this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
288 points (97.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27234 readers
1333 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello, I'm not that informed about UBI, but here is my arguement:

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices? Also, do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

UBI doesn't mean everybody has more money. It comes from somewhere.

The poor will have more, the rich will have less, the middle will have about the same.

One of those three does not want UBI to be a thing, and they're trying to convince the other two.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Yes, if it is a tax on speculation, investments, and gambling. I can get behind it being a trickle down system that the wealthy can't opt out of.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Be aware that UBI needs to go in hand with other reforms that can finance it, eliminating things like tax evasion via donations, and certain foundations that exploit those

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

I am on principle because what the fuck is the point of all this industrialisation and technology development if we aren't trying to break out of the cycle of scarcity?

As for how it can be properly funded: fuck knows.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm sceptical of it. where would all of that money come from? the "data industry", that is all about making the most believable lies and most effective ads? or land value tax that will make sure to outprice you from your own house if rich people flood it, or if improvements happen around the area?

the pension system, while I believe it is needed, I worry it cannot be sustained for too long anymore because currently it relies on infinite growth everywhere: year over year more people needs to work and pay taxes to finance the pension of the elderly.
or did I misunderstand something and this is not a problem?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Pensions have already been overhauled in the UK. Now pensions are essentially a tax efficient way of investing where you also don't get the realised returns until after you retire, so essentially you are paying for your own future.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think UBI can exist at all. There's way too many problems that aren't even close to being addressed by arguments in favor of it. It doesn't work at all from a financial perspective. There's not a level of automation that exists that could handle the loss of workers. There's little evidence that new innovation or invention would happen as there's little benefit for the creator. The only way it works is in a post scarcity society, which isn't even close to existing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

There's not a level of automation that exists that could handle the loss of workers.

You appear entirely unaware of test programs like Canadian Mincome showing minimal employment drop, with some spinning up businesses by claiming the income against loans. The people who dropped out entirely were nearly all either continuing education or mothers raising kids.

This is replicated in projects like those in Africa.

Basically, the answer to the knee-jerk "wouldn't everyone just stop working?" question is "actually, no."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

The test programs can't really show anything definitive though. For a couple important reasons.

  1. The program will end and participants know that. Not working for 3-5 years is going to create long term problems after the program ends for participants.
  2. It's a set cost trial, so government doesn't adjust taxes or other social programs.
  3. It's limited scope, so landlords employers, shops, etc can't make any adjustments either as it's an irrelevant amount of their income.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I definitely wouldn't stop working, but I would have more flexibility to try things like taking a risk on something entrepreneurial or choosing to work in a field that aligns with my values, salary be damned. That cannot be allowed.

Any measure that reduces the leverage employers have over labor will not be simply given to us. People fought and died to get what little control we have, and it's been whittled away for decades.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago

do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?

UBI might be the only thing that can save capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Here's what I say about UBI. We may not need it today, but we better figure it out because we'll need it someday. As an example, take a look at America in 1800. 95%+ of people worked in agriculture. With tractors, the cotton gin, etc. all those careers will be eliminated. The cotton gin of tomorrow is autonomous vehicles, robots and/or drones. Jobs like delivery driver, cashier, etc are all on borrowed time. If we don't figure out some new economic framework before that time, our society is toast. All the "unskilled" jobs that served as on-ramps to more advanced employment will literally be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Of course, America being America, we'll treat this like climate change. Deny deny deny, even when it starts actively harming you. By the time someone tries to solve it, we'll all be screwed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What is ubi? Univeral bread initiative ?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Universal basic income

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I'm a fan of UB I+S. Universal basic income AND universal basic services. Plus ~~hight~~ high taxes for the rich. And workplace democracy. And a massive shift of the economy to the nonprofit sector: if what your ~~company~~ multimillion corporation is providing is a utility, you can't have making a profit be your fiduciary responsibility.

Basically, fuck capitalism, I want socialism.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Though i dont disagree in theory, beware of the utility part you mentioned. A plumber is providing a service and im not sure why he shouldnt make a small profit on top of his ubi in that world of yours. Can you elaborate?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm thinking more of the "commanding heights of the economy", rather than small time professionals. So, I'm talking Amazon, Google, Walmart, that stuff.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I know what you meant, and i dont disagree with the core of it really. Just really think about your wording, as it hits more people than youd think :)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Got it. I edited for clarity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Exactly this. Beware of the Silicon Valley tech bros selling their version of UBI. It’s a Trojan horse they want to use to cut all social services.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

plus hight taxes for the rich

Nobody should be rich and tall! \s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I feel like it's less about whether the process will go up or if capitalism can survive with it. I in feel that it's going to be necessary for humans to function. With population increasing, and jobs actually decreasing from technology for the first time in human history, from businesses automating stuff or self check out counters, we're just not going to have a job for every single person out there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Kurt Vonnegut had a fun take on this exact scenario in his first book, Player Piano.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

One method of structuring it is that if UBI is $20k/year, then you have $20k/year taken out as taxes as long as you have a job. The income is neutral, so there's no basis for companies to raise prices.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

That's not a UBI.

Sounds like you might be interested in a negative income tax, though.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't like that plan. Its basically a free $20k for those who don't work while working people get nothing.

You either give everyone 20k or you don't.

I think the only way for UBI effectively to work is if you can fix prices/profits. No more charging $10 for something that's cost .5¢ to make.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Its basically a free $20k for those who don’t work while working people get nothing.

Yes, that's the point.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Not really. The point is that everyone has a base income. Why would working take away from the base income? Working should add to it.

load more comments
view more: next ›