Opinion Is Universal Basic Income the way forward?

[Zazen]

Is UBI really paying people not to work as so many are suggesting? I don't know anyone that can live off a thousand dollars a month nor do I know anyone that would want to. Let's face it, in the future our world is going to look entirely different. The most common jobs like driving and service related work are going to disappear. That is why people in the tech industry support UBI because they know what is around the corner. The question isn't if but rather when UBI will be implemented. China isn't going to stop advancements in AI technology so if we say nah letting people work is more important than advancing our nation then we are pretty much conceding the AI race.

I'm sick of hearing people say that human value comes from the work that we do. Only wealthy people say that crap. Tell that to minimum wage workers who hate their lives. Having basic needs met will enable people to be more picky about the fields they enter and allow more creative type of work.

 

[Starman]

Fair share means the taxes I pay are appropriate and proportionate to the money that I make.

So your definition of “fair share” is what the government says it is, yes?

The problem comes in when you have loopholes that allow the rich to pay a lesser tax rate than the bottom marginal tax bracket.

So when others pay what the government demands, it isn’t fair. When you pay what government demands, it is fair. You don’t seem to have a very good handle on your argument.

Let’s try this again, and this time leave government out of it, because it’s a silly answer that is never going to get better no matter how much you dress it up.

What is your definition of “fair share”? It’s a simple question.

If you make a lions share of the income, you should pay a lions share of the taxes.

Define “lion’s share”, because I guarantee Jeff Bezos paid more in taxes last year than you ever will in your entire lifetime. If that isn’t his “fair share”, I’d like to know what is.

 

[Starman]

People who view themselves as subjects can be talked in to literally anything. You hate to see it.

The problem with the Left is that they are never content with just screwing their own lives up. They want to force everyone else to do it too.

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

So your definition of “fair share” is what the government says it is, yes?

No it should be whatever you think you should pay, ammiright?

So when others pay what the government demands, it isn’t fair. When you pay what government demands, it is fair. You don’t seem to have a very good handle on your argument.

Yeah, because exploiting tax loopholes that were written by corporations = paying what the government demands.

Let’s try this again, and this time leave government out of it, because it’s a silly answer that is never going to get better no matter how much you dress it up.

What is your definition of “fair share”? It’s a simple question.

Paying an amount that is proportionate to what you make.

Define “lion’s share”, because I guarantee Jeff Bezos paid more in taxes last year than you ever will in your entire lifetime. If that isn’t his “fair share”, I’d like to know what is.

Imagine not understanding scale.

Look where you spend your time and energy my guy - shilling for ultra wealthy corporations and billionaires. The middle class is shrinking, there are tens of millions of Americans that can't afford health care or a basic emergency, yet you devote your time to shilling for the most prosperous and well off people in the world. Get a fucking grip.

 

[Starman]

No it should be whatever you think you should pay, ammiright?

It certainly shouldn’t be “whatever the government tells me”, especially when you say it’s unfair what the government tells someone else.

I’ll ask again, what is your definition of “fair share”? It’s a simple question.

I’ll even give you an example. “Fair share” is when everyone pays an equal percentage of their income.

Yeah, because exploiting tax loopholes that were written by corporations = paying what the government demands.

So, again, when you pay what the government demands, it’s fair. When John Smith pays what government demands, it’s unfair. Correct? Dressing the statement up won’t change it,

Paying an amount that is proportionate to what you make.

You’re saying the top 1%, who pay a higher rate of income tax than you do, aren’t paying an amount proportionate to what they make?

Imagine not understanding scale.

Imagine someone who has never created anything, pays a lower percentage and a far lower total in taxes, accusing those who have created and pay far more in taxes of not paying their “fair share.”

 

[Andy Capp]

A universal basic income is a government guarantee that each citizen receives a minimum income. It is also called a citizen’s income, guaranteed minimum income, or basic income.

The intention behind the payment is to provide enough to cover the basic cost of living and provide financial security. The concept has regained popularity as a way to offset job losses caused by technology.
https://www.thebalance.com/universal-basic-income-4160668

I see an ideological conflict in this debate, and members on both sides have a point. It's worth discussing the pros and cons of UBI.

Pros:

• Universal Basic Income (UBI) reduces poverty and income inequality, and improves health.
• UBI leads to positive job growth and lower school dropout rates.
• UBI guarantees income for non-working parents and caregivers, thus empowering important unpaid roles, especially for women.

Cons:

• Universal Basic Income (UBI) takes money from the poor and gives it to everyone, increasing poverty and depriving the poor of needed targeted support.
• UBI removes the incentive to work, adversely affecting the economy and leading to a labor and skills shortage.
• UBI is too expensive.

https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005363

Only none of your cons is actually factual.

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

It certainly shouldn’t be “whatever the government tells me”, especially when you say it’s unfair what the government tells someone else.

Imagine being this simple. It's more complex than that.

There is one set of rules for the common person, and another set of rules for the elite. That isn't fair. What's fair is standards being applied universally.

I’ll ask again, what is your definition of “fair share”? It’s a simple question.

I've given you the same exact answer twice. Sorry you're unhappy with it.

I’ll even give you an example. “Fair share” is when everyone pays an equal percentage of their income.

Right, a flat tax is fair, because "not understanding scale" tho.

You’re saying the top 1%, who pay a higher rate of income tax than you do, aren’t paying an amount proportionate to what they make?

Thanks for just now joining the conversation and not paying attention to the thread.

The wealthiest 400 families in America pay lower taxes than the lowest tax bracket bud. If you think that's fair I have a bridge to sell ya.

Imagine someone who has never created anything, pays a lower percentage and a far lower total in taxes, accusing those who have created and pay far more in taxes of not paying their “fair share.”

You have no idea what I have or haven't created.

Again, imagine spending your life and your time shilling for the ultra wealthy and for multi national corporations instead of standing in class solidarity with your middle and lower class brothers and sisters. Imagine spending more time condemning the tens of millions of working poor that can't even afford health insurance or basic emergencies and acting like billionaires are the real victims.

 

[Starman]

Imagine being this simple. It's more complex than that.

There is one set of rules for the common person, and another set of rules for the elite. That isn't fair. What's fair is standards being applied universally.

You’re still making the same argument, no matter how many dresses you put on it. You believe “fair share” both is and isn’t what the government demands.

Why don’t you just find a better definition?

I've given you the same exact answer twice. Sorry you're unhappy with it.

I am not unhappy with your answer, it just isn’t logically coherent. Your definition cannot both be true and untrue. There has to be something more to the definition of “fair share” than “whatever the government says.” Otherwise your claims of people not paying their fair share are self-defeating.

Right, a flat tax is fair, because "not understanding scale" tho.

It’s closer to the definition of fair than your argument, which is that “fair share” is whatever the government decides.

The wealthiest 400 families in America pay lower taxes than the lowest tax bracket bud.

Please list the names of those families, along with a copy of their tax returns. I’d love to see it.

You have no idea what I have or haven't created.

You’ve never created anything in your entire life. Ever. Finger paintings in kindergarten not withstanding.

 

[The Big Bang]

UBI is just undeserved welfare for the masses.
Who is going to work when they have a check every month for nothing?

Getting a check for $2,000 a month isn't enough money to make people not want to work in a CAPITALIST nation where they can go make AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY WANT.

$2,000 a month aint shit.

The last time I made that little was in 10th grade.

 

[bufetadanacara]

Instead of free money, I'd rather see a few different changes. Maybe no income tax on your first 50K, certain amounts of subsidized electricity and water, cheaper education and medical coverage- things like that.

I don't like the idea of handing over cash. If anything, we should be trying to get people off of welfare. Apart from food and shelter we all need doctors, schools, electricity, and water- so I propose to make those necessities more affordable.

 

[djacobox372]

No, it will mean more tech jobs.

"Tech" is being automated as well. AI is changing everything.

In the past automation only meant that the "brawn" could be automated but there still needed to be "brains" behind them, which needed to be people.

Now both the "brains "and the "brawn" can be automated, so the need for people is less and less. At some point in the next 50-100 years, there will be no "need" for people at all.

 

[djacobox372]

I don't think anybody can reasonably see that far ahead. By the time technology advances to the point where a level of automation that calls for universal basic income is achievable, I expect to be in the ground.

But something people seem to overlook when they talk about automation is how often shit breaks down and how difficult certain menial tasks are for a robot. Like building a robot to stock store shelves. I have a tough time believing that would ever be reasonable. Think about all the things that could go wrong that you'd need to call a technician/mechanic for versus just hiring a person. And even if we move so far away from the idea of stores that stocking shelves isn't really a thing, I still think it would be easier for a human being to sort items for delivery than for a robot.

You underestimate robots, and how quickly they'll meet and surpass us at everything.

What throws us off is the fact that a robot will seem very stupid and clumsy unless it's near 100% of the way there. A robot that is only 97% competent at stocking store shelves would appear to be a hilarious disaster. Sort of an "uncanny valley" of intelligence and motor skills.

Sort of like watching a 15yo who's never driven before try to drive a car, they are ridiculously bad at it, yet they have only a tiny bit more to learn to master it.

 

[panamaican]

I don't think anybody can reasonably see that far ahead. By the time technology advances to the point where a level of automation that calls for universal basic income is achievable, I expect to be in the ground.

But something people seem to overlook when they talk about automation is how often shit breaks down and how difficult certain menial tasks are for a robot. Like building a robot to stock store shelves. I have a tough time believing that would ever be reasonable. Think about all the things that could go wrong that you'd need to call a technician/mechanic for versus just hiring a person. And even if we move so far away from the idea of stores that stocking shelves isn't really a thing, I still think it would be easier for a human being to sort items for delivery than for a robot.

3.3 jobs lost per robot introduced into the workforce. And that will only accelerate as the robots get better.

Something I always remember is this "People have a hard time predicting the future, they tend to assume it will resemble the present with small changes." People have a hard time imagining hyper-efficient robots because we don't have hyper-efficient robots now. But think about all of those AI predictions that failed. They said robots couldn't beat people in chess, not long after, the robots were far superior to people. Then they said robots couldn't win at "Go", it's too complex. Less than 5 years later, robots torched the best human Go players. Robots are getting better and people are not getting smarter. We're not evolving at the same rate so the gap will continue to shrink.

 

[djacobox372]

Universal basic income removes the ability for an individual to take care of himself which leaves him under the control and at the mercy of the state. Your whole life can be shut off with a switch. Same as "digital dollars".

How is this even being considered by rational thinking adults I have no idea.

This is a big fear, but can you think of another way to divide the wealth generated by AI and automation?

AI and Automation was made possible by 100,000 years of human achievement, why should the spoils of all that progress only go to a lucky few holding the batten at the very end of the race?

 

[Bamboozled]

UBI is just undeserved welfare for the masses.
Who is going to work when they have a check every month for nothing?

There will be no goods for people to buy if nobody works. While we do have a lot of manufacturing overseas I think this pandemic has shown us the futility of true globalization when it comes to production.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Hard pass. Keep it as is. If there isn't a consentual exchange between people ( my labour in exchange for money) ( my goods or service in exchange for money) then there should not be an exchange of money. We all know who this burden would fall on.

 

[helltoupee]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a small portion of upper income earners pay a majority of the taxes - taking the U.S. as an example? How do corporations fit into that? I think I've seen @JudoThrowFiasco talk about this. Could someone who knows a bit on this clarify? Sadly, I'm largely ignorant and haven't looked beyond talking points.

Yes, they may pay the majority of the tax burden, but they also enjoy a majority of the income/wealth - that's a one-sided statistic that is left incomplete on purpose.

 

[MMAGA]

"Tech" is being automated as well. AI is changing everything.

In the past automation only meant that the "brawn" could be automated but there still needed to be "brains" behind them, which needed to be people.

Now both the "brains "and the "brawn" can be automated, so the need for people is less and less. At some point in the next 50-100 years, there will be no "need" for people at all.

You watch way too many movies, kid.

 

[Swing]

3.3 jobs lost per robot introduced into the workforce. And that will only accelerate as the robots get better.

Something I always remember is this "People have a hard time predicting the future, they tend to assume it will resemble the present with small changes." People have a hard time imagining hyper-efficient robots because we don't have hyper-efficient robots now. But think about all of those AI predictions that failed. They said robots couldn't beat people in chess, not long after, the robots were far superior to people. Then they said robots couldn't win at "Go", it's too complex. Less than 5 years later, robots torched the best human Go players. Robots are getting better and people are not getting smarter. We're not evolving at the same rate so the gap will continue to shrink.

I think you can reasonably say that about AI. I don't think you can say that about robots performing menial tasks. I doubt it will ever make sense to build a robot that has the same fine motor control as a human. It's too expensive, and again, things will fail and need to be replaced. Developing better AI is something that I think is certain to happen.

Building materials that don't suffer from fatigue is less likely. Give a robot a human hand, and all those tiny little joints and motors are going to be points of failure. And they will all fail after enough cycles when fractures start to form from material fatigue. I don't think a solution to that is easily accomplished because the most obvious way that it's achieved is by creating a material that can go through more cycles. How, though?

Whereas with AI it's plain to see that we're nowhere near the ceiling because there are still annual improvements in computing power.

Edit: Some of this might be overcome with some clever redesign like what happened with manufacturing and the idea of an assembly line, I guess.

 

[Swing]

You underestimate robots, and how quickly they'll meet and surpass us at everything.

What throws us off is the fact that a robot will seem very stupid and clumsy unless it's near 100% of the way there. A robot that is only 97% competent at stocking store shelves would appear to be a hilarious disaster. Sort of an "uncanny valley" of intelligence and motor skills.

Sort of like watching a 15yo who's never driven before try to drive a car, they are ridiculously bad at it, yet they have only a tiny bit more to learn to master it.

I've built a robot as part of my curriculum in school (obviously that doesn't make me an expert). So at least at a fundamental level, I'm familiar with how hard it is to design one. That's where I coming from.

A 15 year old doesn't need better hardware to drive, they just need practice. And their hands and feet don't need routine maintenance.