same goals/opinions. We need less grouping and labelling in politics, and more critical thinking. (I'm not a UBI advocate BTW).
• Johnythree 4y ago
  From the existing Welfare, including the extra welfare required by future automation. Plus by correctly taxing resource extraction.
  • easytiger 4y ago
    You would need significant multiples of "existing welfare" for a bi let alone a ubi. So you haven't provided an answer