Elon Musk Supports Universal Basic Income: A Needed Advancement

[mheslep]

would replace the social welfare bureaucracy

Yes, that was the critical point for the NIT. Foodstamps, section 8 housing, Obama phones, 99 weeks of unemployment, school lunch - all of it has to go with the implementation of the NIT. Politically impossible, even if the same dollars go to the needy, due to the interest groups involved such as big agriculture.

 

[mheslep]

This past summer the Swiss held a referendum, as the Swiss often do, this time on an UBI. It went down three to one.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/switzerland-votes-to-reject-basic-income-initiative-1465141586

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, that was the critical point for the NIT. Foodstamps, section 8 housing, Obama phones, 99 weeks of unemployment, school lunch - all of it has to go with the implementation of the NIT. Politically impossible, even if the same dollars go to the needy, due to the interest groups involved such as big agriculture.

Yes, for the record I'm in favor of a vast simplification of the tax code and welfare and a certain flavor of UBI would be palatable to me. But removal of [looking for] work requirements is something I can't abide. Able bodied people who are not attempting to support themselves do not deserve assistance.

 

[CynicusRex]

This past summer the Swiss held a referendum, as the Swiss often do, this time on an UBI. It went down three to one.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/switzerland-votes-to-reject-basic-income-initiative-1465141586

That's actually a big step forward. At least they're contemplating new ideas and solutions. Meanwhile in the USA Trump is running for president who will fix everything with a wall.

Able bodied people who are not attempting to support themselves do not deserve assistance.

Again, you're assuming people will watch TV all day and become obese. Oh wait.

I'm not persuaded simply because Elon "I'm the alpha here" Musk mentions his take on social policy in passing.

He's more credible than most politicians and the population in general.

 

[mfb]

It's a death spiral and we're in it.

Then Europe would be a mass grave. It is not. A working social and medical security system is not a miracle, and massively improves the lifes of most while not having a significant negative impact on anyone: The difference between owning 100 millions and 99 millions is marginal, the difference between getting 500 and 600 Euro per month is huge.

I agree that there should be a monetary incentive to get earn money, but we don't have to let those starve who do earn money (for whatever reason - it is not always their fault!).

 

[Vanadium 50]

But removal of [looking for] work requirements is something I can't abide. Able bodied people who are not attempting to support themselves do not deserve assistance.

What if we restricted the franchise to those who paid at least one dollar more in taxes than they received in UBI? You want an incentive, there's an incentive. It also solves the problem of the majority voting to take the minority's stuff - if you want more stuff, you need to work for it (i.e. increase overall production) and not just vote for it.

Furthermore, if there is a UBI, why do we need a minimum wage? Today if someone's work is not worth $15,000 a year, it's worth zero. This would allow this to change.

 

[phinds]

Yes, for the record I'm in favor of a vast simplification of the tax code and welfare and a certain flavor of UBI would be palatable to me. But removal of [looking for] work requirements is something I can't abide. Able bodied people who are not attempting to support themselves do not deserve assistance.

I completely agree but that simply argues for an intelligent application of UBI where, for example, you get (just to make up numbers) $10,000/yr plus you get to keep all of the first $5,000 you earn and 75% of the next $10,000 you earn and some smaller amount ... and so on so it's a combined UBI plus tax system. So if you don't want to work you can hardly get by but if you work at a low-paying job you can at least afford more than the survival necessities.

 

[CynicusRex]

Frances Coppola:
I fundamentally disagree with those who think that people must be “forced” to work, or that government should “guarantee” a job. In my view breaking the link between paid work and survival would be a good thing. If people are intrinsically of value, then they have the right to survive with or without working. I therefore think we should guarantee basic income, rather than jobs. Or, to put it another way (and root this argument firmly in human rights), we should guarantee people’s unconditional right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”: after all, people who are forced to do physically debilitating and mentally unstimulating jobs in order to survive are effectively denied the second and third of these rights. If people don’t have to work to survive, most will find or create work that fulfills themselves and benefits others, and we will all be richer for it.

From basicincome.org :
"This System does not contemplate the abolition of private property, nor even of inheritance; on the contrary, it avowedly takes into consideration, as elements in the distribution of the produce, capital as well as labour. [...] In the distribution, a certain minimum is first assigned for the subsistence of every member of the community, whether capable or not of labour. The remainder of the produce is shared in certain proportions, to be determined beforehand, among the three elements, Labour, Capital, and Talent."

https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncom...s_collect_the_best_quotes_about_basic_income/

 

[gfd43tg]

Elon musk can start by giving me some UBI and a UBT (universal basic tesla)

 

[CynicusRex]

Masterplan part trois? UBI, UBT, UBPW, UBSP.

 

[mfb]

Furthermore, if there is a UBI, why do we need a minimum wage? Today if someone's work is not worth $15,000 a year, it's worth zero. This would allow this to change.

You can easily remove minimum wage with UBI.

 

[jack action]

Huh? Of course you can! In a free society you can live in a cardboard box under a bridge if you want! (And some people do!).

Where is that free society you're talking about?
http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2009/08/squatters_living_under_bridget.html:

Police will warn the squatters to no longer stay under the bridge, the police chief said, and offer them access to social services agencies in the area. If they return to the bridge after they are warned to stay away, police will cite them for trespassing.

http://www.cbc.ca/islandmorning/episodes/2011/07/26/the-bridge-dwellers/index.html:

On Tuesday, Charlottetown police put the run to a group of young bridge dwellers.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/florida-ordinance-makes-illegal-homeless-use-blankets/:

Florida Ordinance Makes It Illegal For Homeless To Use Blankets

So again: if you don't like "buying stuff", then don't. in a free society that is your right

That is the problem: You can only choose between «buying» or «not buying». In a free society you should be able to choose what you want to buy. Can you buy a tiny house or a Tata Nano in a Western society? Pretty difficult, if possible at all.

Back to the subject of this thread, I don't think the system used for welfare is what define the quality of the wealth distribution; It's the people. Either a fully private charity system or a fully communist system will work if everyone in the system is genuine and sincere. If nobody gives in the first system or if corruption and abuse gets into the second one, they will both fail equally.

I live in a socialist society that is not dysfunctional, but it does cost a lot. Mainly because people have a mentality of abuse and corruption. «Everybody does it», they say; «I deserve it», they say. I don't like it and I tend to prefer a non-socialist society. But a lot of people want more social programs and cite Scandinavian countries. At first, I was doubtful on the performance of these countries (In the manner presented by @russ_watters ), but they seem to work and I wondered how.

And this is when I found out that the Scandinavian people have a very special attitude towards their communities. They are very severe on official' spending; Not just the laws, but how citizens follow them closely. This french report shows it well; especially when the anti-corruption activist Eva Joly -who used to work in France before returning to Norway - tells about how the press came down on her because she was charging to the government a taxi fare to go back home from the airport after a mission abroad. Or even when she asked to be reimbursed for a 20% tip on an official restaurant meal (Loose translation of part of http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/eva-joly-pas-si-reine-en-norvege_941790.html):

A tip of 245 euros on taxpayer money

Also in 2005, former magistrate of the financial hub of Paris squarely falls from its pedestal when the magazine tabloid Se og Hor denounces her lifestyle on the front page. It notably reveals information that ridicules her. In 2004, the "Special Advisor" had organized a working lunch with fifteen employees. In addition of the 10,000 kroner (1,230 euros) of the invoice, she had royally added a tip of 2,000 kroner (245 euros). And settled everything with the credit card of the ministry. When they discover the invoice, the accounting of the Ministry of Justice block the due amount of the tip, extravagant in light of local customs. To Eva Joly to find a solution. Instead of paying the sum with her own money, she undertook the written representations to the restaurant to retrieve 245 euros. Regardless of the shortfall that would result for servers. The manager of the establishment refuses net. With this strong argument: What's given is given; taking back ... with his employer, the Ministry of Justice, Eva Joly justified herself in writing: "When I presented the bill, I left a tip comparable to what is given in Paris or in New York." This microscandale takes its flavor when readers learn the amount of the basic salary received by Eva Joly: about 10,000 euros monthly.

This low threshold from the Norwegian people for what is considered «abusing the system» is probably far more important than whatever economic system they have.

Even though, I still prefer a system based on private charities. That is, people who can give, give what they consider fair. On the plus side, the persons who give get the credit, as oppose to some government official in a socialist/communist society. Of course, people can become miser and judgmental in this type of society. But a system where everyone's money is put into a pile will almost always lead to corruption as the temptation is really big and it gives way too much power to the (few) people controlling the money. It only takes one to throw the confidence of everyone else in the system and then begins the spiral of «Better take what I can before there is none left». With private charities, if one rich person doesn't give enough, it tends to infuriate the others that will give more to compensate and isolate the «guilty» one.

 

[mheslep]

That's actually a big step forward. At least they're contemplating new ideas and solutions...

Something similar was considered in the US 50 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

He's more credible...

to some audiences, certainly, which was also true of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

 

[mheslep]

Or, to put it another way (and root this argument firmly in human rights), we should guarantee people’s unconditional right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”:

Those are indeed rights, rights that another may not willfully infringe, and especially not the government. They are not a voucher for stuff, granting one to go and take someone else's stuff and thereby violate their rights.

after all, people who are forced to do physically debilitating and mentally unstimulating jobs in order to survive are effectively denied the second and third of these rights.

A guarantee of pursuit does not make a pursuit into a guarantee. Nobody can have a human right that by its nature deprives others of theirs. More importantly, distorting the human rights enumerated in the American Declaration so that every preference becomes a right is to destroy the fundamental ones. That's insidious.

 

[CynicusRex]

to some audiences, certainly, which was also true of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

There's an astronomically big difference between a cult and SpaceX. If you think cult leaders have the same credibility to talk about the future as the CEO of an aerospace company, then I say no more.

Those are indeed rights, rights that another may not willfully infringe, and especially not the government. They are not a voucher for stuff, granting one to go and take someone else's stuff and thereby violate their rights.

You wouldn't say the same if you were born in a poor family in a poor country continuously invaded or sucked dry by western countries. Also, UBI doesn't take someone else's stuff, it wasn't your stuff in the first place. I guess you'd have argued the same if someone took away your slave 500 years ago. People were stuff back then.

More importantly, distorting the human rights enumerated in the American Declaration so that every preference becomes a right is to destroy the fundamental ones. That's insidious.

1. The American law isn't the best law.
2. Food, housing, and other basic necessities aren't preferences. If people asked for $500 more to buy nicer shoes or a big TV I'd agree.

Let me ask something else, do you ever dream or hope for a better future where all of humanity and animals can coexist in peace? Instead of shooting down every idea, try coming up with your own system. Or at least have constructive criticism. Comparing people to a sect or calling something insidious without any alternatives or nuance doesn't help anyone.

 

[Evo]

This thread has gotten nowhere in 4 pages, time to close it down. It's is just not realistic in the near/distant future in the US.