Basic Income in a Just Society
bostonreview.net
bostonreview.net
The total Federal tax revenue is ~3.5 trillion.
That means that if 100% of total tax revenue were redistributed equally, each person would receive $10,000. That's only if the federal government stopped all other spending. No medicaid, no social security, no defense spending, no interstate highway funds.
For a person making $100,000 and paying $17,000 in taxes (after deductions), they woild lose $7,000. For a person with no salary, they'd make $10,000. For reference, the poverty threshold is around $12,000 for one person. So you aren't really living a great exiatence. Only around the $50,000 mark does the taxes out equal the taxes in. (anything above that and you're paying more in taxes than you receive in UNI.)
And once you take into account the fact that the federal government does have to spend money, the required tax revenue is probably much higher than it is currently -- at least 2x or 3x higher. This would make the breakeven point higher as well -- anyone making less than $100,000 would pay more in taxes than received by the UBI.
So, essentially, any article that discusses the "benefits" of a minimum wage should discuss it in the context of how much it costs, because the world where everyone gets a $20,000 or $50,000 universal income has to be radically different than the world we live in now.
Will the middle class want higher taxes so that they can receive little to no benefit? Seems politically unlikely to me.
- creating new service industies, many of which serve the rich and are thus mocked
- Solving problems in cheaper ways cheaper than paying a human to solve them. This is equivalent to... well... unemploying people.
I think the idea is that you raise taxes such that the middle class sees no difference, the rich pay more in taxes, and the poor receive more money.
In 2015, median household income was $56,000 so you could raise taxes by 18% and the middle class would not feel a difference with a $10,000 basic income for each household. You can do the same thing with 36% and $20,000 basic income.
And any revenue strategy to attempt to pay for it would need to take into account the substantially decreased tax revenue from all the people no longer working. (On the other hand, there might be increased tax revenue from jobs that now have to pay a higher salary to get people to do them. But at the very least, a static model seems insufficient.)
This is one of the reasons why I support BI. The current system is rather complicated and there are rare instances where it's better to not work. If benefits programs are largely replaced by BI then you will always make more money by working.
This systems is also much easier to administer and doesn't involve anyone checking if you "deserve" the benefits because everyone gets them.
Alternatively, the rich employ lobbyists and financial experts to ensure they don't personally pay any more than they do now, the middle class ultimately bears the burden due to the load offset by the rich, and waste/fraud/abuse results in the poor being no better off.
If I were a betting man, I'd wager on the second scenario.
I would bet that (a) the rich already lobby to pay the lowest amount in taxes so having BI or not having BI doesn't affect that and (b) BI would have much less waste/fraud than current programs.
But I keep in mind that the same lobbyist-infested group of people who would be responsible for putting it into law are the same clowns who have run roughshod over the healthcare and financial industries.
But will that actually work out mathematically and economically? High income earners in big cities are already paying nearly 50% marginal income tax rates.
These people only work that hard to keep the golden handcuffs. If you take that away, they aren't going to continue.
If marginal tax are 90%, why would anybody be stupid enough to take an 80 hour a week job that only pays a little bit more, due to taxes, than a similar 6 figure salary job that only requires 40 hours a week? 100k-300k salary jump works out to only 20k increase, at 90% marginal tax rates.
I myself have certainly considered taking a job in finance, or at a high-payed, but stressful, tech company.
And it is a hard tradeoff that I think about. More money vs less stress and less hours. And if marginal taxes were something like 90% there is no way I would even CONSIDER the job that now doesn't even pay that much more.
I'd just switch to some 30-35 hour a week, "life-style" business that still pays OK, and, I'd chill. I mean, why bother, right? I am motivated by incentives. Remove those incentives and you remove my motivation.
That being said, your example is excellent and I absolutely agree. There are a good number of people who we the gamers classify as "try-hards" who would still do what you said you wouldn't, because they are like "if I work hard enough I'll get more money than every other loser relying on universal income around me" -- but yes, they are a minority.
Some jobs are all or nothing, but a lot aren't.
But will that actually work out mathematically and economically?
Which is why I wonder if the math and economics works out.
If you tax all income over 1 million at 90%, the partners at the firm I work for who make on average ~2 million will just incorporate and take equity instead.
If you raise capital gains rates to 90%, nobody would invest another dime in America.
I'm very skeptical that the top 10% of earners are going to sit still while you take 75% of the money they earn.
Again, I'm not arguing for or against - just for better quality arguments about it. There are at least plausible sounding reworkings of the tax code that could achieve this (far less than your 90% scenario). Far better to argue about those, than straw men. Both pro and con sides of this debate seem to be more fond of the straw men.
The people wanting a radical change to the system of income distribution need to prove their system works.
I'm sure someone has done the math.
If someone modeled a realistic tax rate I'd love to see what they came up with.
as long as the marginal rate isn't over 100% it works.
I buy your argument that there is a marginal rate at which this doesn't work, but haven't seen evidence that it is necessary.
Under the 18%/10000 proposal, this household would pay an effective rate of 41-42%.
This doesn't even account for the fact that BI would reduce welfare, social security, etc. After accounting for that, we're probably closer to 35% than to 40%, but you can make a rough estimate on your own.
What you're hinting at would require strong controls on margins, which could be implemented without implementation of a basic income.
Practically implemented, I imagine along with "basic income" there be "basic goods and services", which have said strongly controlled margins. The rest can remain the same.
(I think basic income will never work under any scenario in this current economy, I just like to theorize. Reading some of your other comments on this I think we would agree on much)
A basic income will never work for one fundamental reason, you have to place a solid number to it outside of any other factor in an economy, whether it's $30,000 or $50,000 a year, and everywhere we live is different and has different requirements according to the local economies. Furthermore, you would need a very large tax base to support it, or a never ending printing press that ignores debt.
In order to make the system fair so that it actually will do the intended job that people want it to, you would need to exercise a strangling amount of control over the economy and people's lives. This would in turn result in a much larger bureaucratic government with more costs and corruption, more state control of industries, housing and real estate, food production, energy production, less freedom in the consumer market due to increased price controls and regulations, and an eventual collapse of the economy when companies drop from the economy due to too much regulation and taxes, high barriers to entry, and government corruption.
This idea has been exercised in one form or the other over the 20th century to eventual failure each time. Bread lines, needs assistance, food, free government housing, it's all a form of basic income at a fundamental level and it's always failed.
I disagree with this. SSA and CMS oversee over $2 trillion in SS/Medicare/Medicaid spending (enough for a generous BI), with administrative expenses of only about $10 billion.
You would need to consume almost the entire GDP of this country and pay only a portion of the population to make this even a number worth doing with basic income.
It doesn't work, and the negatives far outweigh the positives economically.
Children of course wouldn't need to get the same basic income as adults. $2 trillion is enough for every adult (working-age or otherwise) to get $9k/year, plus $2k per kid.
> In some areas of the country this is one month of living expenses, in other areas it may be a couple months if living cheap.
$9,000 per individual ($20,000 per family) is quite livable in much of the country. You can rent a 2BR house in Macon, GA for $350 per month (close to town!). Under basic income, poor people wouldn't have to live on the outskirts of high-COL areas just to get to their low-paying service jobs downtown. They could move to the vast swathes of this country that are much cheaper. And if they did choose to live near those jobs, the basic income would serve as a supplement, not a total replacement.
There is simply no evidence available to support this claim, and this is only recent human history. Capitalism is the normal mode of human interaction in our own limited scope of history. Indeed my own personal beliefs is that it s a mix of capitalism, socialism, and communism. Many argue our pre-modern social structures were very much founded on the basis of egalitarian social relations and common ownership, such as the hunter-gatherers. What are we to say about the monarchies, kingdoms, and dynasties that reigned for so much of human history? How about the early nomads which are a type of primitive minimalist society? To sit here and argue that any one of these is the "normal mode of human interaction" is absurd. Capitalism happens to be an OK system, for now.
While there are many programs that could potentially be cut to make way for BI, that wouldn't be nearly enough to actually pay for it. (And any complexity added to attempt to reduce its cost, such as not paying it to people who don't need it, starts to remove its benefit and add overhead, not to mention creating perverse incentives in many cases.)
There's also a question of locale adjustments, or lack thereof. On the one hand, "just enough to live on" in Mississippi is quite different from "just enough to live on" in California. On the other hand, should the federal government subsidize living in an expensive location rather than a cheap one? Or should expensive states have to supplement BI? (And that would further cement their position as expensive.)
In terms of what I'm hoping for I agree, but it does depend on who you're pitching to and what their goals are. Assuming that BI is restricted to citizens, one non-obvious consequence of even a partial BI is that it serves as a protectionist barrier against non-citizen immigrant labour - a citizen claiming $4000 BI can afford to work for $4000 less than a non-citizen while maintaining the same standard of living.
The beauty of basic income is that makes location much less relevant. Poor folks don't spend hours commuting into high-COL areas for funsies. They do it because that's where the low-skill service jobs are.
1: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basic...
I would also point out that "universal basic income" does not necessarily have to displace regular income. Lots of UBI critics say it's unaffordable, in part because they consider it a replacement source of income, whereas as you've pointed out, that's largely impractical. A supplemental UBI would both be more affordable by society at large and have a similar impact, while minimizing the fears of the critics about how "people will just stop working".
You would probably still have to work, but that's okay, because multiple studies have shown that even a modest guaranteed $250/mo can improve upward mobility for families, as well as other ancillary benefits such as reduced stress.
I'd be interested to find out about the feasibility of the notion of "Basic", where everyone is guaranteed the basics (food, clothing, shelter, internet, healthcare) no matter what, and if you want more than that, you get a job. I've long suspected that you could rid the world of some huge percentage like 75% of its workforce and the remaining 25% would be able to provide for the rest, cutting down on costs and other things. For example, fewer people commuting would lead to fewer cars on the roads, leading to fewer accidents and fewer roads that need to be maintained and fewer offices that need to be built and powered on, and so on.
A 2006 study put the cost at 1.8Tr. And then goes on to detail how it can be done, largely by eliminating new tax loopholes versus introducing new taxes: http://www.usbig.net/papers/144-Sheahen-RefundableTaxCredit.....
For a less academic answer, the author Scott Saterns has spent a lot of time researching this topic and even lived on a simulated basic income for a year: https://medium.com/basic-income/what-if-you-got-1-000-a-mont...
But the difference between our views is this: politically it's infeasible because middle class people are more politically active. People making over $50,000/year will lose money on thus deal. Thus, even if it's better for people making less than $50,000, it is unlikely to ever be enacted.
Finally, he talks about fixing tax "loopholes" but in reality he's talking about removing deductions. Those deductions are supported by many people... go ahead and try to remove the mortgage interest deduction, and see how far you can get! (polling support for its removal is almost zero)
Not that I think that's a good idea
[1] For the median household, the basic income will far outweigh the tax increase.
You'd basically be robbing the very poorest to pay the lower half of the middle class. A lot of current welfare recipients are getting a lot more than 9k + 2k per kid.
Not sure I see the benefit in a scheme like that.
That's why a negative income tax is probably politically more feasible. So even though it's functionally exactly the same thing as a UBI, it doesn't feel like a tax increase on the middle class.
This kind of arithmetic assumes the tax code stays basically the same. This is just silly. The whole point of UBI schemes for those that support them, is to be part of a complete overhaul of the tax code, in order to [avoid bad things happening]. Regardless if you support this view or not, you can't really get anywhere without accepting the premise.
Ok, so what if there is a real overhaul? First off, a lot of programs and tax credits don't make any sense anymore. So your number of 10k/person wiping out the entire tax base just doesn't work. More realistically keeping the rest of spending and tax code fixed, people have worked out that you end up with approx $3k/person (just using round numbers) in UBI "for free". Not much of a UBI rate, obviously, but hardly the scenario you present. This doesn't really speak to the economic impact of that many state and federal employees suddenly being unemployed, either, but bear with it for now.
So how do you get from 3k/person to 10k/person? Bear in mind, the whole premise of UBI is that a combination of income inequality and automation are going to unavoidably cause massive job loss and further inequality. So you restructure your tax code to directly address that. Something like an effective rate of 6 or 7% on the first 150k/yr (i.e. basically the same as today), and double that or a bit more on anything above... would get you to the 10k/person, without touching any current spending. That last part is important, this assumes entitlements like SS through payroll taxes are left alone. Obviously, it would be more sensible to roll those whole programs into a UBI also.
I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, I'm just pointing out that the arithmetic you are using isn't actually demonstrating anything useful. UBI programs only make sense if you make progressive changes in the tax code, but they can be made to work in a way that is not a radical change to today.
[edit] Found a similar but better articulated argument, see: https://medium.com/whatever-source-derived/the-case-against-...
Like the apocryphal aerodynamic analysis proving that bumblebees can't possibly fly, an analysis concluding that we can't possibly afford to keep people alive suggests that we're probably missing something. Because we do.
There's a legitimate question as to whether a UBI would encourage slacking, but that's a separate issue from whether or not the money exists. The money clearly does exist, because it's already being spent. It's just being spent in what's arguably a humiliating and distorting way.
But that doesn't do anything, so let's tweak it a little. Everyone gets an extra $10,000 a year, everyone pays an extra $10,000 a year, except you use TANF money to offset that payment for lower income families. So if you're above the TANF threshold, you see no difference, like in the first scenario. If you are below the TANF threshold, you're only paying back some of the $10,000 you get (the rest being paid with TANF funds). Again, no increase in taxes, no increase in the budget.
You can keep fiddling with the numbers - you can use food stamp money to lower the amount those on the lower end need to pay back (or increase the payout), and keep using other funds allocated for the impoverished to do the same. These types of plans would all be neutral in terms of tax burden and the federal budget.
Why would you do this? It'd be much simpler and better than the current system in a lot of ways. If you loose your job you automatically have the supplemental income - you don't have to worry about navigating a dozen different government agencies. You don't have to worry about going in for drug testing if some governor decides to make that mandatory for assistance, or any of the other junk that comes with stigmatized assistance (since everyone would be getting the assistance, the difference would only be at the tax end, which already exists).
Now, I'd argue that increased taxes on the wealthy to bolster the program is a good idea. I'd also argue that if people think helping the impoverished in their country is "no benefit" to them, that's part of a much broader problem (the same problem where people are happy to watch the infrastructure of their country collapse if it means they pay a few hundred dollars a year less in taxes). But even if you don't want to increase the tax burden on anyone - not even the richest citizens - you can still devise workable UBI implementations.
Furthermore, let's be real - the top tax bracket can and should return to where it was in the 50s. You know, the good ol' days republicans constantly talk about wanting to bring back.
It seems to me like there's a bit more wiggle room to allocate towards taking care of the country's citizens without gutting the rest of the government. Especially as more and more of those citizens are automated out of jobs.
How can that possibly sustain itself over time? What if the voters decide they want more than is feasible or available? What if this minority of providers decides to move elsewhere?
Seriously, we can ignore the biases in your assumptions about where wealth is created; you're really talking about the fact of inherent pitfalls and destabilizing aspects of democracy itself. There's far more than this example. And that's why all practical advocates for democracy do not advocate it without qualifications.
This is a little beyond platitudes about democracy as a concept. Democracy can certainly work, but you can't just bolster and magnify one of its key flaws through policy and shrug off the dangers.
The only way to make democracy work is to include checks and balances against tyranny of the majority.
The premise that there can be a situation where a small number of people are productive and the rest just get hand-outs is, in principle, a real issue and concern. I don't have any magic solutions that necessarily avoid abuse in that case. However, we can at least be comforted for now by the fact that there's an enormous amount of work remaining for most people to do (and thus an incentive for all of us to support policies in which that work gets done), and it currently remains the case that most value in society is generated by poorer folks being exploited and most wealthy people are capturing far more value than they create. So, your concern, while totally valid in principle, is completely backwards from the current situation (but YES, we don't want to just flip the situation so it's unjust the opposite way!)
The top 20% of earners pay 84% of income tax [1], yet can cast only 20% of the votes. It is not the case that there's this huge regressive system in place. In fact, the opposite is true. It's very much been trending toward the tyranny of the majority--there just currently aren't a whole lot of other good options for English-speaking wealthy people.
That doesn't mean there never will be, or that by letting voters more directly decide how much to take, the circumstances won't become worse much faster. The fact that the wealthy make more than the working class is irrelevant in reality--only in perceived fairness. Nobody will be better off if they leave.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-inc...
So you favor explicitly connecting wealth and political power? That's not democracy in any sense. All democracy trends toward tyranny of the majority and thus needs measures to counteract that (such as requiring supermajorities for some things, having constitutions that are hard to change, having power split among branches of gov. and lots more).
Fairness? UBI and wealth distribution aren't just about fairness either. They are about maximizing health and happiness overall. Is it fair for me to have to pay for the treatment of homeless drug addicts? What matters is that I want to live in a world where they get treated, not a world where I live with the consequences of having them around on the streets. We need a sustainable and long-term way to deal with social issues like this (and many many other things). Sure, fairness is nice too, but it's more of a factor in sustaining a healthy society than an end in itself. Judging fairness is extremely hard, hugely subjective. We'll never achieve ultimate fairness, life just isn't fair. We can increase it, but it's not the only factor to consider (and it's one of the least objective).
Anyway, the top 20% of wealth holders in this society do not create all the value. The distribution of "earnings" is NOT correlated to positive impact on society. A notable portion of that top 20% are people involved in stupid financial scheming like high-speed trading. They only take value from the rest of us and do nothing positive at all. Any discussion about what's "fair" in political power and taxation and wealth has to be based on trying to get at who is actually doing valuable work, not on whoever happens to capture the most wealth.
I'm sure you're one of those people who recognizes regulatory-capture and other forms of corruption. Those lobbyists/politicians in a corrupt revolving door Washington system are in that top 20% you're talking about. If you change your whole framing to think about which work is actually good for the world, you can then have a discussion that is valid and talk about the problems with democracy (which are, as I've agreed, real concerns).
I hope you can recognize the lack of correlation between wealth-capture and value-creation. Otherwise, you're just falling into the Just World Fallacy.
No. I favor policy not straying too far from reality toward ideological platitudes.
Respectfully, the rest of your post isn't addressing my arguments. We can discuss all day about what "maximizing health and happiness" means, or how much the wealthy "deserve" for their contributions to society, and what "good in the world" is, but it doesn't matter. None of it matters if top earners and your most productive (even in explicit dollar values) leave, which is exactly what will happen with a UBI greatly exaggerating these issues.
The only way I can interpret your post as a rebuttal is if you honestly believe that top earners moving to other countries will not have a catastrophic effect on the nation's economy (and the "health and happiness" of its citizens), but you didn't say that.
Nevertheless, it's certainly possible in principle for there to be a situation where the top earners leave and it's better for society. As an absurd proof of concept: if the top holders of dollars are a handful of crooks who literally just extort the money from everyone else, and you get them to leave. In that situation, there's zero concern about them taking the dollars with them. You just continue giving everyone the UBI anyway, regardless of "revenue" and that means the dollar supply increases. This causes inflation, but everyone has more dollars to go along with that. Meanwhile, the crooks aren't getting more dollars, so their buying power is diluted. The entire effect amounts to returning buying-power to the rest of the citizens and reducing it from the crooks. It has no impact in any way on the productivity and real wealth in terms of goods and services — except that when you spread buying power out widely it will tend to support a much healthier economy… (all of this works whether the crooks leave or not, it's just even easier to dilute their buying power and political influence if they leave — except that what happens in most cases like this is the crooks wage real physical war to maintain their wealth and power rather than just sulk and go away).
So, the top "earners" moving away means reduced influence from them in all sorts of ways monetarily. But if those people happen to actually be important to the economy rather than mere leeches, then we may see a serious downturn as a result, albeit potentially offset somewhat by the economic benefits of giving more buying power to those who will use it for productive economic ends (fixing their houses, caring for kids, buying new goods) where the wealthiest folks just save it and don't need thousands of pairs of pants etc.
In short: it's absurdly simplistic to believe either that UBI necessarily leads to economic boon or catastrophe. It all depends on tons and tons of details which way it goes (of which the productive vs leech status of wealthiest folks is just one of those details).
UBI decreases government efficiency because now it has to process sending out checks to every citizen (and some non-citizens, and some dead ones, and some fake ones).
UBI increases taxes because citizens will pay for it.
UBI increases poverty because fewer people will choose to work.
UBI increases crime because more people are impoverished.
UBI increases socialism because that's what it is -- income redistribution, formerly known as theft.
UBI increases the risk of tax revolt.
Automation increases government efficiency because, well, who sends checks? The IRS uses direct withdrawals and deposits...
Automation increases the potentially taxable corporate revenue.
Automation increases poverty because fewer people are allowed to work.
Automation increases crime because more people are impoverished.
Socialism is "bad", m'kay?
Automation increases the risk of a revolt, see poverty.
Automation is here and even more is coming. Without some form of support for the citizens, it's going to create a lot of problems, and not just theoretical "people choosing not to work is bad, and so is socialism" type of problems.
So then why is it a good idea to import hundreds of thousands of refugees and "undocumented workers" who are by and large destined to work in these very industries that are going away? It sounds like we'd pretty much be setting BI up to be a "congratulations on making it to the US" lifetime annuity.
OK, but at some point it has to make mathematical sense. If you basically announce "come here and you'll have income for life!" what exactly do you think will happen? That no one will try to take advantage of the system? I mean you already have refugees passing through multiple European countries just to get to the ones with the best benefits (Germany, Sweden).
As for the refugee crisis in Europe, my understanding is the reason refugees try to get to Germany and Sweden isn't because they have the best benefits, but because they have the most welcoming refugee programs, and are thus less likely to deport asylum seekers.
So the next Democrat is elected and raises the cap...
Also, you're forgetting that politicians really, really want to give illegal immigrants amnesty. Guess who's eligible for BI now?
> isn't because they have the best benefits, but because they have the most welcoming refugee programs
Funny how having the most welcoming program and having the best benefits go hand-in-hand.
Explained with gumbals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
Immigration drives innovation, tolerance, advancement of the arts, and fuels small business. But let's stop fooling ourselves that relocating people halfway across the world is solving any sort of crisis.
It puts hard numbers on the world's poor and how immigration really only benefits the USA, not the countries the people are coming from.
I think that's a fair characterization of their argument, but I think it's wrong. It's the classic Nirvana fallacy: because something isn't perfect there's no point in trying. Like arguing there's no point in having seatbelts because you can still die in a car crash. We may not be able to help all refugees, but we can help some of them. And that may not seem that important in the big picture, but it means a hell of a lot to the ones we do help.
My point is we're not solving any sort of world crisis with immigration, so by people selling immigration as "we're changing the world" we have the potential to put refugee countries in far worse positions than they are now.
Also, I am skeptical of the argument that refugee programs incentivize people to stay in refugee camps in hopes of being relocated as NumbersUSA claims. Refugee camps are pretty terrible places, few people would stay in one if they didn't have to. And the odds of being selected for resettlement are extremely rare.
I think the people fleeing war and ethnic cleansing would disagree. It's not the most effective solution because you can't relocate everyone, but it is something, and it makes an enormous difference to those we can help. You can call it "political pandering" but I think of it as a moral obligation to do what little we can to help those in need, though I understand others may disagree.
Money doesn't matter with these politicians. In fact, it isn't even brought into the discussion.
But even ignoring that, generally UBI doesn't apply to non-citizens. They would have to earn citizenship first, which would mean paying in taxes without getting anything out for a while.
Please HN. Enough of Basic Income
You could just as easily say that we as a "Great" nation and society decide that we will not allow our poor and underprivileged to be impoverished so that a few billionaires can die with a little more in their pile. It's not a demand of the proletariat, it's the middle and upper class deciding that they want a more egalitarian society because it has a higher utility.
You do not have the right to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Mostly via the government, through food stamps, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc. So the precedent is already there, and already consumes somewhere near 2/3 of your taxes today. Charity provides comparatively little for your average poverty stricken family.
If Paul got his wealth off the back of Peter and the government they both keep in power, is it theft to want Paul to help Peter when he can no longer work?
It's not robbery, it's the cost of being part of society. Those billionaires rely on the laws, created and enforced by the government, to maintain their status and possessions. If it's a government of and for all the people in the country, then the government absolutely has moral authority to tax citizens relative to their ability to contribute, and to aid citizens relative to their need for aid.
I mean, I hope you're right. Because if not, this kind of policy is basically sprinting toward having a society of people with no market-useful skills and a strong sense of entitlement. That may be egalitarian, but it doesn't sound like a "higher utility" to me.
This is their opportunity to repay their governments for those advantages.
That said.. you forgot capitalism in your little list
https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/biggest-startup-failures/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff
And Maggie was awesome!
Demanding A gives to B because B doesn't have what A has, and forcefully doing it through government is a fundamental violation of that right.
All that's left to argue about is how much and what for.
The Constitution of the United States lays out that the government defends us with a military, builds and maintain roads, and enforces the laws it sets. This is done through taxation. The Constitution doesn't enumerate that it can take your money and give it to someone else because they have less.
Then all they would need to do is pass a law, saying that we are taxing X to give some benefit to all citizens. Which is, in fact, correct. That is how it works, and it is perfectly legal and moral, as long as all citizens are treated equally under the new law.
What? The threat of termination/retaliation is exactly what UBI would prevent. Or are we talking about mafia-style retaliation? In that case, it's not UBI that is the problem.
I think it's time HN applied the 'no politics' rule to economics too. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong, and nobody ever changes their mind.
But, can't we as a population have a goal, I mean, all this automation is great for automating the stuff that just props up the minimal necessary stuff to keep the giant ball rolling, but can't we have a goal? What is our goal? are we trying to leave the planet? Is the goal to just keep having babies? What is the ultimate goal of humanity?
Now... if it IS to leave the planet and start colonizing others, keep in mind we're a pretty terrible species as it is - jealousy, ego, anger, depression. We eat animals, etc.. Right now we're the exact EVIL entity that we picture in movies like independence day. I mean most of us are not vegetarians.
So maybe our goal should be to fix ourselves. How?
You can change your mind to avoid that, like monks.
Cultural conditioning induces the depression.
Even LeanFIRE types want $20k/year.