- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Universal income discussion
Posted on 5/30/23 at 12:26 pm to Eurocat
Posted on 5/30/23 at 12:26 pm to Eurocat
quote:
I guess I am missing something.
If we give everyone the exact same amount, all bank accounts that have zero now have 20k, all that had 7k now have 27k, all that had 36k now have 56k, what are we getting but a reset of the status quo just with fanciful higher numbers?
No, that’s pretty much it.
1
Posted on 5/30/23 at 12:27 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
We have a faction of society that are already getting universal income simply by having children.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 12:31 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
No, that’s pretty much it.
They'll eventually have to raid private bank and investment accounts to pay for it.
I also imagine it will be digital currency with expiration dates so you have to spend it.
This post was edited on 5/30/23 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 5/30/23 at 12:55 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
If you read the original post UBI would replace all other forms of assistance from the taxpayer. It would not increase the amount of cash in the marketplace it would merely put it directly in the hands of consumers and not in the hands of government officials who pick and choose ways to put it in the hands of consumers.
This reads very similarly to the justification for the Fair Tax.
But I’m wondering if those who advocate for such a change in order to respond to what they see as massive job loss that comes from AI, how do they reconcile the massive job loss that comes from the loss of all the government workers and bureaucrats?
Posted on 5/30/23 at 12:58 pm to GurleyGirl
quote:
We have a faction of society that are already getting universal income simply by having children.
Its not quite universal but its definitely welfare.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 1:10 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
But I’m wondering if those who advocate for such a change in order to respond to what they see as massive job loss that comes from AI, how do they reconcile the massive job loss that comes from the loss of all the government workers and bureaucrats?
And also, why did we not have this conversation during the industrial revolution, and then the resulting automation that occurred with machinery, such as tractors, manufacturing, etc?
By some estimates, the mechanization of agriculture canceled as many as 8 million jobs. The poverty we see in the south, especially in the Delta region, is due in a large part to this.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:34 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
World class naivety.
Not as naive as pretending that low wage earners are already receiving a basic income from taxpayers instead of their employer in the form of subsidies of living expenses.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:41 pm to Jon A thon
quote:
You keep ignoring the universal aspect. Yes, it replaces all other forms of assistance for those receiving assistance. But due to the universal nature, those who don't currently recieve any financial assistance would also get cash. So now even though I make upper middle class income on my own, I've got an extra 20k to spend. So I'm now willing to pay more for shite, causing inflation, offsetting the benefit of the basic income for those in need.
You make a point...I have discounted the universal aspect because it would mean the market value of the middle class income earner would be $20K less per year. It would not mean that were you earning $100K a year on December 31st and UBI began on January 1st you would be earning $120k a year....you'd have $20K in UBI and $80K in salary. Your earnings in the absence of UBI is not based on your needs, it is based on your market value...If you were worth $120K on Januuary 1 you were worth $120K on December 31st. Most employers would not cut salaries but eventually the market would catch up and you would be priced out of the market at your higher cost. Some employees would not be and would never be...but many would.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:43 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
frick that...better up that shite tremendously.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:44 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
This reads very similarly to the justification for the Fair Tax.
But I’m wondering if those who advocate for such a change in order to respond to what they see as massive job loss that comes from AI, how do they reconcile the massive job loss that comes from the loss of all the government workers and bureaucrats?
Somebody has to keep track of the UBI and provide oversite. Those whose only function now is to qualify folks to receive social welfare benefits like food stamps and subsidized housing would be in for some layoffs but they are a drain on the economy in their current function...they would not become more of a drain and, given that more people would have their nut made the number of jobs created would offset the number lost by bureaucrats.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:45 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
Everyone else would be too and they'd buy cars, bigger houses, vacations, boats etc and the cost of that stuff would go up even more.
UBI will be a disaster to anyone who seeks more than life than basic subsistence.
Everything will be expensive, no one will work and most Americans will sit around using drugs and playing video games. Its so unsustainable.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:48 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
And also, why did we not have this conversation during the industrial revolution, and then the resulting automation that occurred with machinery, such as tractors, manufacturing, etc?
Automation has up to now created more jobs than it destroyed. The hypothesis going forward is that it will no longer be the case. If that's true, what do you do with tens of millions who are out of work through no fault of their own and have no prospects for work because a machine can do it more efficiently? They're not going to sit around and watch their families starve, I'll tell you that much.
Not addressing this issue is a recipe for revolution. That's not hyperbole.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:48 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
1 and 2 would be the only way id entertain it.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:51 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
ain't a hand out
I beg to differ, there are people that never really paid in and there are people that havent been paying in as long because they were not born in this country.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:51 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Somebody has to keep track of the UBI and provide oversite
Most likely be expirable digital currency.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:52 pm to Jon A thon
quote:
Social programs does not equal universal income. Not everyone gets equal cash payments. A safety net social program does not put cash in every Americans bank account. Your argument is dumb and invalid.
The net result is identical, no matter how you slice it. Not everyone gets equal cash payments, this is true, but everyone is meeting their nut either by labor, social programs, crime or some combination. 2 of those 3 are pretty detrimental to society overall. Social programs are almost universally based on employment...the recipients are already working and earning something. The rest of their nut is being met by subsidies. Call it what you wish, makes no difference...
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:59 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:They do so well with education!
Sounds great, just put the government in charge of all things healthcare related
Posted on 5/30/23 at 3:04 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:Remember this the next time you want "stimulus" money distributed out in an economic downturn.
It would not increase the amount of cash in the marketplace it would merely put it directly in the hands of consumers and not in the hands of government officials who pick and choose ways to put it in the hands of consumers.
Posted on 5/30/23 at 3:35 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Automation has up to now created more jobs than it destroyed.
Worldwide. But it has destroyed entire communities, and even entire cities and regions.
There are people living in the Mississippi Delta region who have generations of family on welfare. These areas have basically been on UBI for 50 years or more, just without the "universal" part.
East Carroll Parish only has 25 percent of the adult population in the labor force, versus almost 60 percent statewide. 40 percent in poverty.
I think it's a valid argument to force people to leave these dying towns if they want to remain on government assistance. If you live in a town with no jobs, and that will never have jobs, then it is madness for the government to continue to pay you to live in a dead town.
How many generations does it before it's no longer a "safety net"
This post was edited on 5/30/23 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 5/30/23 at 3:39 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
I have seen some models where every adult gets a set amount, say $25,000 per year,
That would cost the US 6.5 trillion dollars a year in UBI alone. That’s double our current entitlement spending.
You could save money with UBI by cutting all entitlements and only giving UBI to the poor and lower middle class. I did a model once I wish i could remember the details exactly but it was something like 10k for unemployed and 15-20k if you held a full time job 10 out of 12 months the previous year to incentivize employment. It then gradually decreased as income rose. I think if income rose 5k it decreased by 2500 so getting a better job or raise meant you still came out ahead. It ended up saving around 500 billion on entitlements by my estimates and would eliminate the problem of cyclical poverty. Our current system holds people to low end jobs because if they better themselves they are punished by losing a vast amount of entitlements when they hit a certain income level. A minimum wage earner would have to make a significant jump to over 50k a year to replace the lost entitlements so there are a few rungs missing on the ladder therefore they cannot climb
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News