Universal Basic Income to be tried in Stockton Ca

[YmirGF]

But to what effect, are you using the Tax to make the machines more expensive or using the tax to support those out of work. To be honest supporting those out of work would be cheaper than a tax that makes the machines more expensive than humans.

A tax need not make the machine more expensive, just enough to recoup what human workers it replaces would have paid so that it is a wash. At least then the nanny state is getting something that it can use on the human wreckage of progress.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Then you tax those companies accordingly. Easy fix solution to that puppy.

I would normally agree with you 100%, but something was brought up to me and I now realize that companies never do pay any taxes and never will either in the past or the present.

It's because those costs will always be levied on the consumer. Companies would just raise their prices.

 

[suncowiam]

The problem seems to be more and more companies are seeking automation over human. At a minimum 1 machine replaces 3 humans and you only need 1 human for every 5 machines and depending on the industry the break down is far worse.

It's a double edge sword. Not that I completely support socialism but I'll save that for another discussion.
IMO, the only way we'll get to a socialistic society where the poor can be better supported is through automation and technology. The problem to get there is that the early stages will be a big hurdle for low to mid income folks. They will have to find alternatives as the technology matures itself. Technology is always on the forefront of driving costs down and enabling other resources to be usable.

But even technology will not support a population growth that is not controlled. We are forecasted to grow to 20 billion in a relatively short time. Plus human lives age further and further. We need to be able to control this to better disperse resources including jobs for all.

 

[YmirGF]

Could you explain why you think so?

It's hard to find serious criticism of UBI.

A simple Google search can provide you with enough links to flesh out the rest of your day.

 

[YmirGF]

I would normally agree with you 100%, but something was brought up to me and I now realize that companies never do pay any taxes and never will either in the past or the present.

It's because those costs will always be levied on the consumer. Companies would just raise their prices.

Nice to see that not everyone is asleep at the wheel. I'm fully aware of that and intended the comment as bait. Muahahahahaha.

 

[Polymath257]

My philosophy has always been to teach a man to fish as opposed to giving him the fish.

I believe our goals are the same in that we want the man to have a better life. I believe that by teaching the man skills to be more independent is more beneficial to the man and to society.

So I would spend that $500 towards education or other infrastructural costs to help them with the exception that we monitor their progress and change accordingly.

While I agree overall with the 'teach a man to fish' philosophy, if it takes a year to teach how to fish, you should probably feed him in the mean time.

 

[Polymath257]

You might also want to be sure the local lake has fish in it.

 

[columbus]

The advantage I see to a guaranteed income is that a recipient doesn't lose the benefit by working,
so the incentive to earn is preserved. This differs from the current approach to providing benefits.

This is a very big deal.
The way things work now, in the USA, people are generally punished economically for trying to move from social safety net income to earned income. When your income derives from a batch of different "entitlements" , earning a dollar can cost you two or three dollars when each of the programs cut your benefits. This is especially aggravating when you are getting help with providing for kids, so you qualify for a bunch of different benefits from different agencies.
Tom

 

[columbus]

While I agree overall with the 'teach a man to fish' philosophy, if it takes a year to teach how to fish, you should probably feed him in the mean time.

Also, think about all the people who would rather go fishing than most other endeavors.
We could make things such that people don't see fishing as an obligation, a chore. But rather a good, fun, productive thing to do.
Most of the successful people I know do what they do because it's rewarding in a lot of ways that have little to do with eking out survival. If I had a guaranteed income, I would still go on doing what I do mostly. I like it.
We, as a society, could just let robots do the crappy stuff and stick to the fun jobs for human beings.
Tom

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

While I agree overall with the 'teach a man to fish' philosophy, if it takes a year to teach how to fish, you should probably feed him in the mean time.

Who is feeding me while I spend a year teaching as well as providing for the student?

 

[suncowiam]

While I agree overall with the 'teach a man to fish' philosophy, if it takes a year to teach how to fish, you should probably feed him in the mean time.

Well, there are already other welfare programs to focus on hunger like food stamps. So does that already suffice your position and we can now focus on his ability to be more independent?

Also, how did you know that these poor will spend their extra $500 on food?

 

[suncowiam]

You might also want to be sure the local lake has fish in it.

Are you arguing against enabling people with skills to be more independent? Being so trite is not helping me understand your entire perspective?

 

[Jumi]

I think it's being trialed in parts of Finland which have a complete lack of jobs. I don't know how successful it's been, though I guess for anyone struggling on low/no income it will be a blessing. Some solution needs to be found for the millions who are losing out to globalization, automation, A.I. etc. It's a simple truth that if people aren't able to earn anything, then they'll have no cash to purchase new products manufactured in hi-tech (virtually) human-free factories or foreign sweat shops. It's kind of obvious that this isn't going to be a sustainable economic model.

It's under trial here, but the public isn't told much because the current government has the opposite idea of welfare, the Denmark model. Too bad that they aren't smart enough to realize you can't copy paste a model from a country with low unemployment to a country with high unemployment, or they figure they'll save some money by taking it from the poor. We have an incompetent and expensive social security system that could be replaced overnight with this with the only problem being unemployed bureaucrats who can't play with the unemployed trying to get as many of them to waste their time on courses that help almost no one.

I was discussing this with a friend who is against charity shops for the same reason. He's the sort of bloke I would consider to be in favour of them but he explained that they get retail premises for next to nothing, workers they don't pay, no business rates and get their stock for free (much of it now donated from big business, so it's new stuff). They sell this at a nominal price and are slowly having a negative impact on regular businesses around them. One near me looks like a mega-store with some fine items for sale. It's not a tiny hut with a few old books. Just one unforeseen circumstance from a good idea.

Your friend is educated. Why do you think African countries don't want our clothes from "charity"? Because the charity ruins their own clothing industries and they don't get the clothes for free. Most charities are a business, they do some good but there's a dark side to them.

Then if people on zero income/aid are set to work in regular businesses they immediately undercut wages, which drives incomes down even more. Seems like we need some first class minds to work on an economic solution to this problem. Protectionism is one theoretical solution but it has its serious problems too.

I'm not an economist but there seems to be a deficit of serious political debate around this topic.

We have this system in place where you work 8 hours a day and get paid 9 euros a workday on top of 500 euros a month while unemployed get around 500 after taxes of unemployment benefits. Of course it will drive down wages for working people and thus some hatred from those on regular salary for those who are forced to work like that, because they are taking up someones job and giving value to companies for free. Often someone on 9 euros a day will work under stress, because they want to get a regular job, but they will end up being replaced by another after their "time is up" and another one takes their place.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you arguing against enabling people with skills to be more independent? Being so trite is not helping me understand your entire perspective?

I'm pointing out that training someone for a job that doesn't exist or doesn't pay isn't going to be helpful.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm pointing out that training someone for a job that doesn't exist or doesn't pay isn't going to be helpful.

I'm not sure if your premise is exactly true. Obviously, I believed in a different premise to suggest that educating a man is more beneficial to him.

We're just lacking actual statistics to back any of this but we both have the same intention to help the poor.

As a immigrant family who received welfare in the 80s, I will always support welfare with the main caveat that progress can be proven of its intended goal. We lived on food stamps. We lived on housing assistance. My parents had scholarships for their education even from just community colleges. Our success wouldn't be possible without welfare.

I continue to support and vote for welfare programs that I believe can track its intended goal. I actually rent out two of my units to families on section 8 housing. They carry the most risks out of my rental units but I support the program. Out of all the housing vouchers offered by our county, only 30 percent are actually accepted by private individual landlords.

Simply put, I do not believe that giving out $500 without accountability will help.

My other mantra is to root out the issues and fix it at the root. Anything else is a just a patch.

So if you can prove to me that $500 extra in their pockets will actually fix their situations, then you won't hear further arguments from me.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not sure if your premise is exactly true. Obviously, I believed in a different premise to suggest that educating a man is more beneficial to him.

We're just lacking actual statistics to back any of this but we both have the same intention to help the poor.

As a immigrant family who received welfare in the 80s, I will always support welfare with the main caveat that progress can be proven of its intended goal. We lived on food stamps. We lived on housing assistance. My parents had scholarships for their education even from just community colleges. Our success wouldn't be possible without welfare.

I continue to support and vote for welfare programs that I believe can track its intended goal. I actually rent out two of my units to families on section 8 housing. They carry the most risks out of my rental units but I support the program. Out of all the housing vouchers offered by our county, only 30 percent are actually accepted by private individual landlords.

Simply put, I do not believe that giving out $500 without accountability will help.

My other mantra is to root out the issues and fix it at the root. Anything else is a just a patch.

So if you can prove to me that $500 extra in their pockets will actually fix their situations, then you won't hear further arguments from me.

I'm not convinced either, truthfully. But I think it reasonable to *try* it and see what happens. it may well blow up and make things worse, but then at least we know not to do that again!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This city will give poorest $500 a month, no strings attached

An interesting concept to follow. I can't find the specifics but they are saying a few hundred so I am assuming the people with no car, no home. I believe it should be both beneficial for the people and the city.

What are your thoughts or experiences as it has been tried other times to various success.

Welfare by any other name is still welfare. Income is money gained through work or investments.

 

[Akivah]

My philosophy has always been to teach a man to fish as opposed to giving him the fish.

I believe our goals are the same in that we want the man to have a better life. I believe that by teaching the man skills to be more independent is more beneficial to the man and to society.

So I would spend that $500 towards education or other infrastructural costs to help them with the exception that we monitor their progress and change accordingly.

Just change 'man' to 'human' and we have a winner!

 

[Akivah]

As noted, this experiment is going on in multiple places and I support it.

What measurable outcomes would you like to see to call it a success? ...a failure?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can just imagine all the people running to Stockholm California right now.

Now how are they going to pay it when the population explodes!

What's a "solution" is a rolling freight train without brakes!