In the wealthiest country in the history of the world (I know he is from Canada, but I am referring to America) We should be able to give everyone enough to live slightly above the poverty line. A DECENT standard of living, but not enough for them to be too comfortable or buy whatever they'd like. If congress can pass bills in the middle of the night in a secret court that 99% of Americans disagree with, they can pass a bill that 70-80% of Americans agree with, even with a decent amount of backlash.
+Bulga Borkar-Lovejoy, Fast Food Aficionado Right, nobody is asking for enough to just sit on our asses all day every day we just want to be able to pay for the shit we need to pay for without being massively in debt and a footing so we can fucking better ourselves and serve our society better. Sure there will be a good chunk of people who just live with 4 roommates and they smoke pot all day but who gives a shit when the money they are getting is going back into the economy, especially if marijuana was legalized in all 50 states, when everyone is doing better EVERYONE is doing better we will all thrive.
I believe it is just a matter of time till we get a basic income. It will be a human right to be sure of enough money to pay for the most necessary things in life. Now it's not.
In a way it already is in our human rights... Article 4 Freedom from slavery and forced labour Article 5 Right to liberty and security Just not implemented as rigorously. Basic income would fix that.
@@niveshproag8660 "Freedom from slavery and forced labour". true, your boss has to pay you or you will find another job. capitalism is not slavery and force labour. "Right to liberty and security". you dont have right to other people income. you should get over it.
The time is now. Andrew Yang is a presidential candidate that is proposing a universal basic income, and the people are waking up to this wonderful idea.
Excellent Dr. Mulvale it is well explained, your analysis and opinion will open the mind of everyone. I hope our politicians and PM Trudeau will support this possibilities of implementing the Universal Basic Income. This will make the life of everyone to have enough and the most basic income will give the opportunities to live and make the quality of life improve. Please, support the advocates for Basic Income and we needed it now!
+JanJonDijonMustard exactly what im saying "I dont like your face" is what it usually boils down to. people have different views on life and decide violence is the best course of action to "correct" this. the same goes for other things such as sports, people will fight just because they cheer for different teams. This stuff happens all over. people will get passionate in their beliefs, religion or other.
+JanJonDijonMustard and for you to assume that I was saying to remove religion as a whole is very naïve of you to say, because that is not at all what I said. I was saying that there has a been a lot conflict in history and today because of it. the statement was that it happens, not that is should be destroyed.
Basic income enables survival without contribution. Not redistribution of wealth, but decency to our species. All of us should have access to privacy, shelter, food and water. After that you can have your luxuries from further wealth.
+Dominic Sims (OzAvatar) 62 people are as wealthy as the poorest 50% of people. Why should these types people be allowed to be exist when their very existence causes worldwide disparity leading to starvation, disease, poverty, and crime. Objectively, because these problems could be remedied solely by redistributing said wealth, the existence of such individuals is in fact the very root of these problems.
+Dylan Graham You don't earn a billion dollars, you steal it from the homeless, the hungry, the dying. Redistribution of wealth to the poor is simply justice.
+JanJonDijonMustard what are you on about? we are talking about redistributing wealth from BILLIONAIRES and sharing that with those who are in poverty. In most parts of america, if you make 10 dollars an hour working 40 hours a week you are in fact in poverty.
+JanJonDijonMustard man there is so much wrong with what you just said. Again, we are talking about redistributing the wealth of BILLIONAIRES. 98% of americans make less than 250k a year, these are the people who would be the benificiaries of said redistribution, so no, it would not negatively effect the middle class or even a large percentage of our upper class. You don't even seem to understand the economic implicaions of owning a billion dollars in standing fortunes. Owning this amount of wealth does in fact create poverty. With the exception of very few, these people have never worked a day in their lives, owing their fortunes to their heritage or inheritance.
+Mario852 arent we 'forced' to work for others by our biological needs anyway? In the end thats just how society works anyway. No one can survive without the labour of others, unless you want to go Tarzan and become a hunter again...
Every household in NYS needs this. I literally see people on the streets in my state begging for work. USA is a first world country so we desperately need UBI. I have also traveled to Canada and they need it too.
I'm American in the year 2021. This idea is slowly coming into the consciousness of more people since this video was made and its a great idea, Americans need to really educate themselves on this issue because inflation is absolutely obscene and its killing and destroying the lives of more people everyday.
@BlackdogsmatterBlackdogsmatter actually the enormous profits of corporations are money stolen from the workers. A Universal Basic income actually can give individuals freedom of choice in society. We can see more and more a casualization of Work, the trend to hire people as sub-contractors instead of employees the company can avoid some of the costs of labor and pass those costs to the laborer. Basic Income experiments have been being trialed and in most cases, the people did not do less work unless they were children or women. When you take away the costs of living it allows people more choices. Some experiments have shown that people in poverty have a decreased IQ because of the stresses of simple survival. Face it there is an increasing number of Jobs which are being automatized. We are looking at a likelihood of many people in transportation may be losing jobs due to self-driving vehicles. You can see the possible benefits if you truly think about it. It means you would have enough money to have a decent life without "having to work" so you don't have to worry about a sudden job loss or illness putting you out on the street. The job market should increase to some degree as well. Before the crash in the economy pre-2008 the USA and other countries we facing a worker shortage. This would have meant that workers could likely name their wages because there would be more jobs available than people to fill them. In 2006 I did a paper on the retirement of the Baby-boomers and the effect on the economy with regards to the health industry. At that time in the US alone there were about 70,000 unfilled healthcare positions and it was looking to increase. However, the economic crash happened and some of those who were looking at a comfortable retirement lost money and ended up having to work longer. When people have the basics of shelter, adequate food, and necessities they are better able to get an education, less likely to feel the need to break the law. Frankly, it might be a good way to address some of the racism that is insidious to society as we are told that X is coming to take your job. When you can get the education for jobs like learning to be a doctor (which are needed in many areas) in return for working a certain amount of years in a rural area perhaps you might gain those doctors that are currently lacking. Another thing about the UBI people who work will be those who really want the position rather than getting the position to survive. This would likely mean more productivity. With some money in the middle and lower class pockets that is not necessarily all going to survival, the economy will increase because there will be greater demand for products.
Thank you very much for this TEDx talk. I am very glad that society is responding to the empty inhumanness of neoliberalism - and is beginning to pick up where we were in 1966 - when the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirmed the right of communities to local self determination, in a gainful economic model, where a continuing improvement in living conditions was enunciated as part of the Covenant between member UN states and the people of the world. Neoliberalism - that pestilence of the right wing reaction against the Great Society programs of LBJ, treats humans only as expenses, and only views improvements in economic factors by the metric of escalating numbers of commercial transactions. This neoliberal view is utterly incompatible with a responsible humanity, that is capable or stewardship of our ecosystem. The Global Greens are attempting to group populations thematically according to what they are interested in working on under the 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. We need a serious effort to consolidate good policies by building the critical mass among countries working for the greater good, if we are to defeat the toxins of what has undermined the potential of a liberty-valuing democracy.
UBI also satisfies those who want improved economic metrics in the long run. In addition to making sure people have a chance to go beyond just survival.
The basic income should be low but it should be guaranteed no matter what. The system most countries have today has lots of requirements that have to be documented and supervised. This is first of all costly in itself but many poor people end up exaggerating their problems to meet the standards which is counterproductive for becoming an attractive employee and getting a good resume in a job application. Lots of people have difficulties getting a job for reasons that cannot be qualified for subsidies. This could be former criminals etc. and they will end up continuing their criminal activities in order to sustain themselves. I think these problems would be reduced with basic income.
Thousands of years ago, people worked from sun up to sun down farming the land. Work was life back then. Over time, because of technology, people now work 9 hour shifts and then go home and enjoy their extra time. Now we're reaching a point where machines basically run themselves. What do we do? Live in a society where a small group of people labor away while the majority feeds off their scraps? No, just divide the work up. Have people work 4 hour shifts, but keep the pay the same. And to ensure this happens, create a system where companies that employ more people and pay higher wages get huge tax cuts. And then the ones that refuse to hire people, make them pay more in taxes so that it ends up being beneficial to employ people. This will also increase productivity because when people work shorter hours, their mood and willingness to work increases.
IM ALL FOR JOB AUTOMATION! NOT IF WHEN MOST ALL JOBS WILL BE AUTOMATED THERE NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE A BASIC INCOME GUARANTEE! OTHERWISE WE WILL HAVE NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE ECONOMY!
"..NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE ECONOMY!" You have no idea what you're talking about. Redistributing wealth, an immoral concept, has nothing to do with the quantity of currency in circulation.
kinda agree, but i think the immoral statement in a situation when most of the wealth is made by machine maybe not very good. Also when there is no need for human labour, there is a problem that people dont buy because they are without money and jobless. That i think leads to decreasing of growth and low wealth for all. I think not very difficult to understand, you give money to help economy to have more wealth. Actually these ideas came from very liberalist guys like milton friedman, nothing to do with Redistributing of wealth, but to have more wealth xD
The only thing wrong with all the world's economies is government meddling, intervention and control. The free market is the only system that has ever worked. The only reason a minority of people make most of the money is because they have leveraged government power. Take away government power and equality of fair trade will result.
the concept of basic income nothing to do with equality, or goverment power. Personally i dont know if it works, but liberalism theory says that it is good for economic growth. Now with machine automation lots of peoples says it's the only way free market can survive.
fonzi102 "machine automation" has absolutely nothing to do with the free market or the number of jobs available or the growth of an economy. (it does change the types of jobs available) Automation is always a good thing, forced welfare is always a bad thing. These are the basic rules of an economy. Otherwise we'd all be living in caves and using old bones to dig holes.
I now support Presidential candidate Andrew Yang and his vision of UBI. Andrew Yang's "Freedom Dividend" will work for the USA and will help unite our country. It is a mix of strong capitalism and small UBI.
Rather than giving away money, give away food and shelter. Since automation is taking All of our jobs, focus on automating every step of food production and delivery. Then automate housing production. Autonomous farm equipment is already close to completely automating farming. Not Universal Basic Income but rather universal Basic Need Fulfillment or some combination of both. Fulfilling the needs of people directly will be much more efficient than giving away money. If they want more they can work for it.
Moderation is one of the core values that was held by people like Alexander Hamilton at the founding of our country. He wrote about it in the federalist papers. It’s important to remember that we have to have a moderation of both things, otherwise we have an overindulgence of one or the other.
Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share " of what someone else has worked for? - Thomas Sowell
Where is my fair share of money from apple computer? They did not invent touchscreen and computers themselves. All they did is based on research based on public funding in multiple universities in multiple locations of the world. So... where is that money? And the money from google? Amazon uses the streets the government built, with my money, and the internet, built with the money of my parents. Where are those coins? You are poor, dude. The system is against you. How can you not see it?
Absolute poverty, where a person lacks food shelter security and clothing, needs to be eliminated but relative poverty and social ills will still be with us.
I have seen quite a lot of comments like "this is like communism" , "people will get lazy" and "UBI is for losers" . In return, I hope the people who say this kind of things will lose their (I guess) well-paid job soon and start to experience how it is to live in poverty and to experience how the traditional welfare system is not working anymore. I guess for this kind of people that is the only way to learn.
I feel like with the automation of our economy that guaranteed income is the only way to go. The problem is how do you collect that income to give to others? I feel like it should come from a Automation tax. A tax that is implemented on Automation that cost jobs to members of society. But this opens a whole can of worms. What is automation exactly and how much should the tax be? should it be different for different levels of automation? Will this discourage automation?
In my opinion, a tax on automation would demotivate the use of that technology which is not a good thing for progress. It would be better to reduce inequality as a whole, so each part of the society would can compete on amore similar ground. Automation should go his way and increase productivity.
You never collect that income specifically to give to people. You just give a standard amount to people directly, avoiding the can of worms. The economy will find balance. Whatever becomes automated will decrease in value. Let me give an example. Lets say a company makes shoes. Automation kicks in, taking lets say 2/3 of jobs in its factories, decreasing the cost of production by 90%. The price of the shoes automatically will drop by 90%. That's because of competition on the market will force the prices down, as the value of the product has gone down. Technically, if no workers are needed at some point, the price of shoes will fall to the price of raw materials + maintaining the factory. Practically free. So as automation decreases the value of everything, the basic income, amount necessary to buy enough to survive, decreases.If it reaches zero, money becomes irrelevant, but that unlikely or far off.
Nivesh Proag assuming that you right. Which with history I don't actually think you are cause companies typically don't ever lower prices and go for larger profit margins But assuming your right for the sake of not getting into that argument. How do you collect it? Even if it is a small amount there still is an amount to be collected
mathieu st-louis Of course they do. Prices go down all the time. It's basic economy. Competition drives prices down. Unless there's a monopoly in a market, it's bound to happen. And like I said, there's no need for an automation tax.
I'd happily be taxed if it meant that everybody is secure enough to have something to eat and a place to stay. It's called being a decent person. However, that's not how basic income works. It's not taking from the working person to give to the unemployed - it's dividing the publicly generated collective wealth amongst EVERYBODY. I wish the naysayers in the comments would do a bit of research and realise this. We must stop dividing people who we have never met into deserving and undeserving. Everyone deserves food and shelter as a basic right. A society that has its citizens working out of fear of starvation can in no way be called "civilised". Also, we must watch out for the sham attempts at a UBI. The Finland experiment was not a true UBI, and it has been deliberately misrepresented as such in order to discredit a real Basic Income. Scotland looks to be headed that way as well according to an RSA article that sets the time frame for a UBI at 20 years and only for an an amount of £5000 which is well below covering basic needs right now never mind in two decades.
In other words, you do not work at the moment so you are quite happy to talk about a situation you have absolutely no experience of...? That figures. What is "publicly generated collective wealth"... and how do you divide it?
There is a gross error in the slide at 4:12. It states that 59% of women with disabilities live in poverty. He also mention this as one of the most shocking statistic. When reading the source, it actually states that "Nearly 15% of people with disabilities live in poverty, 59% of which are women.". This is something entirely different. This means that 8.85% of women and 6.15% of men with disabilities, live in poverty. As I'm sure he's a clever man, I can't believe he's made such a mistake. Especially as it has drawn his attention to the point of shocking him. Is this a deliberate attempt of deception?
Many countries apply a kind of state pension. I'm from the Netherlands and there they have, but even a new country as Timor Leste has a universal old age and disability pension (since 2008). So with other words, in these countries all old people get a basic income and nobody objects. To introduce a basic income for all, we just have to put the pension age at like 18 years :-)
Until we break down all international borders and apply this basic living income policy broadly across the planet, the inequality and its accompanying problems will remain. Its in all our best interests to have global poverty addressed and resolved ASAP. Sometimes it seems like the rich and greedy cant see passed their own noses. We all share this big beautiful turquoise spaceball, might as well split the benefits of modern society equally with every. Just a thought.
@@douglasherron7534 I dont know if im ready for it, but id be happy to accept it if it meant we collectively finally started to address the huge inequality in our society. I once read that, addressing inequality is one of the pillar objectives of economics but this is largely overlooked
@@heavydownpaw7684 Fair enough, however, I think your utopia is never going to happen as, apart from income inequality, there is the small problem of human nature to overcome. In essence you are correct (about economics). The "founding document" of modern economics (Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations) argues for the fair distribution of wealth between capital and labour. However, Smith was a moral philosopher, rather than an economist.
MY OPINION ABOUT THE "BASIC INCOME" : Anyway, a "Basic Income" based in a "Central State Economic Taxes Economy", has the problem of the "Depletion of Natural Resources", be them Non-Renewables and, if not carefully managed, even the Renewables, for which the revenue of it would be progressively decreasing. So, to arrive to a finally "Steady State Economic Activity", based finally in "Renewable Natural Resources", it seems it has to be supplemented with other forms of economic activity, like "Community Currencies" as ways of Barter, and "Self-Sufficiency" at personal and family and Community levels of basic needs such as the fundamental that is Food, and "Self-Reliance" of not basic others at the Regional, National and some fews at International levels, and all this in a sustainable and Fair way.
Progress in the form of technology and the disruption it is causing to the population and business makes BUI essential to a civilized society. Humanity can progress on many levels once our basic needs are satisfied.
"poverty" is so subjective to a standard of living of a society. Being "poor" in one country is vastly different to being "poor" in another country. Now take all of human history into account: if you were poor for the first 99% of history you were about to starve to death, died by 35 years old. Recent 1% of history: being poor means you don't own a car... Huge difference.
You look like a smart man, but you surely do not have a degree in economics, right? It's very simple. If the demand increases, the price increases only if you have a fixed amount of the good that is being exchanged. In other words, the price of gold may skyrocket, but for the bread, there will simply be a new bakery in your town.
@@adamoleoni2272 my logic behind this is, if something is free, it does not have value. If all of a sudden people get money for free, that money has no value in comparison if you busted your but for it. That right there is basic common sense.
I support this idea, but if everyone is being sent a check for $1300 a month, for example, what is to stop landlords from automatically/eventually charging $1300 a month more than they do now for the same apartment? Or car manufacturers from increasing the cost of their cars willy nilly by say, $10k per model - roughly the amount of extra cash every single adult will suddenly be walking around with? Serious question. Is this ever addressed in Basic Income circles? Thanks.
Thats actually a really good question. The short answer is nothing can stop that besides the goodness of competition. UBI doesn't eliminate the need for money, it eliminates living in poverty. Businesses will still compete for their clients. On the extreme side, people could suddenly boycott any landlords or dealers employing those tactics, but I think its more likely that greedy people will be clever and slowly increase prices until it unhinges the progress. I'm trying to think of a way to circumvent that issue but I can't. It seems like it all hinges on the willingness to go along with the model.
Quick answer ...legislation. Income-related rents, maximum rent caps, gov support for home ownership with cheap loans, rent-to-buy, long-term rental agreements with scheduled rises/rise limits. Cars will be self-driving and less people will be owning own vehicles. coz cities will have fleets of cars. Less cars on on road coz cars currently sit unused 92% of time and when in use majority of use is by single user. Ridesharing taxi-like municipal fleets will be future way. Already central urban lifestyles & uber etc has decreased car ownership in central city urban environments.
So, one thing to consider is we're talking about the poor. They need somewhere to stay, and they're desperate. It comes with the territory of being poor. If they get charged $1300 USD for the room, they'll pay because they need a roof over their heads. But guess what: they now have a home on the government's dime. So now they only have to earn enough money every month to pay for groceries. That's a huge step up over paying for rent+groceries on whatever they're managing to pull in. It's a terrible situation, but better than where they were before. Next, consider what one of these landlords does after they raise the price. They are making way more money than they were before the UBI was implemented. So what do they do with all that cash? The smart business person invests in their company. All of a sudden these "low class" apartments are starting to look something more middle-class. Still small? Yeah. But they're well-maintained, and their kept in good shape. The people living there see their Quality of Life improve because the nations idea of what "poor" looks like climbs up several pegs. In the end, it's a win-win. And if the landlords get *too* greedy, good 'ol free market capitalism steps in and starts another race to the bottom (undersell your opponents to both get your company started and run your competition out of business. That's how Wal-Mart did it, and several other nation-wide brands too)
@@treyslider6954 Everyone forgets to mention that if you have a guaranteed income, you can also quit your job, move away, and live in an area with much lower cost of living. In the USA, this could mean an exodus of NYC-dwellers moving to places like Alabama and other empty rural areas. Their income would transfer, and those cities would get a huge economic boost. The cheap rent would allow them to survive while they create new jobs and economic opportunities. UBI ultimately takes a huge load off these supermassive cities. Once people move away, the demand for housing will plummet, forcing greedy landlords to lower rent to attract people back. This creates a virtuous cycle.
Interesting is that one does no longer need suspicious inspectors checking out whether or not you might be entitled to welfare money. Tax system remains the same though, since there will still be need for income checks over the amount you earn aside from the basic amount. So black jobs will remain black jobs.
Assuming you are asking if the tax system will remain the same, it depends. Theoretically of course tax systems can change but in reality no governing body that has the power to levy taxes will easily give up that power, hence no significant change to the tax system. Here in the states we need nothing more than a simple tax based on percentage but that would remove all the political leverage from our tax system so politicians don't like it. Hence, tax system not likely to change.
UBI is a great idea...however, isn't it time to question the economic system as a whole, which is Capitalism? The constant battle between the Employer class and Working Class?
The basic income is a good idea I believe that it will change a lot of people and bring great health and people will still work with it I don't think basic income should be a loan because we have people that don't have the income to repay or get the loan so I believe in handing every Americans 18 years old and up will change the world
Poverty is not a simple side effect of a lack of money. For the individual, this may be true. The reason a portion of society is considered to live in "poverty" (definitions are interchangeable depending on who is speaking) is a result of a far more complex problem. The solution is just as complex. Free money is not without consequences and ripple effects.
I agree with the concept but basic income for all is a Zero Sum problem, meaning either we as a species go for it, or it might not work out. Here is why. If only Canada and a few other countries adopt basic income, that would create a massive migration from poor countries that do not have basic income on to those countries that have it. That problem is solvable, but needs to be addressed from the get go and one of the solutions IS NOT building a wall or better borders.
The price increase only in goods avalaible in fixed amounts. Gold, for example, may soar in price, but bread will not. There will simply be an extra bakery in your city.
Very interesting concept. I see a lot of abuse of the welfare system in US. What would prevent folks from saying "sweet, I don't have to work, I can just do whatever I want and get paid a basic salary." Seems like a risky situation. This would make for a good trial study. Maybe they can use the province of Manitoba.
+Marc Musson Well thats a fair point but let me ask you. Why does it matter if they don't want to work? They pay their bills (very basic shit like rent and enough food to eat) and that will be great people will be happy and thankful for that and what the hell is wrong with knowing your neighbor has a place to live and food on their table? If they don't want the extra money working would bring them why does that matter? That's less competition for the already fleeting jobs you're going after to make the extra dollars because you don't want just your shitty little one bedroom apartment paid for and to eat 3 square meals a day, you want some extra cash so you can go out and purchase things, hopefully at locally owned business and restaurants which helps them and your local community grow and spread the money around more. This isn't money people are going to be given then they just get to sit on it for their whole lives, funny isn't that what billionaires actually do with their untaxed money in their off shore accounts? The way I see it is that if EVERYONE has money to spend EVERYONE will do better because we will all be out spreading it around instead of funneling it up to our billionaire overlords so they can sit on it like a dragon on gold and we never see a shred of it again.
+Marc Musson Is that not also the 'poverty trap'? You know, people get their basics covered, and if they dare *try* to get out of it, they lose it so quickly that unless they strike gold, it's too risky? Furthermore, for those who are on burnout and have simply decided to be "welfare queens", we should be aware these people are burnt out in society. Darwinian evolution argue's man's innate skill is empathy and altruism, so we have to pry into beliefs and conditionings that drive people away from these. If you're caught in a TGIF live for the weekend, dread the weekday sort of lifestyle, would you have awe and wonder of the world, or live tacitly, almost on autopilot?
Well doing whatever you want is freedom and some might squander their freedom sure but most people will use that freedom to study, do the things they are already doing without money pressure (ie volunteering, childcare, eldercare, writing, composing, art, sculpture, pottery. It will enable other people not already doing that stuff to do it. More freedom to self-employ, work part time, undertake different roles/part-time jobs from a place of choice, not necessity. Also having basic income security might mean more more bartering trade of skills/goods/services.
Welfare is based on income therefore it is a trap. If you get a job making more than the minimum requirements, you lose the welfare. This is an income with no requirements besides being 18, and a citizen.
Canada itself had a localized basic income program, that ended because of lack of funds, if I recall (some Freakonomics podcast). Brazil's program isn't exactly "basic income", it's more like traditional welfare programs mentioned, in that it requires that the family has income below or near poverty-line, differing only that theoretically it has no expiration date, as long as the family is poor, the mother will receive some cash for each dependant. It's not without its problems, like fraud and even incentivizing poor people to have more children for extra cash, aggravating the problem it purports to ameliorate.
Basic income will help stem the tide of home foreclosures, (home owners will be able to pay their mortgages,) decrease the break down of families caused by the state programs that divide families and cause divorces and will improve public health because heart attacks and strokes come from worrying about money!
There needs to be testing of this idea, you can see that is might simply create inflation, making $1000 a month worth today $100 that is effectively useless. If it was indexed to inflation like social security, then the government manipulates inflation like they do by not including....healthcare or food or energy. If it indeed causes inflation, indexing it will create feedback loop that causes exponential inflation. Small tests don't work to test the unintended consquences. We need like an entire small state to test this for everyone in the state, like vermont or new mexico or maybe hawaii is good choice, and run it for 10 years
I am tired of feeling guilty for staying home and taking care of my toddler and pre-teen and not working outside of the home. I am trying to make a small business and struggle to pay bills with the little money i do get. This world is hard and unsure. I would like to see a basic income paid per person to secure a healthy life so people like me can strive to do better. The hopelessness I feel about it is the questions: Will it become the new zero? Will inflation increase to keep things like they are? These things need to be considered. Even now, for every raise to minimum wage there is an increase to costs (food, energy etc). This keeps the poor, poor. I am hoping for a better future but i am disillusioned that it will happen properly in my life time. I hope i am wrong but life has been that way for many years, struggling to make a better life for me and my family.
I'm all for it not because I think it's noble but because the current system is totally inefficient. I mean, instead of wasting money and personnel evaluating who's entitled just give us all, unemployed or not, the bare minimum amount possible. Here in Japan they're talking about 80.000 yens (about 800 US bucks) per month. Quite diluted figure for sure, but better than paying tons of scammers (and trust me there are a LOT even here in Japan) some 300.000 yens.
Ambitious wealthy people will always be the same ones! Those who don't become wealthy missed the gold wagon by being unambitious. Creating or growing wealth (whatever) requires discipline, perseverance, great choices, listening skills and a ton of ambition. Poor unambitious peoples will always be "poor unambitious peoples" no matter what. If you spend your life whining and making excuses then your life will always be one of whining and making excuses. There is a wealth and business acumen in life -- and if you don't have it then you can learn it. If you're not willing to accept that statement and take charge of your life and make it happen and achieve this acumen -- then you can expect to do no better and reap rewards any greater than what you've learned and deeds done.
So, zero difference for you. But to some people, the army of homeless, for example, or for those earning below the poverty line, is a world of difference.
THe transition to this scheme will be slow, painful and need to be done on a international basis. So far we do not have effective Global oversight to do this.
i would love a basic income so i wouldn't have to work. but it is a bad idea for the U S. It would sap the national drive and create massive drug dependency and abuse. we would lose national production and competitiveness, and it would enable criminals. and btw, $15,000 a year, whether wage or entitlements, is not poverty. The only poverty the US and canada have are the homeless, and many of them are homeless by choice or mentally ill
+Death Vidrome Oh, you mean like no one wanting to work crappy jobs because they're getting free money? Or the country running out of money because no one wants to work? Or the successful people quitting their jobs because they're tired of working really hard and then giving 80% of their money to those people who don't want to work? I'm sure that'll never happen.
+wReckLesss Yes, because we all know that humans are completely stable with just getting what they can get instead of getting luxuries. Theres very, very little people who would actually work for just the basics of life, very little. People are meant to want incentives. Its a contributor to why we're so evolved. We want more and more and more always. You're really overestimating how much it costs to provide people with the essentials of life.
+glowstikk +MrLemmiwinks Do you all make your own money? I, for one, make a good living, and I work hard to get it. You're trying to tell me that I'm supposed to stay motivated and work hard just so the government can take large percentage of my hard-earned money and give it to people who choose not to work? We already have welfare in the US for people who actually have problems, and that's bad enough, as we don't even drug test those people. But at least welfare is justifiable. Give me a break; this idea is retarded. Income redistribution brings everyone to the lowest common denominator. Socialism has failed many times before, and it will only continue to keep failing.
+wReckLesss What's the problem with people getting free money? That money doesn't vanish, it get's spent on goods and services, firing up the economy. What you say presumes everyone who gets free money just sits on it, which they can't because they have to eat etc.
+Death Vidrome Tragically, they're not at all unexpected. They're expected, by all sides of the aisle. Just the side promoting the concept don't care as long as they tried, regardless of the results, probably without any positive contribution to the future...
Make UBI Guaranteed Basic Income $2500/month for every person on the earth Help Ending Poverty, Starvation, Disability, Old Age, Children, Homelessness, Health, Clean Water, Food
Since you talk about the "basic income" I will be sending two comments. The next one deals with the about the technological progress replacing the human labor. The fear of mass unemployment due to the future Robots or Bots replacing MAJORITY of human labour in the coming first or second generation, probably well grounded. However, in my opinion it will not happen, not because of future robots will not be capable of performing most the human jobs or they cannot be productive/profitable enough compared to their cost. Instead, the main reason is, sooner or later the Government will intervene to prevent the mass unemployment. It will encourage low capital entrepreneurs, businesses by providing them all kinds of assistance, incentives, exemptions, while heavily taxing the capital-intensive corporate sector. Nevertheless, there will be widening income disparity, wealth gap not only between the rich and poor but also between the capital intensive corporates and the low capital small business entrepreneurs. As a result the productivity of those businesses, employing more human workers instead of the robots will get lowered. The workers wage-income ratio to the profit in general become further deteriorated. There will be more self-employed, underpaid, and under-employed workers. These workers will not have the strength to fight (strike) for their wage rise as there will be a constant threat to their jobs, getting replaced by the bots. Once again the Governments will intervene, impose minimum wages on the employers. Also promote more and more social security welfare schemes simply because of the public pressure as it becomes more of an election and voting issue for the politicians. If these conditions continue for the next two or three generation, it will become a vicious circle of worsening of the social income conditions. It will lead to public uprisings in the capitalist as well in the so-called socialist/communist countries. The only way, the society can survive this crisis and to move progressively into the future is to directly cut down the corporate profit and to redistribute it among the masses to expand their purchasing power. However, the old idea of Government TAXING the rich will never work for many reasons. Also IMHO; it would be the worst thing to do, in regard to the future. The solution is, ‘To Think Out-Side The Box”. What we need is a Scientific Approach to deal with this issue and the historical perspective of this situation. Here is the one, read the following theoretical article: The principle behind my theory is; the fruits of the societies technological progress should not be appropriated only by a few elite but it is their historical responsibility to see to it that the benefit should be equally shared among all members of the society.
Get rid of income tax and tax profit from corps and increase consumer tax on most items. Robots and AI will be creating most of the wealth anyway. Clothing has gotten so cheap that people throw out after only worn a couple of times. Its become a land fill problem.
The last video I watched about a universal basic income the guys said it needs to be about half the median income of whatever country its implemented in. In the U.S. the median income is $51,939. So half that is about 26k per person per year. 319 million people in the U.S.. If I'm calculating correctly that comes to 8,294,000,000,000 per year. I'm no economist but I'm pretty sure that is not sustainable. Feedback is welcome. I'm a conservative Republican and I think this is a great idea. I'm just not sure how to implement such a thing.
+Calzman the cost of the bailout of the economy after the 2008 fiasco was almost $13 trillion (to.pbs.org/2bYoMeO). that money that you have calculated would be a one time expenditure to get the thing started. After that, you would be saving billions on practically every social platform that exists now. You would also start taxing on the first dollar earned because the BI is tax-free and everyone gets it so you are guaranteed to be at least at a poverty existence. I grant you that the first year (or more) would likely make the launch of the US medical insurance plan look great but that number is not something that would be repeated year after year ...
This time has come with Andrew Yang! Yang for president in 2020. Freedom Dividend! Americans, let's not screw up! Dr. Mulvane, please, make some noise for Andrew Yang! Amen!
Morality out of the window let's not make this get stuck on the ideological level. why basic income? Because we can. Poverty doesn't need to exist and has no value to anyone.
Actually evidence frome some trials say not so. No uptick in drug, alcohol, tobacco consumption. Could swing other way in fact as people have less stress and can start thinking about the future rather than day to day survival and getting high or drunk to cope with the pressure. In trials students stayed in education longer, rather than being forced to work to bring in income to live/support family, more entrepreneurship, more mothers spending more time with children/also increasing their education uptake & small business establishment, less crime to compensate for poverty/support drug habits. Plus UBI will be coupled with universal health, universal education, legalisation of drugs/decriminalisation making system health-focused rather than crime-focused. Drug Dealers as we know them will start disappearing just like pimps have mostly disappeared as in NZ
The criminalized welfare system has had its day, but basic income will not work without talking the landlord class with draconian rent controls, otherwise they would simply increase the rent to snatch away this additional income. Along with the parasitical landlord cartel, the pharmaceutical and healthcare cartels would also have to be dealt with, particularly in the USA.
Actually.. You *Need* everyone to get it.. *Not* just *Those in need*.. Why? Because People are Greedy. If they get a job that makes tgem lose it.. They'll stop working. Make the Cash permanent, and they''ll *Work*, to make *more!!*
When you take from those who work to earn the money and give it to those who do not earn it, then the high earners will either stop working or leave to avoid having their hard-earned money taken from them. Why would the high-income workers continue to work if they won't get the benefits of their labor? Governments have no money of their own, they only have money they take from the people.
High income earners get the ability to earn much due to the society they are part of, do you think Elon, Jeff, Altman, Gates would be able to have their wealth without the society we and our forefathers built ?
I was a little taken aback that you didn't key in more on the coming mass unemployment brought about by AI, robotics, and all the other auto industrial forms in the very near future. This is the biggest reason of all for basic income requirement.
The United States could expedite employing a Freedom Dividend (UBI) in a way that spreads across the globe and mark a new chapter in the history of humanity. Vote for Andrew Yang in 2020 if you want that to happen
Everyone wants more money. And there's no question it would do a lot of good. But the real question is how do you implement such a program without triggering inflation that would nullify any gains. Sure, there is a big cost of existing social welfare programs, means testing, administration, etc... and replacing many other programs. Streamlining, so to speak. But at $12k/yr for everyone over 18 in the US, that's about $3 TRILLION !!! That's a big hill to climb!
Basic income only feeds the failures. It steaks from one who has much but government makes the decision at what is or is not wealth thus justify theft!
You take all the money currently allocated to welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc., all the transfer income programs in the country, including the money that supports their bureaucracies, you pool it. You divide the pool equally among every citizen of the country. You change the tax system to tax it back from those who are making enough to not need it. The taxed back portion goes back into the pool. This last is critically important and what makes the idea actually work. The large majority do not need it, and most of the rest would pay some of it back because the taxed back portion would be progressive. There is no 'net' increase in taxes. The numbers work out if done this way that a basic income guarantee in the US would work out to something around $800. a month. Existing money only, no new taxes except for taxing back the benefit from those who earn enough normally to not need it. Poorer societies would simply have a poorer basic income, until their economies grow. However it would work equally well for poorer countries, as usually the cost of living is also lower. Meanwhile, a basic income guarantee is a massive stimulus to an economy, not because of new money in the hands of the people (there is NO 'new' money), but simply because there would no longer be a disincentive to either work or be entrepreneurial for those who are currently paid to not work with the existing welfare system.
And merely allowing you to tick "donate your basic income back to the pool" on a form will work wonders. You can simply change it back if ever you start to be in financial trouble. People are a lot more generous when there's no risk of ever falling into poverty yourself. People making hundred thousands and millions won't claim it. And as people become more financially independent through the system by not being scared of becoming a beggar, less and less people will claim it and it'll be even easier.
Nivesh Proag people thought that rich people wouldn't collect social security because they don't need it. They were wrong. Even Bill Gates collects a SS check. It turns out that people will take an opportunity to line their pockets if given the chance. I like UBI, but it's going to have to have a little bit of insulation from free will and lean toward obligation. Rather than saying, yes, I'll take that money, it should be automatic: you made this much, you do not meet UBI standards.
The ussofa and the corporate rulers at the top have more money than they know what to do with...as Ronnie Reagan said its trickle down..it will trickle down from the businesses to the people and the government will save on the vast emergency resources now going to welfare and emergency housing etc etc
In the wealthiest country in the history of the world (I know he is from Canada, but I am referring to America) We should be able to give everyone enough to live slightly above the poverty line. A DECENT standard of living, but not enough for them to be too comfortable or buy whatever they'd like.
If congress can pass bills in the middle of the night in a secret court that 99% of Americans disagree with, they can pass a bill that 70-80% of Americans agree with, even with a decent amount of backlash.
+Bulga Borkar-Lovejoy, Fast Food Aficionado Right, nobody is asking for enough to just sit on our asses all day every day we just want to be able to pay for the shit we need to pay for without being massively in debt and a footing so we can fucking better ourselves and serve our society better. Sure there will be a good chunk of people who just live with 4 roommates and they smoke pot all day but who gives a shit when the money they are getting is going back into the economy, especially if marijuana was legalized in all 50 states, when everyone is doing better EVERYONE is doing better we will all thrive.
I believe it is just a matter of time till we get a basic income. It will be a human right to be sure of enough money to pay for the most necessary things in life. Now it's not.
In a way it already is in our human rights...
Article 4 Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Article 5 Right to liberty and security
Just not implemented as rigorously. Basic income would fix that.
How can this be a "right" right don't come from removing by force from another, basic income only exist by "remove by force"
@@niveshproag8660
"Freedom from slavery and forced labour". true, your boss has to pay you or you will find another job. capitalism is not slavery and force labour.
"Right to liberty and security". you dont have right to other people income. you should get over it.
The time is now. Andrew Yang is a presidential candidate that is proposing a universal basic income, and the people are waking up to this wonderful idea.
Excellent Dr. Mulvale it is well explained, your analysis and opinion will open the mind of everyone. I hope our politicians and PM Trudeau will support this possibilities of implementing the Universal Basic Income. This will make the life of everyone to have enough and the most basic income will give the opportunities to live and make the quality of life improve. Please, support the advocates for Basic Income and we needed it now!
Vote for Andrew Yang 2020
Siddhesh Patwardhan all day
/r/agedlikemilk
sadly
Hopefully one day our society reaches Star Treks enlightenment, where there is no currency and no one goes hungry.
+brucelee12 Who knows, maybe people will learn to stop killing each other over simple goods and religion, too.
+JinEteru Religion is a bad offender of senseless death, on an almost unbelievable level.
+JanJonDijonMustard exactly what im saying "I dont like your face" is what it usually boils down to. people have different views on life and decide violence is the best course of action to "correct" this. the same goes for other things such as sports, people will fight just because they cheer for different teams. This stuff happens all over. people will get passionate in their beliefs, religion or other.
+JanJonDijonMustard even you were showing hostility because someone has different thought.
+JanJonDijonMustard and for you to assume that I was saying to remove religion as a whole is very naïve of you to say, because that is not at all what I said. I was saying that there has a been a lot conflict in history and today because of it. the statement was that it happens, not that is should be destroyed.
Basic income enables survival without contribution. Not redistribution of wealth, but decency to our species.
All of us should have access to privacy, shelter, food and water. After that you can have your luxuries from further wealth.
+Dominic Sims (OzAvatar) 62 people are as wealthy as the poorest 50% of people. Why should these types people be allowed to be exist when their very existence causes worldwide disparity leading to starvation, disease, poverty, and crime. Objectively, because these problems could be remedied solely by redistributing said wealth, the existence of such individuals is in fact the very root of these problems.
+Dylan Graham You don't earn a billion dollars, you steal it from the homeless, the hungry, the dying. Redistribution of wealth to the poor is simply justice.
+JanJonDijonMustard what are you on about? we are talking about redistributing wealth from BILLIONAIRES and sharing that with those who are in poverty. In most parts of america, if you make 10 dollars an hour working 40 hours a week you are in fact in poverty.
+JanJonDijonMustard man there is so much wrong with what you just said. Again, we are talking about redistributing the wealth of BILLIONAIRES. 98% of americans make less than 250k a year, these are the people who would be the benificiaries of said redistribution, so no, it would not negatively effect the middle class or even a large percentage of our upper class. You don't even seem to understand the economic implicaions of owning a billion dollars in standing fortunes. Owning this amount of wealth does in fact create poverty. With the exception of very few, these people have never worked a day in their lives, owing their fortunes to their heritage or inheritance.
+Dominic Sims (OzAvatar) If you don't work you don't eat. People who don't contribute should just do us a favor and die.
ANDREW YANG 2020
I hope people as a whole begin to demand this be instituted and soon! We have got to get pro UBI people in office all over the country and in DC!
One planet. We all live on in it so we have to share it. I know it sounds naive but in the end there is no other way.
+notorioustim10
Sharing planet's resources - OK.
Forcibly making people work for others - NOT OK.
+Mario852 Capitalism is forcibly making people work for others. You don't work, you starve. With basic income this problem goes away.
+Mandragara so should farmers grow you food for free?
+John Smith Someone else would be making their tractors and appliances and the tv shows they watch.
+Mario852 arent we 'forced' to work for others by our biological needs anyway? In the end thats just how society works anyway. No one can survive without the labour of others, unless you want to go Tarzan and become a hunter again...
Yang2020
Jiabin Wang I love seeing oh YangGang thanks for getting him this far
Og*
Yang 2020
Every household in NYS needs this. I literally see people on the streets in my state begging for work. USA is a first world country so we desperately need UBI. I have also traveled to Canada and they need it too.
James Mulvale is a leading member of our sister organisation in Canada.
I'm American in the year 2021. This idea is slowly coming into the consciousness of more people since this video was made and its a great idea, Americans need to really educate themselves on this issue because inflation is absolutely obscene and its killing and destroying the lives of more people everyday.
I guarantee you the 151 dislikes are mostly made up of people who never lived a night on the streets
Oh yes I have, I still state this is very bad.
They must be from selfish people
@@ernestyeap3053
Or they are sensible people who understand math and logic.
@BlackdogsmatterBlackdogsmatter actually the enormous profits of corporations are money stolen from the workers. A Universal Basic income actually can give individuals freedom of choice in society. We can see more and more a casualization of Work, the trend to hire people as sub-contractors instead of employees the company can avoid some of the costs of labor and pass those costs to the laborer. Basic Income experiments have been being trialed and in most cases, the people did not do less work unless they were children or women.
When you take away the costs of living it allows people more choices. Some experiments have shown that people in poverty have a decreased IQ because of the stresses of simple survival.
Face it there is an increasing number of Jobs which are being automatized. We are looking at a likelihood of many people in transportation may be losing jobs due to self-driving vehicles. You can see the possible benefits if you truly think about it. It means you would have enough money to have a decent life without "having to work" so you don't have to worry about a sudden job loss or illness putting you out on the street. The job market should increase to some degree as well. Before the crash in the economy pre-2008 the USA and other countries we facing a worker shortage. This would have meant that workers could likely name their wages because there would be more jobs available than people to fill them. In 2006 I did a paper on the retirement of the Baby-boomers and the effect on the economy with regards to the health industry. At that time in the US alone there were about 70,000 unfilled healthcare positions and it was looking to increase. However, the economic crash happened and some of those who were looking at a comfortable retirement lost money and ended up having to work longer.
When people have the basics of shelter, adequate food, and necessities they are better able to get an education, less likely to feel the need to break the law. Frankly, it might be a good way to address some of the racism that is insidious to society as we are told that X is coming to take your job. When you can get the education for jobs like learning to be a doctor (which are needed in many areas) in return for working a certain amount of years in a rural area perhaps you might gain those doctors that are currently lacking.
Another thing about the UBI people who work will be those who really want the position rather than getting the position to survive. This would likely mean more productivity. With some money in the middle and lower class pockets that is not necessarily all going to survival, the economy will increase because there will be greater demand for products.
Could you elaborate please
Ohhhhh, its gonna happen!
Yes it is... It is something the founders of our nation wanted implemented...🔺🔺🔺
Maybe, there is a real public debate right now.
Thank you very much for this TEDx talk. I am very glad that society is responding to the empty inhumanness of neoliberalism - and is beginning to pick up where we were in 1966 - when the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirmed the right of communities to local self determination, in a gainful economic model, where a continuing improvement in living conditions was enunciated as part of the Covenant between member UN states and the people of the world.
Neoliberalism - that pestilence of the right wing reaction against the Great Society programs of LBJ, treats humans only as expenses, and only views improvements in economic factors by the metric of escalating numbers of commercial transactions. This neoliberal view is utterly incompatible with a responsible humanity, that is capable or stewardship of our ecosystem. The Global Greens are attempting to group populations thematically according to what they are interested in working on under the 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. We need a serious effort to consolidate good policies by building the critical mass among countries working for the greater good, if we are to defeat the toxins of what has undermined the potential of a liberty-valuing democracy.
UBI also satisfies those who want improved economic metrics in the long run. In addition to making sure people have a chance to go beyond just survival.
YANG 2020! UBI FTW!
The basic income should be low but it should be guaranteed no matter what. The system most countries have today has lots of requirements that have to be documented and supervised. This is first of all costly in itself but many poor people end up exaggerating their problems to meet the standards which is counterproductive for becoming an attractive employee and getting a good resume in a job application. Lots of people have difficulties getting a job for reasons that cannot be qualified for subsidies. This could be former criminals etc. and they will end up continuing their criminal activities in order to sustain themselves. I think these problems would be reduced with basic income.
When you don't have income it is hard to contribute, even when you have a innovative ideas. No Fruits to Sow.
Even The Sims start off with a basic house and a bit of money.
@@Syklonus The Sims is not real, it's a virtual world...
Thousands of years ago, people worked from sun up to sun down farming the land. Work was life back then. Over time, because of technology, people now work 9 hour shifts and then go home and enjoy their extra time. Now we're reaching a point where machines basically run themselves. What do we do? Live in a society where a small group of people labor away while the majority feeds off their scraps? No, just divide the work up. Have people work 4 hour shifts, but keep the pay the same. And to ensure this happens, create a system where companies that employ more people and pay higher wages get huge tax cuts. And then the ones that refuse to hire people, make them pay more in taxes so that it ends up being beneficial to employ people. This will also increase productivity because when people work shorter hours, their mood and willingness to work increases.
IM ALL FOR JOB AUTOMATION! NOT IF WHEN MOST ALL JOBS WILL BE AUTOMATED THERE NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE A BASIC INCOME GUARANTEE! OTHERWISE WE WILL HAVE NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE ECONOMY!
"..NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE ECONOMY!" You have no idea what you're talking about. Redistributing wealth, an immoral concept, has nothing to do with the quantity of currency in circulation.
kinda agree, but i think the immoral statement in a situation when most of the wealth is made by machine maybe not very good. Also when there is no need for human labour, there is a problem that people dont buy because they are without money and jobless. That i think leads to decreasing of growth and low wealth for all. I think not very difficult to understand, you give money to help economy to have more wealth. Actually these ideas came from very liberalist guys like milton friedman, nothing to do with Redistributing of wealth, but to have more wealth xD
The only thing wrong with all the world's economies is government meddling, intervention and control. The free market is the only system that has ever worked.
The only reason a minority of people make most of the money is because they have leveraged government power. Take away government power and equality of fair trade will result.
the concept of basic income nothing to do with equality, or goverment power. Personally i dont know if it works, but liberalism theory says that it is good for economic growth. Now with machine automation lots of peoples says it's the only way free market can survive.
fonzi102 "machine automation" has absolutely nothing to do with the free market or the number of jobs available or the growth of an economy. (it does change the types of jobs available)
Automation is always a good thing, forced welfare is always a bad thing. These are the basic rules of an economy. Otherwise we'd all be living in caves and using old bones to dig holes.
Andrew Yang. He's the one... The Only one. Go Yang gang.
Excellent points! The world NEEDS a basic income.
This is so needed right now in 2020. I wish this current system crashes and it forces us into UBI.
I now support Presidential candidate Andrew Yang and his vision of UBI. Andrew Yang's "Freedom Dividend" will work for the USA and will help unite our country. It is a mix of strong capitalism and small UBI.
I agree, every human should have a Guaranteed Income. There won’t be enough jobs. Great idea. Let’s just do it!
We have already studied the effects of not having a basic income, and it does not work.
Auto Mated source: Earth history
Rather than giving away money, give away food and shelter. Since automation is taking All of our jobs, focus on automating every step of food production and delivery. Then automate housing production. Autonomous farm equipment is already close to completely automating farming. Not Universal Basic Income but rather universal Basic Need Fulfillment or some combination of both. Fulfilling the needs of people directly will be much more efficient than giving away money. If they want more they can work for it.
Brilliant idea!!! We need to implement it quickly!!!
Moderation is one of the core values that was held by people like Alexander Hamilton at the founding of our country. He wrote about it in the federalist papers. It’s important to remember that we have to have a moderation of both things, otherwise we have an overindulgence of one or the other.
Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share " of what someone else has worked for? - Thomas Sowell
Where is my fair share of money from apple computer? They did not invent touchscreen and computers themselves. All they did is based on research based on public funding in multiple universities in multiple locations of the world. So... where is that money? And the money from google? Amazon uses the streets the government built, with my money, and the internet, built with the money of my parents. Where are those coins? You are poor, dude. The system is against you. How can you not see it?
Exactly. Maintaining poverty is costly to all. Poverty must be eliminated once and forever.
Absolute poverty, where a person lacks food shelter security and clothing, needs to be eliminated but relative poverty and social ills will still be with us.
One step at the time.
Proverbs 14:21.
I have seen quite a lot of comments like "this is like communism" , "people will get lazy" and "UBI is for losers" . In return, I hope the people who say this kind of things will lose their (I guess) well-paid job soon and start to experience how it is to live in poverty and to experience how the traditional welfare system is not working anymore. I guess for this kind of people that is the only way to learn.
Yang Gang
I feel like with the automation of our economy that guaranteed income is the only way to go. The problem is how do you collect that income to give to others? I feel like it should come from a Automation tax. A tax that is implemented on Automation that cost jobs to members of society. But this opens a whole can of worms. What is automation exactly and how much should the tax be? should it be different for different levels of automation? Will this discourage automation?
In my opinion, a tax on automation would demotivate the use of that technology which is not a good thing for progress. It would be better to reduce inequality as a whole, so each part of the society would can compete on amore similar ground. Automation should go his way and increase productivity.
+Jerds _ right. so I guess we gotta get in bed with socialism to some degree then.
You never collect that income specifically to give to people. You just give a standard amount to people directly, avoiding the can of worms. The economy will find balance. Whatever becomes automated will decrease in value. Let me give an example.
Lets say a company makes shoes. Automation kicks in, taking lets say 2/3 of jobs in its factories, decreasing the cost of production by 90%. The price of the shoes automatically will drop by 90%. That's because of competition on the market will force the prices down, as the value of the product has gone down. Technically, if no workers are needed at some point, the price of shoes will fall to the price of raw materials + maintaining the factory. Practically free.
So as automation decreases the value of everything, the basic income, amount necessary to buy enough to survive, decreases.If it reaches zero, money becomes irrelevant, but that unlikely or far off.
Nivesh Proag assuming that you right. Which with history I don't actually think you are cause companies typically don't ever lower prices and go for larger profit margins
But assuming your right for the sake of not getting into that argument.
How do you collect it? Even if it is a small amount there still is an amount to be collected
mathieu st-louis Of course they do. Prices go down all the time. It's basic economy. Competition drives prices down. Unless there's a monopoly in a market, it's bound to happen.
And like I said, there's no need for an automation tax.
Put this all over on Internet!!!
I'd happily be taxed if it meant that everybody is secure enough to have something to eat and a place to stay. It's called being a decent person. However, that's not how basic income works. It's not taking from the working person to give to the unemployed - it's dividing the publicly generated collective wealth amongst EVERYBODY. I wish the naysayers in the comments would do a bit of research and realise this.
We must stop dividing people who we have never met into deserving and undeserving. Everyone deserves food and shelter as a basic right. A society that has its citizens working out of fear of starvation can in no way be called "civilised".
Also, we must watch out for the sham attempts at a UBI. The Finland experiment was not a true UBI, and it has been deliberately misrepresented as such in order to discredit a real Basic Income. Scotland looks to be headed that way as well according to an RSA article that sets the time frame for a UBI at 20 years and only for an an amount of £5000 which is well below covering basic needs right now never mind in two decades.
In other words, you do not work at the moment so you are quite happy to talk about a situation you have absolutely no experience of...? That figures.
What is "publicly generated collective wealth"... and how do you divide it?
Andrew Yang has been talking about UBI for the last 3 years but know one in our governments has the brains to do it.
We need to simply abolish the Stock Market. End the financialization of everyone and everything that goes against the people
I like the idea of Basic Income but this guy does a bad job of selling it, much better videos on this subject out there
Andrew Yang 2020
There is a gross error in the slide at 4:12. It states that 59% of women with disabilities live in poverty. He also mention this as one of the most shocking statistic. When reading the source, it actually states that "Nearly 15% of people with disabilities live in poverty, 59% of which are women.". This is something entirely different. This means that 8.85% of women and 6.15% of men with disabilities, live in poverty. As I'm sure he's a clever man, I can't believe he's made such a mistake. Especially as it has drawn his attention to the point of shocking him. Is this a deliberate attempt of deception?
+John Andre Gjerde I would highly doubt that this is deliberate, but definitely a big (but honest) mistake on the speaker's part. Good catch
+John Andre Gjerde He's a sociologist, what did you expect?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
+Greg It means that there is an error in the interpretation of the data. What did you not understand?
John Andre Gjerde if you earn above x amount per year, your taxes essentially pay the sum back
Wow! I’m voting for Yang!
Communist
Great talk!
Many countries apply a kind of state pension. I'm from the Netherlands and there they have, but even a new country as Timor Leste has a universal old age and disability pension (since 2008). So with other words, in these countries all old people get a basic income and nobody objects. To introduce a basic income for all, we just have to put the pension age at like 18 years :-)
Until we break down all international borders and apply this basic living income policy broadly across the planet, the inequality and its accompanying problems will remain. Its in all our best interests to have global poverty addressed and resolved ASAP.
Sometimes it seems like the rich and greedy cant see passed their own noses. We all share this big beautiful turquoise spaceball, might as well split the benefits of modern society equally with every. Just a thought.
Are you ready for your own standard of living to plummet to one of subsistence in order to achieve this?
@@douglasherron7534 I dont know if im ready for it, but id be happy to accept it if it meant we collectively finally started to address the huge inequality in our society. I once read that, addressing inequality is one of the pillar objectives of economics but this is largely overlooked
@@heavydownpaw7684 Fair enough, however, I think your utopia is never going to happen as, apart from income inequality, there is the small problem of human nature to overcome.
In essence you are correct (about economics). The "founding document" of modern economics (Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations) argues for the fair distribution of wealth between capital and labour. However, Smith was a moral philosopher, rather than an economist.
MY OPINION ABOUT THE "BASIC INCOME" :
Anyway, a "Basic Income" based in a "Central State Economic Taxes Economy", has the problem of the "Depletion of Natural Resources", be them Non-Renewables and, if not carefully managed, even the Renewables, for which the revenue of it would be progressively decreasing.
So, to arrive to a finally "Steady State Economic Activity", based finally in "Renewable Natural Resources", it seems it has to be supplemented with other forms of economic activity, like "Community Currencies" as ways of Barter, and "Self-Sufficiency" at personal and family and Community levels of basic needs such as the fundamental that is Food, and "Self-Reliance" of not basic others at the Regional, National and some fews at International levels, and all this in a sustainable and Fair way.
Progress in the form of technology and the disruption it is causing to the population and business makes BUI essential to a civilized society. Humanity can progress on many levels once our basic needs are satisfied.
Sustainable development
"poverty" is so subjective to a standard of living of a society. Being "poor" in one country is vastly different to being "poor" in another country. Now take all of human history into account: if you were poor for the first 99% of history you were about to starve to death, died by 35 years old. Recent 1% of history: being poor means you don't own a car... Huge difference.
I'd gladly be poor now-a-days than any other time in history.
I think if Basic Income becomes reality, it's going to raise the price of everything.
You look like a smart man, but you surely do not have a degree in economics, right? It's very simple. If the demand increases, the price increases only if you have a fixed amount of the good that is being exchanged. In other words, the price of gold may skyrocket, but for the bread, there will simply be a new bakery in your town.
@@adamoleoni2272 my logic behind this is, if something is free, it does not have value. If all of a sudden people get money for free, that money has no value in comparison if you busted your but for it. That right there is basic common sense.
Great ideas, thank you 😊
I support this idea, but if everyone is being sent a check for $1300 a month, for example, what is to stop landlords from automatically/eventually charging $1300 a month more than they do now for the same apartment? Or car manufacturers from increasing the cost of their cars willy nilly by say, $10k per model - roughly the amount of extra cash every single adult will suddenly be walking around with? Serious question. Is this ever addressed in Basic Income circles? Thanks.
Thats actually a really good question. The short answer is nothing can stop that besides the goodness of competition.
UBI doesn't eliminate the need for money, it eliminates living in poverty. Businesses will still compete for their clients. On the extreme side, people could suddenly boycott any landlords or dealers employing those tactics, but I think its more likely that greedy people will be clever and slowly increase prices until it unhinges the progress.
I'm trying to think of a way to circumvent that issue but I can't. It seems like it all hinges on the willingness to go along with the model.
Quick answer ...legislation. Income-related rents, maximum rent caps, gov support for home ownership with cheap loans, rent-to-buy, long-term rental agreements with scheduled rises/rise limits. Cars will be self-driving and less people will be owning own vehicles. coz cities will have fleets of cars. Less cars on on road coz cars currently sit unused 92% of time and when in use majority of use is by single user. Ridesharing taxi-like municipal fleets will be future way. Already central urban lifestyles & uber etc has decreased car ownership in central city urban environments.
In a country like the US, UBI does warrant concerns for a grand scam. Especially with the cartoonishly deregulated ideals being promoted there
So, one thing to consider is we're talking about the poor. They need somewhere to stay, and they're desperate. It comes with the territory of being poor. If they get charged $1300 USD for the room, they'll pay because they need a roof over their heads. But guess what: they now have a home on the government's dime. So now they only have to earn enough money every month to pay for groceries. That's a huge step up over paying for rent+groceries on whatever they're managing to pull in. It's a terrible situation, but better than where they were before.
Next, consider what one of these landlords does after they raise the price. They are making way more money than they were before the UBI was implemented. So what do they do with all that cash? The smart business person invests in their company. All of a sudden these "low class" apartments are starting to look something more middle-class. Still small? Yeah. But they're well-maintained, and their kept in good shape. The people living there see their Quality of Life improve because the nations idea of what "poor" looks like climbs up several pegs.
In the end, it's a win-win. And if the landlords get *too* greedy, good 'ol free market capitalism steps in and starts another race to the bottom (undersell your opponents to both get your company started and run your competition out of business. That's how Wal-Mart did it, and several other nation-wide brands too)
@@treyslider6954 Everyone forgets to mention that if you have a guaranteed income, you can also quit your job, move away, and live in an area with much lower cost of living. In the USA, this could mean an exodus of NYC-dwellers moving to places like Alabama and other empty rural areas. Their income would transfer, and those cities would get a huge economic boost. The cheap rent would allow them to survive while they create new jobs and economic opportunities.
UBI ultimately takes a huge load off these supermassive cities. Once people move away, the demand for housing will plummet, forcing greedy landlords to lower rent to attract people back. This creates a virtuous cycle.
Interesting is that one does no longer need suspicious inspectors checking out whether or not you might be entitled to welfare money.
Tax system remains the same though, since there will still be need for income checks over the amount you earn aside from the basic amount. So black jobs will remain black jobs.
What do you mean by black jobs?
I think he means black market or under the table, the government doesn't need to know jobs.
Terry Pullen Will it? If everyone is entitled to the same amount? Taxation is merely a percentage of your purchase right? Independent of income?
Assuming you are asking if the tax system will remain the same, it depends. Theoretically of course tax systems can change but in reality no governing body that has the power to levy taxes will easily give up that power, hence no significant change to the tax system. Here in the states we need nothing more than a simple tax based on percentage but that would remove all the political leverage from our tax system so politicians don't like it. Hence, tax system not likely to change.
UBI is a great idea...however, isn't it time to question the economic system as a whole, which is Capitalism? The constant battle between the Employer class and Working Class?
The basic income is a good idea I believe that it will change a lot of people and bring great health and people will still work with it I don't think basic income should be a loan because we have people that don't have the income to repay or get the loan so I believe in handing every Americans 18 years old and up will change the world
Poverty is not a simple side effect of a lack of money. For the individual, this may be true. The reason a portion of society is considered to live in "poverty" (definitions are interchangeable depending on who is speaking) is a result of a far more complex problem. The solution is just as complex. Free money is not without consequences and ripple effects.
bring it on
" UBI " IS A GOOD IDEA 👽
Yang 2020!
I agree with the concept but basic income for all is a Zero Sum problem, meaning either we as a species go for it, or it might not work out.
Here is why.
If only Canada and a few other countries adopt basic income, that would create a massive migration from poor countries that do not have basic income on to those countries that have it. That problem is solvable, but needs to be addressed from the get go and one of the solutions IS NOT building a wall or better borders.
Basic income may have an effect in the short-term. But in the long-run prices will increase and it wont make a difference anymore
not true - supply and demand will take care of that.
The price increase only in goods avalaible in fixed amounts. Gold, for example, may soar in price, but bread will not. There will simply be an extra bakery in your city.
You cannot make causal inference based on correlation without proper analysis. Put differently. Correlation does not imply causality
Very interesting concept. I see a lot of abuse of the welfare system in US. What would prevent folks from saying "sweet, I don't have to work, I can just do whatever I want and get paid a basic salary." Seems like a risky situation. This would make for a good trial study. Maybe they can use the province of Manitoba.
+Marc Musson Well thats a fair point but let me ask you. Why does it matter if they don't want to work? They pay their bills (very basic shit like rent and enough food to eat) and that will be great people will be happy and thankful for that and what the hell is wrong with knowing your neighbor has a place to live and food on their table? If they don't want the extra money working would bring them why does that matter? That's less competition for the already fleeting jobs you're going after to make the extra dollars because you don't want just your shitty little one bedroom apartment paid for and to eat 3 square meals a day, you want some extra cash so you can go out and purchase things, hopefully at locally owned business and restaurants which helps them and your local community grow and spread the money around more. This isn't money people are going to be given then they just get to sit on it for their whole lives, funny isn't that what billionaires actually do with their untaxed money in their off shore accounts? The way I see it is that if EVERYONE has money to spend EVERYONE will do better because we will all be out spreading it around instead of funneling it up to our billionaire overlords so they can sit on it like a dragon on gold and we never see a shred of it again.
+Marc Musson Is that not also the 'poverty trap'? You know, people get their basics covered, and if they dare *try* to get out of it, they lose it so quickly that unless they strike gold, it's too risky?
Furthermore, for those who are on burnout and have simply decided to be "welfare queens", we should be aware these people are burnt out in society. Darwinian evolution argue's man's innate skill is empathy and altruism, so we have to pry into beliefs and conditionings that drive people away from these. If you're caught in a TGIF live for the weekend, dread the weekday sort of lifestyle, would you have awe and wonder of the world, or live tacitly, almost on autopilot?
Well doing whatever you want is freedom and some might squander their freedom sure but most people will use that freedom to study, do the things they are already doing without money pressure (ie volunteering, childcare, eldercare, writing, composing, art, sculpture, pottery. It will enable other people not already doing that stuff to do it. More freedom to self-employ, work part time, undertake different roles/part-time jobs from a place of choice, not necessity. Also having basic income security might mean more more bartering trade of skills/goods/services.
Welfare is based on income therefore it is a trap. If you get a job making more than the minimum requirements, you lose the welfare. This is an income with no requirements besides being 18, and a citizen.
Canada itself had a localized basic income program, that ended because of lack of funds, if I recall (some Freakonomics podcast). Brazil's program isn't exactly "basic income", it's more like traditional welfare programs mentioned, in that it requires that the family has income below or near poverty-line, differing only that theoretically it has no expiration date, as long as the family is poor, the mother will receive some cash for each dependant. It's not without its problems, like fraud and even incentivizing poor people to have more children for extra cash, aggravating the problem it purports to ameliorate.
that's why a true ubi is a better solution than targeted welfare.
Basic income will help stem the tide of home foreclosures, (home owners will be able to pay their mortgages,) decrease the break down of families caused by the state programs that divide families and cause divorces and will improve public health because heart attacks and strokes come from worrying about money!
There needs to be testing of this idea, you can see that is might simply create inflation, making $1000 a month worth today $100 that is effectively useless.
If it was indexed to inflation like social security, then the government manipulates inflation like they do by not including....healthcare or food or energy.
If it indeed causes inflation, indexing it will create feedback loop that causes exponential inflation. Small tests don't work to test the unintended consquences.
We need like an entire small state to test this for everyone in the state, like vermont or new mexico or maybe hawaii is good choice, and run it for 10 years
I am tired of feeling guilty for staying home and taking care of my toddler and pre-teen and not working outside of the home. I am trying to make a small business and struggle to pay bills with the little money i do get. This world is hard and unsure. I would like to see a basic income paid per person to secure a healthy life so people like me can strive to do better. The hopelessness I feel about it is the questions: Will it become the new zero? Will inflation increase to keep things like they are? These things need to be considered. Even now, for every raise to minimum wage there is an increase to costs (food, energy etc). This keeps the poor, poor. I am hoping for a better future but i am disillusioned that it will happen properly in my life time. I hope i am wrong but life has been that way for many years, struggling to make a better life for me and my family.
YANG2020
I'm all for it not because I think it's noble but because the current system is totally inefficient. I mean, instead of wasting money and personnel evaluating who's entitled just give us all, unemployed or not, the bare minimum amount possible. Here in Japan they're talking about 80.000 yens (about 800 US bucks) per month. Quite diluted figure for sure, but better than paying tons of scammers (and trust me there are a LOT even here in Japan) some 300.000 yens.
Ambitious wealthy people will always be the same ones! Those who don't become wealthy missed the gold wagon by being unambitious. Creating or growing wealth (whatever) requires discipline, perseverance, great choices, listening skills and a ton of ambition. Poor unambitious peoples will always be "poor unambitious peoples" no matter what. If you spend your life whining and making excuses then your life will always be one of whining and making excuses. There is a wealth and business acumen in life -- and if you don't have it then you can learn it. If you're not willing to accept that statement and take charge of your life and make it happen and achieve this acumen -- then you can expect to do no better and reap rewards any greater than what you've learned and deeds done.
This shy guy is kinda sweet!:D
I guess the major problem is my taxes would probably go up almost as much as the basic income.
So, zero difference for you. But to some people, the army of homeless, for example, or for those earning below the poverty line, is a world of difference.
Step 1) Tax robots to pay for UBI
Step 2) Robots move offshore to avoid high taxation
Step 3) ???
Step 4) Profit!
THe transition to this scheme will be slow, painful and need to be done on a international basis. So far we do not have effective Global oversight to do this.
This is why Americans need to vote Yang2020!!!!
Considering the precipitous rise in personal debt, it may be the only way to keep the economy from crashing.
i would love a basic income so i wouldn't have to work. but it is a bad idea for the U S. It would sap the national drive and create massive drug dependency and abuse. we would lose national production and competitiveness, and it would enable criminals. and btw, $15,000 a year, whether wage or entitlements, is not poverty. The only poverty the US and canada have are the homeless, and many of them are homeless by choice or mentally ill
For some reason I see unexpected consequences
+Death Vidrome Oh, you mean like no one wanting to work crappy jobs because they're getting free money? Or the country running out of money because no one wants to work? Or the successful people quitting their jobs because they're tired of working really hard and then giving 80% of their money to those people who don't want to work? I'm sure that'll never happen.
+wReckLesss Yes, because we all know that humans are completely stable with just getting what they can get instead of getting luxuries. Theres very, very little people who would actually work for just the basics of life, very little. People are meant to want incentives. Its a contributor to why we're so evolved. We want more and more and more always. You're really overestimating how much it costs to provide people with the essentials of life.
+glowstikk +MrLemmiwinks Do you all make your own money? I, for one, make a good living, and I work hard to get it. You're trying to tell me that I'm supposed to stay motivated and work hard just so the government can take large percentage of my hard-earned money and give it to people who choose not to work? We already have welfare in the US for people who actually have problems, and that's bad enough, as we don't even drug test those people. But at least welfare is justifiable. Give me a break; this idea is retarded. Income redistribution brings everyone to the lowest common denominator. Socialism has failed many times before, and it will only continue to keep failing.
+wReckLesss What's the problem with people getting free money? That money doesn't vanish, it get's spent on goods and services, firing up the economy.
What you say presumes everyone who gets free money just sits on it, which they can't because they have to eat etc.
+Death Vidrome Tragically, they're not at all unexpected. They're expected, by all sides of the aisle. Just the side promoting the concept don't care as long as they tried, regardless of the results, probably without any positive contribution to the future...
Make UBI Guaranteed Basic Income $2500/month for every person on the earth Help Ending Poverty, Starvation, Disability, Old Age, Children, Homelessness, Health, Clean Water, Food
Since you talk about the "basic income" I will be sending two comments. The next one deals with the about the technological progress replacing the human labor.
The fear of mass unemployment due to the future Robots or Bots replacing MAJORITY of human labour in the coming first or second generation, probably well grounded. However, in my opinion it will not happen, not because of future robots will not be capable of performing most the human jobs or they cannot be productive/profitable enough compared to their cost. Instead, the main reason is, sooner or later the Government will intervene to prevent the mass unemployment. It will encourage low capital entrepreneurs, businesses by providing them all kinds of assistance, incentives, exemptions, while heavily taxing the capital-intensive corporate sector.
Nevertheless, there will be widening income disparity, wealth gap not only between the rich and poor but also between the capital intensive corporates and the low capital small business entrepreneurs. As a result the productivity of those businesses, employing more human workers instead of the robots will get lowered. The workers wage-income ratio to the profit in general become further deteriorated. There will be more self-employed, underpaid, and under-employed workers. These workers will not have the strength to fight (strike) for their wage rise as there will be a constant threat to their jobs, getting replaced by the bots. Once again the Governments will intervene, impose minimum wages on the employers. Also promote more and more social security welfare schemes simply because of the public pressure as it becomes more of an election and voting issue for the politicians.
If these conditions continue for the next two or three generation, it will become a vicious circle of worsening of the social income conditions. It will lead to public uprisings in the capitalist as well in the so-called socialist/communist countries.
The only way, the society can survive this crisis and to move progressively into the future is to directly cut down the corporate profit and to redistribute it among the masses to expand their purchasing power. However, the old idea of Government TAXING the rich will never work for many reasons. Also IMHO; it would be the worst thing to do, in regard to the future.
The solution is, ‘To Think Out-Side The Box”. What we need is a Scientific Approach to deal with this issue and the historical perspective of this situation. Here is the one, read the following theoretical article:
The principle behind my theory is; the fruits of the societies technological progress should not be appropriated only by a few elite but it is their historical responsibility to see to it that the benefit should be equally shared among all members of the society.
Get rid of income tax and tax profit from corps and increase consumer tax on most items.
Robots and AI will be creating most of the wealth anyway.
Clothing has gotten so cheap that people throw out after only worn a couple of times.
Its become a land fill problem.
There will be no more motive to really work.
It is like in sports giving everyone a simple medaille. No need to compete or improve.
The last video I watched about a universal basic income the guys said it needs to be about half the median income of whatever country its implemented in. In the U.S. the median income is $51,939. So half that is about 26k per person per year. 319 million people in the U.S.. If I'm calculating correctly that comes to 8,294,000,000,000 per year. I'm no economist but I'm pretty sure that is not sustainable. Feedback is welcome. I'm a conservative Republican and I think this is a great idea. I'm just not sure how to implement such a thing.
+Calzman the cost of the bailout of the economy after the 2008 fiasco was almost $13 trillion (to.pbs.org/2bYoMeO). that money that you have calculated would be a one time expenditure to get the thing started. After that, you would be saving billions on practically every social platform that exists now. You would also start taxing on the first dollar earned because the BI is tax-free and everyone gets it so you are guaranteed to be at least at a poverty existence. I grant you that the first year (or more) would likely make the launch of the US medical insurance plan look great but that number is not something that would be repeated year after year ...
This time has come with Andrew Yang! Yang for president in 2020. Freedom Dividend! Americans, let's not screw up! Dr. Mulvane, please, make some noise for Andrew Yang! Amen!
andrew yang 2020
Morality out of the window let's not make this get stuck on the ideological level. why basic income? Because we can. Poverty doesn't need to exist and has no value to anyone.
Yes!!! Thank you!
As a drug dealer this helps me immensely
+Pargphee with drug decriminalization looking like a serious possibility in many parts of the world, you maybe be out of a job lol so there's that
+Pargphee When the people stop being desperate you'll see your market dry up.
Actually evidence frome some trials say not so. No uptick in drug, alcohol, tobacco consumption. Could swing other way in fact as people have less stress and can start thinking about the future rather than day to day survival and getting high or drunk to cope with the pressure. In trials students stayed in education longer, rather than being forced to work to bring in income to live/support family, more entrepreneurship, more mothers spending more time with children/also increasing their education uptake & small business establishment, less crime to compensate for poverty/support drug habits. Plus UBI will be coupled with universal health, universal education, legalisation of drugs/decriminalisation making system health-focused rather than crime-focused. Drug Dealers as we know them will start disappearing just like pimps have mostly disappeared as in NZ
The criminalized welfare system has had its day, but basic income will not work without talking the landlord class with draconian rent controls, otherwise they would simply increase the rent to snatch away this additional income. Along with the parasitical landlord cartel, the pharmaceutical and healthcare cartels would also have to be dealt with, particularly in the USA.
If UBI is the solution, what is the problem?
Capitalism
The fact this has to be even explained is the true sin of this country.
Actually.. You *Need* everyone to get it.. *Not* just *Those in need*.. Why?
Because People are Greedy. If they get a job that makes tgem lose it.. They'll stop working.
Make the Cash permanent, and they''ll *Work*, to make *more!!*
When you take from those who work to earn the money and give it to those who do not earn it, then the high earners will either stop working or leave to avoid having their hard-earned money taken from them. Why would the high-income workers continue to work if they won't get the benefits of their labor? Governments have no money of their own, they only have money they take from the people.
High income earners get the ability to earn much due to the society they are part of, do you think Elon, Jeff, Altman, Gates would be able to have their wealth without the society we and our forefathers built ?
I was a little taken aback that you didn't key in more on the coming mass unemployment brought about by AI, robotics, and all the other auto industrial forms in the very near future. This is the biggest reason of all for basic income requirement.
it is so hard to stay doing nothing ....
The United States could expedite employing a Freedom Dividend (UBI) in a way that spreads across the globe and mark a new chapter in the history of humanity. Vote for Andrew Yang in 2020 if you want that to happen
Everyone wants more money. And there's no question it would do a lot of good. But the real question is how do you implement such a program without triggering inflation that would nullify any gains. Sure, there is a big cost of existing social welfare programs, means testing, administration, etc... and replacing many other programs. Streamlining, so to speak. But at $12k/yr for everyone over 18 in the US, that's about $3 TRILLION !!! That's a big hill to climb!
Basic income only feeds the failures. It steaks from one who has much but government makes the decision at what is or is not wealth thus justify theft!
Change the pension schemes to fund basic income instead, get your pension now
Most economies currently cannot afford basic social services and are making cuts continually to budgets....So how again is this going to work?
You take all the money currently allocated to welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc., all the transfer income programs in the country, including the money that supports their bureaucracies, you pool it. You divide the pool equally among every citizen of the country. You change the tax system to tax it back from those who are making enough to not need it. The taxed back portion goes back into the pool. This last is critically important and what makes the idea actually work. The large majority do not need it, and most of the rest would pay some of it back because the taxed back portion would be progressive. There is no 'net' increase in taxes. The numbers work out if done this way that a basic income guarantee in the US would work out to something around $800. a month. Existing money only, no new taxes except for taxing back the benefit from those who earn enough normally to not need it.
Poorer societies would simply have a poorer basic income, until their economies grow. However it would work equally well for poorer countries, as usually the cost of living is also lower.
Meanwhile, a basic income guarantee is a massive stimulus to an economy, not because of new money in the hands of the people (there is NO 'new' money), but simply because there would no longer be a disincentive to either work or be entrepreneurial for those who are currently paid to not work with the existing welfare system.
And merely allowing you to tick "donate your basic income back to the pool" on a form will work wonders. You can simply change it back if ever you start to be in financial trouble. People are a lot more generous when there's no risk of ever falling into poverty yourself. People making hundred thousands and millions won't claim it. And as people become more financially independent through the system by not being scared of becoming a beggar, less and less people will claim it and it'll be even easier.
Go to library and get some books to read. Many economists think it can work. Even Milton Friedman had an approach to this.
Nivesh Proag people thought that rich people wouldn't collect social security because they don't need it. They were wrong. Even Bill Gates collects a SS check. It turns out that people will take an opportunity to line their pockets if given the chance. I like UBI, but it's going to have to have a little bit of insulation from free will and lean toward obligation. Rather than saying, yes, I'll take that money, it should be automatic: you made this much, you do not meet UBI standards.
The ussofa and the corporate rulers at the top have more money than they know what to do with...as Ronnie Reagan said its trickle down..it will trickle down from the businesses to the people and the government will save on the vast emergency resources now going to welfare and emergency housing etc etc