FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Universal Basic Income
Universal Basic Income
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"How could you encourage people to take minimum wage jobs when they could earn the same doing nothing ?" The minimum wage is £9.50. For a 40 hour week that comes to £19,855pa, which is an extra £2926 above the poverty line payment (if that's what was chosen). But the idea is that all of the minimum wage jobs will be automated, so the only jobs available will be higher paid. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"So jobs which are minimum wage like waiters, cleaners and carers which can't be automated would have their wages increased ? " Take a look at what the Japanese are doing with their robots and you might wonder? | |||
| |||
"So jobs which are minimum wage like waiters, cleaners and carers which can't be automated would have their wages increased ? " All of those could be more automated with existing technology. But yes, any job that couldn't be automated would have to increase wages to the point that people were interested in doing it. | |||
"When I was growing up, the message was technology is going to give everyone more time, less work. That was 50 years ago and I'm still waiting! My bubble has been burst, I think this bubble will too. The bottom line is, work, industry and so on will change to whatever is the driving force at any given time. Work I tell you, work "The better way to look at it was when industrial machinery started becoming common place and horse power went away. That’s around the corner from us. Once AI and robotics get good enough. Or at least, heavily reduce the amount of workers needed. For example, more and more of Amazon will become automated. Picking in the warehouses will advance to the point they have mainly rthe bots pick and packing and a few humans to double check stuff. Then the delivery drivers won’t deliver. Instead they’ll drive to a designated location and drones will deliver everything within a 10 mile location, return to the van and onto the next location. Instead of 10 drivers delivering 1000 packages you’ll have 2 drivers with drones doing 500 each. Then self driving cars will take over all driving. It’s coming | |||
"When I was growing up, the message was technology is going to give everyone more time, less work. That was 50 years ago and I'm still waiting! My bubble has been burst, I think this bubble will too. The bottom line is, work, industry and so on will change to whatever is the driving force at any given time. Work I tell you, work
The better way to look at it was when industrial machinery started becoming common place and horse power went away.
That’s around the corner from us. Once AI and robotics get good enough.
Or at least, heavily reduce the amount of workers needed.
For example, more and more of Amazon will become automated.
Picking in the warehouses will advance to the point they have mainly rthe bots pick and packing and a few humans to double check stuff.
Then the delivery drivers won’t deliver. Instead they’ll drive to a designated location and drones will deliver everything within a 10 mile location, return to the van and onto the next location. Instead of 10 drivers delivering 1000 packages you’ll have 2 drivers with drones doing 500 each.
Then self driving cars will take over all driving.
It’s coming "I think those predictions are spot on and likely to happen. What I can't see happen anytime soon is everything becoming automated, those jobs that technology replaces, humans will find something else to work on, it happens like that and as over the years. I think there needs to be a fundamental change in the world economic structure we have today, before anything close to people having a living environment that takes away greed, power and boredom, that also does not impact on the growth of invention. If there is no reward to innovate, we will stand still. | |||
| |||
"I have from age 22 worked in the automation industry until retired in December 2019. Car , packaging and building products. This in various jobs as, building, installing , commissioning and design and programming of machines.This with robots also. Yes robots can do a lot of jobs people do. They require programming. Which depending on requirements of function . Can take sometimes days or weeks . To program what is required. All do repetitive work . So for instance if replace a waiter the permutations just for say placing something on a table , numerous. The reason for this people are unpredictable. They move things on table. Move chair etc. So in this instance how many times have people seen a waiter drop , spill things . Mainly due to another persons fault? So a lot of jobs , there will be people needed to do for a very long time. Yes since age 22 until retirement the advance in automation is fast . But a very very long way to go before a lot of low paid jobs will replaced by a robot. " I agree with everything you say but don’t we as humans adapt to different circumstances. For example in 1950 s in England would you have ever expected to regularly eaten food with your hands in a restaurant? Here we are all happily accepting we do and don’t go near a knife and fork or a table cloth. I realise I’m being extreme and this was over many years but we changed our historic habits ( well for the last two hundred years) to adapt to an automated production method. I hope I explained that well enough. We deal with what we are given as we often have very little say. Automated ticket machines. Ordering online without seeing or touching a product. | |||
"When I was growing up, the message was technology is going to give everyone more time, less work. That was 50 years ago and I'm still waiting! My bubble has been burst, I think this bubble will too. The bottom line is, work, industry and so on will change to whatever is the driving force at any given time. Work I tell you, work
The better way to look at it was when industrial machinery started becoming common place and horse power went away.
That’s around the corner from us. Once AI and robotics get good enough.
Or at least, heavily reduce the amount of workers needed.
For example, more and more of Amazon will become automated.
Picking in the warehouses will advance to the point they have mainly rthe bots pick and packing and a few humans to double check stuff.
Then the delivery drivers won’t deliver. Instead they’ll drive to a designated location and drones will deliver everything within a 10 mile location, return to the van and onto the next location. Instead of 10 drivers delivering 1000 packages you’ll have 2 drivers with drones doing 500 each.
Then self driving cars will take over all driving.
It’s coming
I think those predictions are spot on and likely to happen.
What I can't see happen anytime soon is everything becoming automated, those jobs that technology replaces, humans will find something else to work on, it happens like that and as over the years.
I think there needs to be a fundamental change in the world economic structure we have today, before anything close to people having a living environment that takes away greed, power and boredom, that also does not impact on the growth of invention.
If there is no reward to innovate, we will stand still."I think you’ll find it’ll be different this time. Robots and AI are gonna kill all the simple jobs. That’s never happened before in history. A large % of the employed population are simple jobs. You can’t retrain all those people, especially when there’s no simple jobs to retrain into. When robotics and AI take off, your gonna see millions of jobs disappear and be replaced with jobs those people can’t have. Like building and maintaining the robots, and even that will be taken over by more self sustaining robots soon enough. UBI is needed. But it’s scary to think that a large % of the population will basically be jobless and living off government cheques. | |||
| |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him." The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one. | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one." Firstly I’m very much for free medical care at source for all. Is the comparison for efficiency based on cost per head? If that’s the case then surely the fat salaries and overcharging in the private arena may have an impact on that perception. I honestly don’t know so just asking. | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one. Firstly I’m very much for free medical care at source for all. Is the comparison for efficiency based on cost per head? If that’s the case then surely the fat salaries and overcharging in the private arena may have an impact on that perception. I honestly don’t know so just asking. " The statistic I was using for medicaid was based on how much of the money went on healthcare vs how much money went on administration or shareholder payout costs. | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one." Can you share the statistics? As far as I know, medicaid is one of the most expensive and inefficient systems when you take into account the cost per head. | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one. Can you share the statistics? As far as I know, medicaid is one of the most expensive and inefficient systems when you take into account the cost per head." I read it years ago, I will look though | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one. Can you share the statistics? As far as I know, medicaid is one of the most expensive and inefficient systems when you take into account the cost per head." if you google "medicaid vs private healthcare" the first article at cbpp dot org shows medicaid 22% cheaper per head | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one. Can you share the statistics? As far as I know, medicaid is one of the most expensive and inefficient systems when you take into account the cost per head. I read it years ago, I will look though" This is 2015 data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394555/ Americans with private health insurance spend $5380 per person (on average); by comparison, Medicare paid nearly $12,000 per enrollee, and Medicaid programs spent almost $8000 per member (on average) in 2015 In my opinion, if a country decides to give free healthcare, it should be free at point for everyone. Any half-assed approach like the US will result in higher expenditure. Lots of money there is spent on administrative costs. But entirely government run healthcare will have its own inefficiencies like what we see with NHS. It just doesn't scale well. | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one. Can you share the statistics? As far as I know, medicaid is one of the most expensive and inefficient systems when you take into account the cost per head. I read it years ago, I will look though This is 2015 data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394555/ Americans with private health insurance spend $5380 per person (on average); by comparison, Medicare paid nearly $12,000 per enrollee, and Medicaid programs spent almost $8000 per member (on average) in 2015 In my opinion, if a country decides to give free healthcare, it should be free at point for everyone. Any half-assed approach like the US will result in higher expenditure. Lots of money there is spent on administrative costs. But entirely government run healthcare will have its own inefficiencies like what we see with NHS. It just doesn't scale well." Medicare and Medicaid are not the same programs. Medicare is 65+ only and as such is not really comparable to private health insurance, unless you only compared to those over 65 using private insurance. Medicaid covers low income so has the same spread of people as private health insurance. in 2019 the median per capita cost for medicaid was $8,436 which is even lower than your 2015 data (data on the medicaid dot gov site) | |||
"When I was growing up, the message was technology is going to give everyone more time, less work. That was 50 years ago and I'm still waiting! My bubble has been burst, I think this bubble will too. The bottom line is, work, industry and so on will change to whatever is the driving force at any given time. Work I tell you, work
The better way to look at it was when industrial machinery started becoming common place and horse power went away.
That’s around the corner from us. Once AI and robotics get good enough.
Or at least, heavily reduce the amount of workers needed.
For example, more and more of Amazon will become automated.
Picking in the warehouses will advance to the point they have mainly rthe bots pick and packing and a few humans to double check stuff.
Then the delivery drivers won’t deliver. Instead they’ll drive to a designated location and drones will deliver everything within a 10 mile location, return to the van and onto the next location. Instead of 10 drivers delivering 1000 packages you’ll have 2 drivers with drones doing 500 each.
Then self driving cars will take over all driving.
It’s coming
I think those predictions are spot on and likely to happen.
What I can't see happen anytime soon is everything becoming automated, those jobs that technology replaces, humans will find something else to work on, it happens like that and as over the years.
I think there needs to be a fundamental change in the world economic structure we have today, before anything close to people having a living environment that takes away greed, power and boredom, that also does not impact on the growth of invention.
If there is no reward to innovate, we will stand still.
I think you’ll find it’ll be different this time. Robots and AI are gonna kill all the simple jobs. That’s never happened before in history.
A large % of the employed population are simple jobs. You can’t retrain all those people, especially when there’s no simple jobs to retrain into.
When robotics and AI take off, your gonna see millions of jobs disappear and be replaced with jobs those people can’t have. Like building and maintaining the robots, and even that will be taken over by more self sustaining robots soon enough.
UBI is needed. But it’s scary to think that a large % of the population will basically be jobless and living off government cheques.
"Simple and complex jobs have been killed off in the past with machinery or tech. Wool and cloth manufacturing, bread, cheese, confectionary, office jobs the list is long and it was killed off by old tech. The near future is difficult because we can see the possible, but we can't engineer it yet. Jobs will change as we progress through time and technologies move away from what we know today into the future technologies, we can't see yet. They will require social modelling and job changes. We have an equivalent example today in IT or Tech. 80 years ago, it did not exist, by the 1980's we had the internet, mobile phones, home computers, wifi and the start of a new industry that is now a huge employer and a driving force for all the future changes you mentioned. However, robots and AI are not even close to the learning capabilities of a cockroach, in real terms, and have the dexterity of a tank. There is excellent reading on the Kardashev Scale, type 1 civilisations: which we are about 200 years away from achieving and it goes to a type 3 civilisation which could be anywhere between 100000 - 1 million years to achieve. Right now we are type 0, I had to really think hard and read a lot to try and grasp how the human population of the world can progress from current state to future state. Well worth looking into, if the possibilities of the future interest you. | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one. Firstly I’m very much for free medical care at source for all. Is the comparison for efficiency based on cost per head? If that’s the case then surely the fat salaries and overcharging in the private arena may have an impact on that perception. I honestly don’t know so just asking. The statistic I was using for medicaid was based on how much of the money went on healthcare vs how much money went on administration or shareholder payout costs." Yes which is a very good way of doing it. Thanks | |||
"When I was growing up, the message was technology is going to give everyone more time, less work. That was 50 years ago and I'm still waiting! My bubble has been burst, I think this bubble will too. The bottom line is, work, industry and so on will change to whatever is the driving force at any given time. Work I tell you, work
The better way to look at it was when industrial machinery started becoming common place and horse power went away.
That’s around the corner from us. Once AI and robotics get good enough.
Or at least, heavily reduce the amount of workers needed.
For example, more and more of Amazon will become automated.
Picking in the warehouses will advance to the point they have mainly rthe bots pick and packing and a few humans to double check stuff.
Then the delivery drivers won’t deliver. Instead they’ll drive to a designated location and drones will deliver everything within a 10 mile location, return to the van and onto the next location. Instead of 10 drivers delivering 1000 packages you’ll have 2 drivers with drones doing 500 each.
Then self driving cars will take over all driving.
It’s coming
I think those predictions are spot on and likely to happen.
What I can't see happen anytime soon is everything becoming automated, those jobs that technology replaces, humans will find something else to work on, it happens like that and as over the years.
I think there needs to be a fundamental change in the world economic structure we have today, before anything close to people having a living environment that takes away greed, power and boredom, that also does not impact on the growth of invention.
If there is no reward to innovate, we will stand still.
I think you’ll find it’ll be different this time. Robots and AI are gonna kill all the simple jobs. That’s never happened before in history.
A large % of the employed population are simple jobs. You can’t retrain all those people, especially when there’s no simple jobs to retrain into.
When robotics and AI take off, your gonna see millions of jobs disappear and be replaced with jobs those people can’t have. Like building and maintaining the robots, and even that will be taken over by more self sustaining robots soon enough.
UBI is needed. But it’s scary to think that a large % of the population will basically be jobless and living off government cheques.
Simple and complex jobs have been killed off in the past with machinery or tech. Wool and cloth manufacturing, bread, cheese, confectionary, office jobs the list is long and it was killed off by old tech.
The near future is difficult because we can see the possible, but we can't engineer it yet. Jobs will change as we progress through time and technologies move away from what we know today into the future technologies, we can't see yet. They will require social modelling and job changes. We have an equivalent example today in IT or Tech. 80 years ago, it did not exist, by the 1980's we had the internet, mobile phones, home computers, wifi and the start of a new industry that is now a huge employer and a driving force for all the future changes you mentioned.
However, robots and AI are not even close to the learning capabilities of a cockroach, in real terms, and have the dexterity of a tank.
There is excellent reading on the Kardashev Scale, type 1 civilisations: which we are about 200 years away from achieving and it goes to a type 3 civilisation which could be anywhere between 100000 - 1 million years to achieve.
Right now we are type 0, I had to really think hard and read a lot to try and grasp how the human population of the world can progress from current state to future state. Well worth looking into, if the possibilities of the future interest you.
"From my last post . Robots are at the moment are a very very long way to do jobs like a waiter in a restaurant. As I also in the forty years working in automation and installing robots. They have already come a long way in what they can do. As this post when seeing in operation looks to some the job doing simple. It is the hours that have been taken to have robot operate to do job that is never shown. | |||
"When I was growing up, the message was technology is going to give everyone more time, less work. That was 50 years ago and I'm still waiting! My bubble has been burst, I think this bubble will too. The bottom line is, work, industry and so on will change to whatever is the driving force at any given time. Work I tell you, work
The better way to look at it was when industrial machinery started becoming common place and horse power went away.
That’s around the corner from us. Once AI and robotics get good enough.
Or at least, heavily reduce the amount of workers needed.
For example, more and more of Amazon will become automated.
Picking in the warehouses will advance to the point they have mainly rthe bots pick and packing and a few humans to double check stuff.
Then the delivery drivers won’t deliver. Instead they’ll drive to a designated location and drones will deliver everything within a 10 mile location, return to the van and onto the next location. Instead of 10 drivers delivering 1000 packages you’ll have 2 drivers with drones doing 500 each.
Then self driving cars will take over all driving.
It’s coming
I think those predictions are spot on and likely to happen.
What I can't see happen anytime soon is everything becoming automated, those jobs that technology replaces, humans will find something else to work on, it happens like that and as over the years.
I think there needs to be a fundamental change in the world economic structure we have today, before anything close to people having a living environment that takes away greed, power and boredom, that also does not impact on the growth of invention.
If there is no reward to innovate, we will stand still.
I think you’ll find it’ll be different this time. Robots and AI are gonna kill all the simple jobs. That’s never happened before in history.
A large % of the employed population are simple jobs. You can’t retrain all those people, especially when there’s no simple jobs to retrain into.
When robotics and AI take off, your gonna see millions of jobs disappear and be replaced with jobs those people can’t have. Like building and maintaining the robots, and even that will be taken over by more self sustaining robots soon enough.
UBI is needed. But it’s scary to think that a large % of the population will basically be jobless and living off government cheques.
Simple and complex jobs have been killed off in the past with machinery or tech. Wool and cloth manufacturing, bread, cheese, confectionary, office jobs the list is long and it was killed off by old tech.
The near future is difficult because we can see the possible, but we can't engineer it yet. Jobs will change as we progress through time and technologies move away from what we know today into the future technologies, we can't see yet. They will require social modelling and job changes. We have an equivalent example today in IT or Tech. 80 years ago, it did not exist, by the 1980's we had the internet, mobile phones, home computers, wifi and the start of a new industry that is now a huge employer and a driving force for all the future changes you mentioned.
However, robots and AI are not even close to the learning capabilities of a cockroach, in real terms, and have the dexterity of a tank.
There is excellent reading on the Kardashev Scale, type 1 civilisations: which we are about 200 years away from achieving and it goes to a type 3 civilisation which could be anywhere between 100000 - 1 million years to achieve.
Right now we are type 0, I had to really think hard and read a lot to try and grasp how the human population of the world can progress from current state to future state. Well worth looking into, if the possibilities of the future interest you.
From my last post . Robots are at the moment are a very very long way to do jobs like a waiter in a restaurant. As I also in the forty years working in automation and installing robots. They have already come a long way in what they can do. As this post when seeing in operation looks to some the job doing simple. It is the hours that have been taken to have robot operate to do job that is never shown. "Thanks for this 
I think "robot" can conjure up sci-fi capabilities, a robot will eventually get there, but right now as you indicate, they are doing repetitive, tolerance based tasks that require a lot of programming.
Manual labour is a long way off being redundant, it will happen, but not for many a life time is my expectation. | |||
"Interesting question. Milton Friedman who was a libertarian economist and one of the famous free market proponents proposed UBI in the form of negative tax. His point of view was to get rid of welfare institutions like free healthcare and give people a basic income instead. This way, we won't have the inefficiencies which come with government run institutions, people will have a flexibility on how to use the welfare but at the same time, not misuse it. I kind of agree with him. The problem with this theory is that around the world privately run insurance and health organisations tend to have much higher innificiencies. In the US for example the most efficient Health insurance mechanism... is Medicaid... the State run one. Can you share the statistics? As far as I know, medicaid is one of the most expensive and inefficient systems when you take into account the cost per head. I read it years ago, I will look though This is 2015 data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394555/ Americans with private health insurance spend $5380 per person (on average); by comparison, Medicare paid nearly $12,000 per enrollee, and Medicaid programs spent almost $8000 per member (on average) in 2015 In my opinion, if a country decides to give free healthcare, it should be free at point for everyone. Any half-assed approach like the US will result in higher expenditure. Lots of money there is spent on administrative costs. But entirely government run healthcare will have its own inefficiencies like what we see with NHS. It just doesn't scale well. Medicare and Medicaid are not the same programs. Medicare is 65+ only and as such is not really comparable to private health insurance, unless you only compared to those over 65 using private insurance. Medicaid covers low income so has the same spread of people as private health insurance. in 2019 the median per capita cost for medicaid was $8,436 which is even lower than your 2015 data (data on the medicaid dot gov site)" The data I reported is the average. The one you said is median. And it's still higher than 2021 per capita average private insurance which is 7700$ | |||
"With more and more jobs become automated and inevitably more people made jobless in the next decade or so, do you think it makes sense giving every adult of working age a universal basic income? And how much would you propose it is? For me it makes sense and the automation of workplaces and loss of menial jobs for humans could be a blessing in disguise. Rather than having warehouses full of minimum wage workers doing mind, body and soul destroying work these people could be given a liveable income that would allow them to pursue actual passions and contribute to a better society. Maybe I'm just being idealistic though." It certainly sounds good on the face of it at least. I am not sure I fully understand though. If more people are not working and getting this universal income then that's less tax being paid so where does the government get the money to pay it?. You can't tax a robot so i can only think that companies will pay more businesses taxes to make up the shortfall. If I am on universal income but get a job do I still keep all of my universal income plus the wage from my new job and only pay the same amount of tax as now? What about very wealthy people who don't need to work, will they also get this universal income. I hope they can make it work as sounds good | |||
"If more people are not working and getting this universal income then that's less tax being paid so where does the government get the money to pay it?." They would have to increase corporation taxes, and increase taxes on higher earners. In theory companies will make more money, so they will be able to afford higher taxes. "You can't tax a robot ..." But you can certainly tax ownership of a robot. There will have to be some radical thinking done to raise enough to pay for the basic income, but it's not impossible. "If I am on universal income but get a job do I still keep all of my universal income plus the wage from my new job and only pay the same amount of tax as now?" You would get the basic income, plus whatever extra you get from your employer. They will obviously pay you less (because they can), and you'd probably pay more in tax on what you do earn. | |||
| |||
"Universal basic income will just contribute to the wealth gap and will not end poverty." I am sorry, you are saying that eliminating poverty will not end poverty? | |||
