Universal Basic Income (UBI) is coming

[Buckminster]

Oh, if Americans love anything it's a free handout. And then complain about immigration but won't actually get off their asses and work.
And the two joke political parties will say whatever they think the voters want to hear just to stay/get in office. Even though the Dems would be fundamentally the side to want UBI, if it was working to sway voters, the GOP would jump on board real quick. I don't trust either side. And ever since the 60's, they've done nothing but polarize every issue, driving a stake between the people. You can't be moderate about anything anymore. Which is by design, because as long as we're fighting ourselves, we're not paying attention to all the BS they're doing behind the scenes.

I think the recent election of Milei in Argentina is very interesting. Whether you like him or not isn't my point. My thought about it is this. The people of Argentina were finally so fed up with the corruption in their government that they voted for a 3rd party candidate because he brought a fresh approach, that people on both sides wanted to hear.
In the US, we have an election coming next year, and both parties are back at it, more of the same, exhaustingly stale arguments and messages. I'm not saying the same could happen in the US (yet), but don't be surprised if an independent candidate, like RFK Jr, steals a lot of votes from both sides. Not saying he'll win. Real change happens one funeral at a time. I'm just saying it'll be one of the first signs of how many people in the US are getting fed up with their government, just like the people of Argentina.


As for the robots, they've been replacing humans for a century. Just because these new ones will be more capable of more tasks doesn't change what's already been happening. AI is creating just as many jobs as it replaces. The same thing happened with every other innovation in history. Humans will adapt like they always have. We're not going to wake up in a year and all of the sudden robots are everywhere. It happens over time, enough time for people to adapt.
The real problem is that the school systems and curriculums haven't been properly updated since the Industrial Age. They're still designed to spit out dumb employees. So few can actually think for themselves, problem solve, or even use common sense anymore. We've been devolving intellectually for decades. That's part of the reason we need robots in the first place! Employers can't even find competent workers anymore.
So, yes, from that perspective, those kind of people will be hurting for jobs. But I'm a fan of Darwin, and I consider what happens to them the natural order of things. Nature doesn't have feelings. The smarter, stronger, more adaptable, will survive. The rest are just taking up space, wasting our resources. Sorry, not sorry.

If UBI were such a great idea, why hasn't it been successfully done anywhere else?

Countries with Universal Basic Income 2024

So many attempts, but none make it past the pilot phase. And those are just small groups. The real death sentence to these plans is when it's attempted at scale. No country can afford true UBI for everyone.
Norway, a welfare state. Kenya and other African nations, where most live in poverty. And now Whales. Good luck to you.

It's not a new idea. It's a rebranded Communism/Marxism hybrid. It only benefits those in power, because it hands them all the control.
But Democracies know it's not sustainable at scale long-term. Even dictators recognize it might be initially popular, but they'd quickly see it can't work, and their people would revolt.

Educate yourselves people! Focus your time on making yourself more adaptable, more valuable. Because that's who survives in the end.

Not sure why you are interested in UBI then. If you don't think jobs are going due to robots then there won't be any meaningful UBI. Proper UBI can't really be tested IMO.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

Not sure why you are interested in UBI then. If you don't think jobs are going due to robots then there won't be any meaningful UBI. Proper UBI can't really be tested IMO.

Just general curiosity. This thread is the first I had heard of it, so I'm compelled to look into it, just for the knowledge.

I didn't say jobs wouldn't be lost to robots. I was saying there would be new jobs created to replace them. And remember, nothing moves very fast.
So as the older labor retires or moves on those jobs are phased out, a younger workforce comes into the newly created jobs.
Now I understand that there will be a group in the middle, out of school for awhile, but far from retirement, that will face the toughest challenge to adapt. They will have to take it upon themselves to either re-educate/re-train for a new job, or be prepared to take a lesser paying job that robots haven't replaced. And in this situation, I'm all for some kind of benefits program (private or gov) that would help them get that education/training. I have no problem with focused gov help where it's needed. But UBI is too broad, can't work.

I agree with you, no way to actually test UBI.

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758375648605745411

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758374712705421416

 

[Buckminster]

Elon agrees with this. I haven't watched yet.

 

[wdolson]

The developed world is living today in the utopia of the Middle Ages. To a large degree the universe of Star Trek created by Gene Rodenbury is a utopia that has solved many of the problems we have today.

We still have problems, they are just further up Maslow's Hierarchy than getting enough food an trying to prevent dying from infectious diseases.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia

Machines are not going to hand us the higher levels of the hierarchy.

Machines that can teach us things instantly are just faster at doing what machines do now. Almost every human being in the developed world and many in the developing world carry a library in their pocket that can access most of the knowledge of the human race in seconds. But all that is data, data only becomes information when a human being gives it meaning.

Computers deal in data, even AIs. This era is often refereed to as the "Information Age", but it's really the "Data Age". We are bombarded with data and the malicious try to turn that into faux information to manipulate us while the more benevolent try to give the data authentic meaning. Those who have talent and skill at integrating data into something meaningful and accurate are the most valuable people in the world, though most of the world isn't aware of this yet. Most people are just drowning in the data or following those who act like they understand it all.

AIs could end up becoming even better manipulators than the people who are doing it now. There are many cases of people who have used services like ChatGPT and have gotten completely fake articles the AI created for them. Not only are we struggling to make sense of the data we're dealing with and have to deal with false interpretations of the data, but now we're having to deal with realistic looking data presented to us that is completely made up.

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1789532000614822127

Sam Altman on the All in podcast this week suggested that UBI payments should be in computing minutes rather than money.

 

[UkNorthampton]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1789532000614822127

Sam Altman on the All in podcast this week suggested that UBI payments should be in computing minutes rather than money.

Or energy. Sam's view may be overly skewed to his region.

However, I've long believed that in an oil-driven economy, money and energy were near enough equivalent measures. Burn it for electricity or transport, use it for fertilisers and tractors,

Electricity can fulfil most (all - with correct feedstocks?) of the applications that fossil fuels have been used for. So energy rather than oil should be the new measure.

Anyway in my mind, if something costs £200 - it's largely an embodiment of energy, whether materials, processing, transport and marketing (people:- food, rent, transport, treats). Machines, people, even shop/warehouse space can be viewed in terms of energy costs.

With huge increases in Artificial Intelligence and other datacentres, demand rises. With interconnects to other countries (even continents), renewable generation & storage of electricity - we have increased supply. My previous view was that electricity costs to consumers would fall to near cost of distribution. With datacentre demands rising quickly, that may still be true longer term but with short term blips. This has changed my projections of future energy costs. I wasn't planning on solar & batteries - but might now.

Either way, UBI is something I hope and expect to occur. The medium of payment can be anything - compute, embedded compute (bitcoin), energy or fiat currency (unbacked currency). All but fiat currency ($£ etc) have a form of backing.

As far as backing goes, I've long held the view that the Land Value Tax (Land value tax - Wikipedia) is the best backer to a currency and should be extended to all areas of "the commons" (Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia).

Commons (or "shared resources" would include unimproved land value, radio spectrum, fishing quotas/rights, water rights, mineral rights and most importantly in an EV context - air pollution. Other forms of pollution should also be taxed. Anything that reduces the quality or abundance of a country's shared resources.

Taxing these shared resources also means that they are economically active and not just hoarded (eg land banking in UK).

Wiki

A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements upon it.[1] It is also known as a location value tax, a point valuation tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating.

Rentenbank - end of hyperinflation in Weimar/1920s Germany. Rentenmark - Wikipedia - twice yearly tax on land.

new Rentenbank was established that same day, 15 October 1923.[3]

The newly created Rentenmark replaced the old Papiermark on 15 November. Because of the economic crisis in Germany after the First World War, there was no gold available to back the currency. Luther thus used Helfferich's idea of a currency backed by real goods. The new currency was backed by the land used for agriculture and business. This was mortgaged (Rente is a technical term for mortgage in German) to the tune of 3.2 billion Goldmarks, based on the 1913 wealth charge called Wehrbeitrag which had helped fund the German war effort from 1914 to 1918. Notes worth RM 3.2 billion were issued. The Rentenmark was introduced at a rate of one Rentenmark to equal one trillion (1012) old marks, with an exchange rate of one United States dollar to equal 4.2 Rentenmarks.[3]

The Act creating the Rentenmark backed the currency by means of twice yearly payments on property, due in April and October, payable for five years. Although the Rentenmark was not initially legal tender, it was accepted by the population and its value was relatively stable

 

[wdolson]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1789532000614822127

Sam Altman on the All in podcast this week suggested that UBI payments should be in computing minutes rather than money.

The AI future he envisions where most work is done by AIs would be a disaster. A relative few people who are always cooking off ideas would do OK because basically having slaves do all the scut work would leave them free to think. But these people are a minority in society. When these people retire, they go off and do things they always wanted to do but didn't have time to do. But there are also people who retire and just sit on the couch all day watching TV until they die.

Put 18 years olds in that same situation and they will get up to mischief instead of watching TV.

This forum is made up of people who are mostly in the former group because that group tends to make more money and tends to be able to afford a new car. But the latter group is out there and it's large.

If there was no more work society would probably rip itself apart.

Or energy. Sam's view may be overly skewed to his region.

However, I've long believed that in an oil-driven economy, money and energy were near enough equivalent measures. Burn it for electricity or transport, use it for fertilisers and tractors,

Electricity can fulfil most (all - with correct feedstocks?) of the applications that fossil fuels have been used for. So energy rather than oil should be the new measure.

Anyway in my mind, if something costs £200 - it's largely an embodiment of energy, whether materials, processing, transport and marketing (people:- food, rent, transport, treats). Machines, people, even shop/warehouse space can be viewed in terms of energy costs.

With huge increases in Artificial Intelligence and other datacentres, demand rises. With interconnects to other countries (even continents), renewable generation & storage of electricity - we have increased supply. My previous view was that electricity costs to consumers would fall to near cost of distribution. With datacentre demands rising quickly, that may still be true longer term but with short term blips. This has changed my projections of future energy costs. I wasn't planning on solar & batteries - but might now.

Either way, UBI is something I hope and expect to occur. The medium of payment can be anything - compute, embedded compute (bitcoin), energy or fiat currency (unbacked currency). All but fiat currency ($£ etc) have a form of backing.

As far as backing goes, I've long held the view that the Land Value Tax (Land value tax - Wikipedia) is the best backer to a currency and should be extended to all areas of "the commons" (Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia).

Commons (or "shared resources" would include unimproved land value, radio spectrum, fishing quotas/rights, water rights, mineral rights and most importantly in an EV context - air pollution. Other forms of pollution should also be taxed. Anything that reduces the quality or abundance of a country's shared resources.

Taxing these shared resources also means that they are economically active and not just hoarded (eg land banking in UK).

Wiki


View attachment 1046364


Rentenbank - end of hyperinflation in Weimar/1920s Germany. Rentenmark - Wikipedia - twice yearly tax on land.

I see problems with the land value tax. It's very regressive on rural land owners vs city land owners. At least in the US property taxes today are very progressive. You are taxed based on what is built on the property and what it is used for. Agricultural land is taxed much lower than urban property that has expensive buildings on it.

In this state the lowest tax rate is on timber land for good reason. If you are growing trees for harvest, it's going to be 30-50 years before you cut the trees. If you have to pay the same rate in property taxes as someone who owns the land under the Columbia Center in Seattle you won't be able to afford to keep the land with the trees. The guy who owns the land under the Columbia Center is paying pennies compared who what he's paying now. The footprint of the Columbia Center is less than an acre while a small plot of forest land could be 100 acres quite easily.

 

[UkNorthampton]

...I see problems with the land value tax. It's very regressive on rural land owners vs city land owners. At least in the US property taxes today are very progressive. You are taxed based on what is built on the property and what it is used for. Agricultural land is taxed much lower than urban property that has expensive buildings on it.

In this state the lowest tax rate is on timber land for good reason. If you are growing trees for harvest, it's going to be 30-50 years before you cut the trees. If you have to pay the same rate in property taxes as someone who owns the land under the Columbia Center in Seattle you won't be able to afford to keep the land with the trees. The guy who owns the land under the Columbia Center is paying pennies compared who what he's paying now. The footprint of the Columbia Center is less than an acre while a small plot of forest land could be 100 acres quite easily.

Zones & unimproved value of land.

Cities are taxed at much higher rates per hectare - ditto waterfront etc according to their economic usefulness/innate value. If a transport station (tube/metro/train/Boring Company) is added - it generally adds value to the existing owners even though they did not contribute. With Land Value Tax (LVT) some of that increased value is clawed back over time, allowing further improvements elsewhere. For those negatively affected (say next to train tracks) - their taxable value can be lowered. Other improvements include swimming pools, theatres, parks.

Agricultural/forestry land does not provide as much income as a more economically active or desirable area. Therefore the value (per acre/hectare/m2) and tax rates would be very low in absolute terms, although enough to prevent vast areas of Scotland used as exclusive shooting estates for the benefit of very few. Furthermore, if the "shared resource"/"common" allows public access and use - then the reduced exclusiveness leads to reduced tax.

Tax relates to degree of exclusive use and value of the land before improvements (by the owner). Therefore, even for rural land there is incentive to improve for owners, for public authorities (transport, fire fighting, police coverage). Changing use from say agricultural to housing changes the value and hence land tax.

Part of this is that in some countries such as the UK, land is hoarded as tax is low (used to be fairer) and indeed some agricultural land is badly used because it's bought for inheritance purposes with no intention to be used even though it is (in the UK) a scarce resource. Similarly, large parts of London (and many cities worldwide) have houses which are not lived in, even during a housing crisis. Plenty of Russians, Chinese & Saudis have multiple houses as insurance against regime change or falling out of favour with current.... administrations.

Agricultural Relief for Inheritance Tax

Work out whether assets in an estate qualify for Agricultural Relief and the rate at which it is due.

www.gov.uk

For those countries that do tax land (parts of USA, I believe) - the system would have to rejigged if unfair. The basic idea is to tax the commons as exclusively used by some. The whole country protects that exclusive use and should be paid for it (police, courts, armed forces).

LVT is applicable to more than land though. radio spectrum & damage to shared resources (pollution of air & water) for example.

Moving taxation from labour & brains (employment, productive activity) and towards shared resources improves economic activity & reduces hoarding.

Even in a robot economy, shared resources must be used. Factories can be located abroad, but roads, ports, rail, warehouses, deliveries can be taxed.

 

[wdolson]

Zones & unimproved value of land.

Cities are taxed at much higher rates per hectare - ditto waterfront etc according to their economic usefulness/innate value. If a transport station (tube/metro/train/Boring Company) is added - it generally adds value to the existing owners even though they did not contribute. With Land Value Tax (LVT) some of that increased value is clawed back over time, allowing further improvements elsewhere. For those negatively affected (say next to train tracks) - their taxable value can be lowered. Other improvements include swimming pools, theatres, parks.

Agricultural/forestry land does not provide as much income as a more economically active or desirable area. Therefore the value (per acre/hectare/m2) and tax rates would be very low in absolute terms, although enough to prevent vast areas of Scotland used as exclusive shooting estates for the benefit of very few. Furthermore, if the "shared resource"/"common" allows public access and use - then the reduced exclusiveness leads to reduced tax.

Tax relates to degree of exclusive use and value of the land before improvements (by the owner). Therefore, even for rural land there is incentive to improve for owners, for public authorities (transport, fire fighting, police coverage). Changing use from say agricultural to housing changes the value and hence land tax.

Part of this is that in some countries such as the UK, land is hoarded as tax is low (used to be fairer) and indeed some agricultural land is badly used because it's bought for inheritance purposes with no intention to be used even though it is (in the UK) a scarce resource. Similarly, large parts of London (and many cities worldwide) have houses which are not lived in, even during a housing crisis. Plenty of Russians, Chinese & Saudis have multiple houses as insurance against regime change or falling out of favour with current.... administrations.

Agricultural Relief for Inheritance Tax

Work out whether assets in an estate qualify for Agricultural Relief and the rate at which it is due.

www.gov.uk

For those countries that do tax land (parts of USA, I believe) - the system would have to rejigged if unfair. The basic idea is to tax the commons as exclusively used by some. The whole country protects that exclusive use and should be paid for it (police, courts, armed forces).

LVT is applicable to more than land though. radio spectrum & damage to shared resources (pollution of air & water) for example.

Moving taxation from labour & brains (employment, productive activity) and towards shared resources improves economic activity & reduces hoarding.

Even in a robot economy, shared resources must be used. Factories can be located abroad, but roads, ports, rail, warehouses, deliveries can be taxed.

Every state in the US taxes property. It varies state by state, but it's universal. I was unaware that there were places that didn't tax property.

The description of LVT in Wikipedia states that it's a flat rate regardless of the land use, which is what I was saying was unfair.

If robots took over most labor, I think society would deteriorate. A lot of people wouldn't know what to do with their time. Experiments with basic income have allowed people to work less which frees up time for child care, and other things, but if people have nothing at all they need to do, some will start causing trouble out of boredom.

Additionally, the proponents are relying on governments stepping in and somehow extracting a fair share of the wealth these robots are creating and redistributing it to the people. There will be some very strong forces who will want to keep everything for themselves and at least in the US, these people are very good at getting a fair share of the US population to vote against their best interests.

There is a high probability that society will bifurcate into a small number of incredibly wealthy haves, a small middle class doing the jobs robots can't do, and the masses starving in the streets and eventually doing everything they can to tear apart the system. They will have numbers on their side.

An argument can be made that every technological advance that appeared to take away jobs in the past ended up creating more jobs. Luddites destroyed looms in the early industrial revolution because they were putting weavers out of work. Other labor saving inventions ended up creating new jobs. But the plan is for robots and AI to do essentially all the labor, even fixing other robots and improving the technology. Whenever a new job category is created, robots will be adapted to do it more efficiently than a human can. There will be few new jobs for humans.

That seems like a pretty dystopian future to me.

 

[Buckminster]

That seems like a pretty dystopian future to me.

That's why most sci-fi movies are dystopian. It is difficult to see anything else. However, the future is inevitable - better to embrace than resist.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

Or energy. Sam's view may be overly skewed to his region.

However, I've long believed that in an oil-driven economy, money and energy were near enough equivalent measures. Burn it for electricity or transport, use it for fertilisers and tractors,

Electricity can fulfil most (all - with correct feedstocks?) of the applications that fossil fuels have been used for. So energy rather than oil should be the new measure.

Anyway in my mind, if something costs £200 - it's largely an embodiment of energy, whether materials, processing, transport and marketing (people:- food, rent, transport, treats). Machines, people, even shop/warehouse space can be viewed in terms of energy costs.

With huge increases in Artificial Intelligence and other datacentres, demand rises. With interconnects to other countries (even continents), renewable generation & storage of electricity - we have increased supply. My previous view was that electricity costs to consumers would fall to near cost of distribution. With datacentre demands rising quickly, that may still be true longer term but with short term blips. This has changed my projections of future energy costs. I wasn't planning on solar & batteries - but might now.

Either way, UBI is something I hope and expect to occur. The medium of payment can be anything - compute, embedded compute (bitcoin), energy or fiat currency (unbacked currency). All but fiat currency ($£ etc) have a form of backing.

As far as backing goes, I've long held the view that the Land Value Tax (Land value tax - Wikipedia) is the best backer to a currency and should be extended to all areas of "the commons" (Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia).

Commons (or "shared resources" would include unimproved land value, radio spectrum, fishing quotas/rights, water rights, mineral rights and most importantly in an EV context - air pollution. Other forms of pollution should also be taxed. Anything that reduces the quality or abundance of a country's shared resources.

Taxing these shared resources also means that they are economically active and not just hoarded (eg land banking in UK).

Wiki


View attachment 1046364


Rentenbank - end of hyperinflation in Weimar/1920s Germany. Rentenmark - Wikipedia - twice yearly tax on land.

We've been on a global petro-dollar standard since the 80's. I'd say that we've been there done that. It doesn't work.

As for the LVT (Land Value Tax), it looks ok in theory, and has had "success" on small scales. But it's different in nearly every iteration.
And I see it as a very risky option, prone to centralization and gov control, many areas have uncertain land borders.
Singapore claims to use LVT, but the nation state owns 99% of the land and just does leases. That's an awfully loose use of LVT.

Energy, at it's base, is the same everywhere. The creation, distribution, and use vary, but the energy itself is the same. So is time.
Time and energy are the purest way to back a currency.
To truly have a global working currency, it needs to be backed by something that is free of region limits, free of borders, and immune to manipulation.

A currency already exists that is:

• secured by energy, verified by time
• categorized as a commodity (like oil)
• decentralized from central banks and oil producing countries
• is actually Deflationary (lower inflation yr/yr than gold)
• freely available to everyone in the world to use
• does not require any bank involvement
• cannot be frozen or ceased by any government
• and has been around for over 15 yrs.

You did mention it. Bitcoin has all of that.
It's an open-source ledger, for all to see and use, easily verified, impossible to change.
It has a set quantity that cannot be changed, making it DEflationary. (unlike every fiat that's ever existed)
It has a network of tens of thousands of nodes that secure and verify every transaction.

You don't need to qualify for a bank account to use it.
Your sats are available 24/7 (unlike banks, which are closed over 100 days p/yr in US)
You don't need the gov's permission to use your own money. You keep your privacy rights.

If every fiat currency in the world were to be put on a Bitcoin Standard, where they had to hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets and could only use that equivalent amount of their own fiat, it would change everything for the better.

Countries couldn't afford the endless wars we're in now.
They couldn't just bail out corporations they deem "too big to fail".
Governments would actually be held accountable for their budgets.
Citizens of Third world countries would actually have a chance to get ahead, and dictatorships would have a very hard time surviving if they couldn't manipulate the money, or get bailed out by loans from the WB or IMF. (El Salvador is already showing it can be done.)

This is why so many first world govs and central bankers are so against Bitcoin. They're scared.
It levels the playing field, removes their cheat codes, and takes away their power to control the money.
Every time the govs and banks try to "fix" an economic problem, all they do is make it worse. If they would just stop trying, the money would actually fix itself. It just exposes all the poorly run businesses and manipulated markets.
The dying grapes should be allowed to fall off the vine.
Bitcoin fixes this.

 

[Unclepaul]

US has already shown that Universal Basic Income can work.
Seniors get Social Security every month...without working.
Poor get Welfare every month...without working.
City kids and adults get free SNAP cards...without working.
Workers get vacation, sick, bereavement,birthing, strike, unemployment, holiday, signing bonuses, retirement, healthcare, pensions and exit packages...without working.

So many people already get $Billions in "Free Money" in todays society.

Kids get education...without working.
Adults get retraining and $'s for...not working.
Students get free meals...without working.

All this, and more, already seems natural and citizens feel entitled to all the free $ they can qualify for.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

US has already shown that Universal Basic Income can work.
Seniors get Social Security every month...without working.
Poor get Welfare every month...without working.
City kids and adults get free SNAP cards...without working.
Workers get vacation, sick, bereavement,birthing, strike, unemployment, holiday, signing bonuses, retirement, healthcare, pensions and exit packages...without working.

So many people already get $Billions in "Free Money" in todays society.

Kids get education...without working.
Adults get retraining and $'s for...not working.
Students get free meals...without working.

All this, and more, already seems natural and citizens feel entitled to all the free $ they can qualify for.

Those seniors worked decades paying into the SS system. They more than deserve it, they're actually owed it.
Not their fault the gov stole from the SS funding.
And your lack of math is convenient.
How many +65 adults in the US? About 65 mil, 18% of the population.
How many +18-64? 79%
It's not even comparable.

"Workers get ____..."""
You do realize all those are paid by their employer, right? Not the gov. And they get them BECAUSE they work.

Did you seriously type "Kids get education without working" as a real argument for UBI?
I can't take your seriously after that one.


Where does all the money come from for UBI? If we all get a set amount no matter what, why work at all?
And if we're not working, the gov has no income tax (single biggest gov income) to use for UBI. So where's it come from? Do they just endlessly print money, causing hyper-inflation, making the cost of everything to skyrocket to where the UBI doesn't even cover basic needs expenses?

No, the answer is to change this economy to a truly free market capitalistic one (Not what we have now).
The markets will set themselves. The bad companies don't survive, the good ones do. The people who actually contribute get rewarded. Those who don't won't.
I am not for handouts. I believe in education. Help those who help themselves. Our population is too big for our resources. What happens everywhere else in nature when that happens? The weak die, nature finds a balance. That should be the case in society and business as well.
We're devolving, because tech is advancing faster than our brains.
The movie Idiocracy wasn't supposed to be a warning documentary!

 

[kabin]

Those seniors worked decades paying into the SS system. They more than deserve it, they're actually owed it.
Not their fault the gov stole from the SS funding.
And your lack of math is convenient.
How many +65 adults in the US? About 65 mil, 18% of the population.
How many +18-64? 79%
It's not even comparable.

"Workers get ____..."""
You do realize all those are paid by their employer, right? Not the gov. And they get them BECAUSE they work.

Did you seriously type "Kids get education without working" as a real argument for UBI?
I can't take your seriously after that one.


Where does all the money come from for UBI? If we all get a set amount no matter what, why work at all?
And if we're not working, the gov has no income tax (single biggest gov income) to use for UBI. So where's it come from? Do they just endlessly print money, causing hyper-inflation, making the cost of everything to skyrocket to where the UBI doesn't even cover basic needs expenses?

No, the answer is to change this economy to a truly free market capitalistic one (Not what we have now).
The markets will set themselves. The bad companies don't survive, the good ones do. The people who actually contribute get rewarded. Those who don't won't.
I am not for handouts. I believe in education. Help those who help themselves. Our population is too big for our resources. What happens everywhere else in nature when that happens? The weak die, nature finds a balance. That should be the case in society and business as well.
We're devolving, because tech is advancing faster than our brains.
The movie Idiocracy wasn't supposed to be a warning documentary!

Yep. Even tghe typical paltry SS income is taxed. Medicare was suppose to be free but even Part B has a substantial monthly premium.

Spending other's money is a wet dream. We'll need to keep cranking up interest rates to encourage enough entities to buy US debt thereby making our interest payment on the debt even higher. These days it's pandering for votes on steroids.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

Yep. Even tghe typical paltry SS income is taxed. Medicare was suppose to be free but even Part B has a substantial monthly premium.

Spending other's money is a wet dream. We'll need to keep cranking up interest rates to encourage enough entities to buy US debt thereby making our interest payment on the debt even higher. These days it's pandering for votes on steroids.

Yeah, fixing the money would go a long way to stopping a lot of the corruption. If all the poorly run corps couldn't afford to buy their senators, less senators would stick around.
But I still think term limits in Congress is an absolute need either way.

 

[UkNorthampton]

Every state in the US taxes property. It varies state by state, but it's universal. I was unaware that there were places that didn't tax property.

The description of LVT in Wikipedia states that it's a flat rate regardless of the land use, which is what I was saying was unfair.

If robots took over most labor, I think society would deteriorate. A lot of people wouldn't know what to do with their time. Experiments with basic income have allowed people to work less which frees up time for child care, and other things, but if people have nothing at all they need to do, some will start causing trouble out of boredom.

Additionally, the proponents are relying on governments stepping in and somehow extracting a fair share of the wealth these robots are creating and redistributing it to the people. There will be some very strong forces who will want to keep everything for themselves and at least in the US, these people are very good at getting a fair share of the US population to vote against their best interests.

There is a high probability that society will bifurcate into a small number of incredibly wealthy haves, a small middle class doing the jobs robots can't do, and the masses starving in the streets and eventually doing everything they can to tear apart the system. They will have numbers on their side.

An argument can be made that every technological advance that appeared to take away jobs in the past ended up creating more jobs. Luddites destroyed looms in the early industrial revolution because they were putting weavers out of work. Other labor saving inventions ended up creating new jobs. But the plan is for robots and AI to do essentially all the labor, even fixing other robots and improving the technology. Whenever a new job category is created, robots will be adapted to do it more efficiently than a human can. There will be few new jobs for humans.

That seems like a pretty dystopian future to me.

The rate can be anything.

Most proponents / writeups talk about a fixed % of the value of the land or the economic income of the land before improvements (what the land would rent for). With land use restrictions - planning/zones - percentages can be varied as can any tax-free portion for small ownerships.

Hence smallholdings, modest dwellings can be taxed lightly but premium locations / huge amounts of land pay more tax (even as a percentage, as allowance easily eclipsed). Tax increases as the value or expected income changes eg planning permissions/zones change.

It's a very cheap tax to collect. It taxes unproductive hoarding. Many countries tax codes are enormous and to a degree a matter of ambiguity. Taxing labour and brains is much harder and more expensive to collect and many people prefer to be employed or underemployed just to ease the admin. Therefore a country's human potential is reduced.

Whatever you tax you get less of. Taxing work seems to be far worse than taxing exclusive use of a country's resources that are protected by the whole country.

As to why the UK doesn't tax land much - Winston Churchill was a proponent - but there was a deal around 1911 (from memory) between the House of Lords (UK's second chamber - filled full of huge land owners) whereby the Lords' power of veto was restricted in exchange for dropping Land Taxation.

The works of Henry George (American political economist) were hugely influential at the time (especially in USA, but also Australia and many other places), massively discussed in political circles, largely forgotten now.

Georgism - Wikipedia

or as regards pollution rights/payments/taxation - Georgism - Wikipedia

Georgism - Wikipedia interesting set of supporters (many Australian and New Zealand heads of government, USA's 19th President - Rutherford B. Hayes - Wikipedia, Milton Friedman, Winston Churchill and Sun Yat-sen

Someone made a game to illustrate how oligarchs take control of land and later this was turned into "Monopoly" reversing the intent of the original game to show how evil the system was.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

The rate can be anything.

Most proponents / writeups talk about a fixed % of the value of the land or the economic income of the land before improvements (what the land would rent for). With land use restrictions - planning/zones - percentages can be varied as can any tax-free portion for small ownerships.

Hence smallholdings, modest dwellings can be taxed lightly but premium locations / huge amounts of land pay more tax (even as a percentage, as allowance easily eclipsed). Tax increases as the value or expected income changes eg planning permissions/zones change.

It's a very cheap tax to collect. It taxes unproductive hoarding. Many countries tax codes are enormous and to a degree a matter of ambiguity. Taxing labour and brains is much harder and more expensive to collect and many people prefer to be employed or underemployed just to ease the admin. Therefore a country's human potential is reduced.

Whatever you tax you get less of. Taxing work seems to be far worse than taxing exclusive use of a country's resources that are protected by the whole country.

As to why the UK doesn't tax land much - Winston Churchill was a proponent - but there was a deal around 1911 (from memory) between the House of Lords (UK's second chamber - filled full of huge land owners) whereby the Lords' power of veto was restricted in exchange for dropping Land Taxation.

The works of Henry George (American political economist) were hugely influential at the time (especially in USA, but also Australia and many other places), massively discussed in political circles, largely forgotten now.

Georgism - Wikipedia

or as regards pollution rights/payments/taxation - Georgism - Wikipedia

Georgism - Wikipedia interesting set of supporters (many Australian and New Zealand heads of government, USA's 19th President - Rutherford B. Hayes - Wikipedia, Milton Friedman, Winston Churchill and Sun Yat-sen

Someone made a game to illustrate how oligarchs take control of land and later this was turned into "Monopoly" reversing the intent of the original game to show how evil the system was.

Since 1971, taxes have been irrelevant.
There are needed in a fiat world. Governments can print all the fiat they want, for whatever they want.
Prior to 1971, governments actually had to keep a budget, they had to ask for more money from their citizens if they wanted to spend more (War Bonds for example).
Now, it doesn't matter. They don't have to ask. They just start the money printer. So why do they need our money? Why tax?
Because it's a form of control.

 

[wdolson]

That's why most sci-fi movies are dystopian. It is difficult to see anything else. However, the future is inevitable - better to embrace than resist.

A lot of SF movies are dystopian, but there is a lot of more positive SF out there too. Dystopian SF is written to warn people about what could happen if we aren't careful. Isaac Asimov foresaw what could happen if we weren't careful with AI in the 1950s and developed the laws of robotics that he wrote about in his stories. Other authors later ran with the idea of what happens with unfettered AI.

The future is inevitable, but if we create that future with our actions. If we take the wrong actions, it will be a bleak future.

We have averted disasters by looking ahead. One example that was over-hyped, but real was the Millennium Bug that came from old computer software using 2 digit dates. The bulk of computers did not have a problem. But there were old legacy systems, mostly mainframes, where there was a problem. I knew someone who was a Cobol programmer and she was very busy in the couple of years before 2000.

Because IT departments took it seriously, there were very few problems and the public decided it was all a hoax. That was only because the problem was largely fixed before it became a problem.

We've gone 79 years since a nuclear weapon was used in anger. This is because the governments that had nuclear weapons took them seriously and put in a lot of effort to avoid nuclear confrontation. We have not created the future of a world destroyed by nuclear weapons (yet) because responsible people have made sure that doesn't happen. We now face a number of problems from less responsible people taking over nuclear powers and smaller countries that don't accept the world order developing these weapons. But so far the world order has held with respect to nuclear weapons.

If we don't think through all the implications this sort of technology is going to bring, we could have a very bleak future where a handful of people have all the resources and most of the population will have nothing and no means to obtain anything short of stealing it.

This Pollyanna UBI world only happens if governments get out ahead of the technology and make sure it happens. Not only is no government in the world even considering it, there are elements in every government who will resist and of the changes necessary with every fiber of their being. The United States still doesn't have universal healthcare because of a concerted effort by these elements. We took one step closer to that in 2009 and it's now quite popular, but even many of the people who have it now and love it will say they hate it if you use certain key terms to describe it.

US has already shown that Universal Basic Income can work.
Seniors get Social Security every month...without working.
Poor get Welfare every month...without working.
City kids and adults get free SNAP cards...without working.
Workers get vacation, sick, bereavement,birthing, strike, unemployment, holiday, signing bonuses, retirement, healthcare, pensions and exit packages...without working.

So many people already get $Billions in "Free Money" in todays society.

Kids get education...without working.
Adults get retraining and $'s for...not working.
Students get free meals...without working.

All this, and more, already seems natural and citizens feel entitled to all the free $ they can qualify for.

Social Security is not exactly the same thing as UBI. I posted about a book that covers UBI in depth called Utopia for Realists
Amazon.com

The author talks about many pilot programs of real UBI schemes and they were quite successful. I was very skeptical of UBI before reading the book, but he convinced me that it really is a good idea. However it will take carefully planned legislation to make it work and few liberal democracies are in any position to do that right now.

Yep. Even tghe typical paltry SS income is taxed. Medicare was suppose to be free but even Part B has a substantial monthly premium.

Spending other's money is a wet dream. We'll need to keep cranking up interest rates to encourage enough entities to buy US debt thereby making our interest payment on the debt even higher. These days it's pandering for votes on steroids.

Social Security is not taxed unless you are still making an earned income under age 70. Then you have to pay back a portion of your SS income.

The rate can be anything.

Most proponents / writeups talk about a fixed % of the value of the land or the economic income of the land before improvements (what the land would rent for). With land use restrictions - planning/zones - percentages can be varied as can any tax-free portion for small ownerships.

Hence smallholdings, modest dwellings can be taxed lightly but premium locations / huge amounts of land pay more tax (even as a percentage, as allowance easily eclipsed). Tax increases as the value or expected income changes eg planning permissions/zones change.

It's a very cheap tax to collect. It taxes unproductive hoarding. Many countries tax codes are enormous and to a degree a matter of ambiguity. Taxing labour and brains is much harder and more expensive to collect and many people prefer to be employed or underemployed just to ease the admin. Therefore a country's human potential is reduced.

Whatever you tax you get less of. Taxing work seems to be far worse than taxing exclusive use of a country's resources that are protected by the whole country.

As to why the UK doesn't tax land much - Winston Churchill was a proponent - but there was a deal around 1911 (from memory) between the House of Lords (UK's second chamber - filled full of huge land owners) whereby the Lords' power of veto was restricted in exchange for dropping Land Taxation.

The works of Henry George (American political economist) were hugely influential at the time (especially in USA, but also Australia and many other places), massively discussed in political circles, largely forgotten now.

Georgism - Wikipedia

or as regards pollution rights/payments/taxation - Georgism - Wikipedia

Georgism - Wikipedia interesting set of supporters (many Australian and New Zealand heads of government, USA's 19th President - Rutherford B. Hayes - Wikipedia, Milton Friedman, Winston Churchill and Sun Yat-sen

Someone made a game to illustrate how oligarchs take control of land and later this was turned into "Monopoly" reversing the intent of the original game to show how evil the system was.

The US states are a mix of different taxing schemes. All states tax property. Other state taxes can be sales tax (VAT) and income tax. Some states don't tax income and some don't have a sales tax. Federally everyone pays income tax. At one time New Hampshire had neither income nor sales tax, but there is now an income tax on some types of income (investments and corporate earnings). My state, Washington, has no income tax (though the legislature did start a tax on investment earnings that will probably be repealed this year), but has sales taxes. Oregon, just a couple of miles from here is the opposite with no sales tax, but an income tax.

No state soars ahead of the rest due to their taxing scheme. Some of the states with a lot of taxes are very expensive places to live. For example New York is very expensive. Especially New York City which also has a city income tax. But NYC is the largest city in the US despite the incredibly high taxes.

Property taxes are somewhat more progressive than sales taxes which are very regressive. Income taxes are generally progressive too, especially graduated income taxes.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

The future is inevitable, but if we create that future with our actions. If we take the wrong actions, it will be a bleak future.

We have averted disasters by looking ahead. One example that was over-hyped, but real was the Millennium Bug that came from old computer software using 2 digit dates. The bulk of computers did not have a problem. But there were old legacy systems, mostly mainframes, where there was a problem. I knew someone who was a Cobol programmer and she was very busy in the couple of years before 2000.

Because IT departments took it seriously, there were very few problems and the public decided it was all a hoax. That was only because the problem was largely fixed before it became a problem.

This Pollyanna UBI world only happens if governments get out ahead of the technology and make sure it happens. Not only is no government in the world even considering it, there are elements in every government who will resist and of the changes necessary with every fiber of their being. The United States still doesn't have universal healthcare because of a concerted effort by these elements. We took one step closer to that in 2009 and it's now quite popular, but even many of the people who have it now and love it will say they hate it if you use certain key terms to describe it.

The US states are a mix of different taxing schemes. All states tax property. Other state taxes can be sales tax (VAT) and income tax. Some states don't tax income and some don't have a sales tax. Federally everyone pays income tax. At one time New Hampshire had neither income nor sales tax, but there is now an income tax on some types of income (investments and corporate earnings). My state, Washington, has no income tax (though the legislature did start a tax on investment earnings that will probably be repealed this year), but has sales taxes. Oregon, just a couple of miles from here is the opposite with no sales tax, but an income tax.

No state soars ahead of the rest due to their taxing scheme. Some of the states with a lot of taxes are very expensive places to live. For example New York is very expensive. Especially New York City which also has a city income tax. But NYC is the largest city in the US despite the incredibly high taxes.

Property taxes are somewhat more progressive than sales taxes which are very regressive. Income taxes are generally progressive too, especially graduated income taxes.

Anything that threatens the govs ability to control us will never see the light of day.
If 1st world govs were going to consider UBI, it would only be because they could manipulate it in their favor.
That's just one reason that makes Bitcoin so remarkable. It grew under the radar, the gov ignored it for so long that now it's too big to ignore. And they didn't understand it, not realizing how big a threat it truly is to their rigged system, and now they're scrambling because they're seeing that they can't control it, manipulate it, or stop it. They're scared! Bitcoin is real freedom money. It's the first time in history that we have an exit from their system. And the more people that see the exit door, the harder the gov will work to try and lock those doors any way they can. But it might be too late. Pandora's box is open.


The US is a republic. Many people seem to forget that. Each state can pretty much do what they want.
The problem is when the federal congress tries to impose their will. They are waaay too big, far too hands-on, and need to be reminded who they work for. Us. Not themselves, not corporate donors.

• Term limits
• Insider trading reform
• PAC contribution limits
• The F*king electoral college system

Just some examples of changes that are badly overdue.
But who's in charge of making those changes? Congress themselves.
Why would they? There is no incentive for them. They're getting rich, on money and power.
And any time they get called out for something that may be against the rules, they just change the rules!
It doesn't matter what party, what affiliations, they ALL do it.
They've even taken our power of the vote away. We can still vote, they know they can't take the actual action away from us, so they just diminish everything it stood for. To the point, that last election, the loser wouldn't even acknowledge they lost.
I don't care what side you're on, that's just uncivilized, and a sign of a crumbling civilization.
History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.