(May 4, 2017 at 8:21 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Through robot slavery


atleast till the eventual uprising

Sounds like you have everything figured out.

I'd need a lot more details before I'd take a definite yes or no position. In general, I'm against it.

That much for 320 million Americans would be over 7.5 trillion dollars a year. The current federal budget is about 3 trillion a year, so that amount for that many people doesn't seem feasible. Make it just adults over 18 and that's about 6 trillion, still double the entire current budget. Universal doesn't seem to work for that amount of money.

If it was given to the 45 million poorest Americans, it would cost slightly over 1 trillion a year, doable with a relatively small tax hike if it replaces almost all current welfare spending.

I'm against it in general, I'm more in favour of targeted support for those who need it. As an example, I'm by no means wealthy, band my household income is just about the UK average - while extra money would if course be nice, I can't say that I actually need it; I get by, have my luxuries and manage to put a little aside in savings. If I quit smoking I'd be quids in.

The thought of myself and people better off than me getting government assistance that isn't really needed just seems wasteful imo.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

(May 4, 2017 at 9:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: That much for 320 million Americans would be over 7.5 trillion dollars a year. The current federal budget is about 3 trillion a year, so that amount for that many people doesn't seem feasible. Make it just adults over 18 and that's about 6 trillion, still double the entire current budget. Universal doesn't seem to work for that amount of money.

If it was given to the 45 million poorest Americans, it would cost slightly over 1 trillion a year, doable with a relatively small tax hike if it replaces almost all current welfare spending.

Yeah, but UBI isn't "pay every American $500 per week."

It is "make sure every person who meets a specific criteria makes at least $500 a week."

So, above 18, employed, training, or actively seeking employment. If you make minimum wage, your paycheck for a full workweek is subsidized. (And the company that paid you less than minimum wage pays a portion of that subsidy to encourage them to just pay you a livable wage)

I agree that five hundo is probably too much, but it could be a sliding scale based on family size and earners. So a married couple with two kids could combine for like $750/week where a single dude with no kids would cap out at $350 or something.

As was noted up above, the problem is the growing use of automation which will effectively unemploy millions of people.  One has to laugh when these phony republicunts start bitching about Mexicans taking jobs.  Robotics are the primary cause of job losses in manufacturing and it is spreading.

Think about what you will do when 20-25% of the population is permanently unemployed?  Even the ancient Romans understood that you can't have a large mass of idle people sitting around getting angry.  They devised "Bread and Circuses" to keep the problem in check and it was quite effective in controlling the city mob.

The 500 was just a number I threw in there without thinking too hard about it. You can lower the amount in your analyses as you see fit.

(May 4, 2017 at 11:43 am)Grandizer Wrote: The 500 was just a number I threw in there without thinking too hard about it. You can lower the amount in your analyses as you see fit.

Again, how would you fund something like this?

(May 4, 2017 at 12:03 pm)Isis Wrote:

(May 4, 2017 at 11:43 am)Grandizer Wrote: The 500 was just a number I threw in there without thinking too hard about it. You can lower the amount in your analyses as you see fit.

Again, how would you fund something like this?

Like I said in the original post, don't have a confident position on this. But increasing the tax, and adjusting government spendings, will help. I think the obstacle is more to do with whether or not enough people in power will agree to go through with the plan. And the psychological/financial consequences of such a plan being implemented.

I disagree with this completely. I'm not against helping those that need it temporarily but this whole living your entire life on money given to you from the government just because is not acceptable.

---

And I know $500 was just a random number but geez how much are you making to think that would be okay to just give away? Until January I wasn't making $500 a week and was making decent enough money to live on. Now I make just over that and with four weeks of that I'm throwing money at my loans like it's nothing. I might as well quit my job and just live off the government for $2k a month doing nothing.