basic income thread? basic income thread. http://www.thegu

>>1014466
I think it will eventually happen just from job loss from automation.

Products from jobs that can't be automated will most likely go through some huge inflation as the low skill labor force would rather stay at home and smoke pot all day ... just living off of the basic income. Forcing owners to raise wages or just go out of business?

You'd still have poorfags blowing it on casinos, hookers, and meth. It won't solve proverty.

>>1014473
*poverty

HOL UP SO WHAT U BE SAYIN IS.... I GET FREE SHEEEEEIT?

>>1014466
We full commie now?

>>1014473

maybe entertainment industries will explode. with hordes of dumb people now sitting around at home 24/7 watching tv, playing vidya (nothing against vidya in principle, i play a shitton myself) and rotting away.

i think low intelligence people will always be there for smart businessmen to farm.

File: goldman_sachs.jpg (80KB, 865x967px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 865x967px

they will implement 800€ basic income in finland 2017-2018. What's funny, that will actually lower the government paychecks paid as currently the unemployed gets 1000€ + all kinds of living cost payments.

how it works is that everybody gets the 800€ and income over that will be taxed with 40-50%. so people earning lets say 30k will be taxed close to their current tax rates.

i personally dont think it will work because people will flee to thailand etc. and just live off the 800 monthly like a king lol.

>>1014473
No it won't, the economy and job market will shift like it did in the 17th century with the industrial revolution, expect programming to become the new manufacturing I'd say

Giving away free money would raise inflation, wouldn't it?

Basic income = take money from productive whites and give it to unproductive niggers. "basic income" is just the new trendy term for welfare.

>>1014559
this

>>1014466

The only issue there is if it's enough to support a modest life, will anyone actually work to contribute to society?

I mean, if I could internet all day, afford ammunition for my firearms, and keep this house propped up with the assistance of my family, why would I work?

I would argue that lowering taxes is a better solution than a basic income, but what do I know?

>>1014559
Taxes.

>>1014466
this sounds dangerous and retarded. where does all that fucking money come from?

also, wouldn't this essentially be fueling neets as now they won't even need their parents around to keep being useless wastes of resources?

>>1014466

Retarded socialist crap.

>>1014588
Nothing at all some would argue. People are irresponsible and lazy as fuck. They don't know how to deal with saving their money, hell people use their tax returns to go on trips and buy new commodities instead of helping pay off that $20,000 loan. If you give people more money in their everyday life they just increase their spending. If you give them a basic income and there's no welfare they're more likely to use it responsibly. I disagree with basic income based on the principle of it, but people are fucking dumb as shit and need things spoonfed to them.

File: tumblr_m8vg8tot361rxqqbzo1_500[1].jpg (43KB, 500x341px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x341px

>>1014702

This. Plus, leads to inflation. Plus, leads to gradual increases over time on the basic income expenditure as lazy poor people keep voting for more and more.

>>1014725
How exactly does this lead to inflation? Independent of lazy people voting? I'm not trying to argue, just understand

>>1014727

Landlords know what the minimum income of people is and can raise rent accordingly.

>>1014728
Fair enough. Didn't think about that. Thanks

>>1014728
Wouldn't this factor in to the amount people get? Surely the market price for a low end apartment would be one of the things they indexed the income to. Or at least based it off of.

>>1014741

Yes, it's an inflationary spiral as they both build off of each other. Basic income goes up? Rent goes up. Rent goes up? Basic income goes up? Rinse and repeat.

>>1014585
I think that's irrelevant. There will always be parasites but those who don't contribute are much rarer than you think. That said, there could be offer forms of help, like subsidized housing or free secondary education or vocational training.

>>1014765

It does have some relevance. The government needs to make money off of a certain amount of people to provide that money, or else they really can just print more money and everything about economics that we know is a lie created to control us and even the rich, really.

>>1014702
Many developed countries already give welfare to those people now, and their unemployment is not different to the countries without it.

However, this is a step up from welfare. It costs less money for the government for the amount given out, due to the lack of bureaucracy. It also prevents poverty traps by letting people working low paid jobs to keep the money rather than losing it to the reduction in benefits when their wage increases.

>>1014466
The problem with these labor side interventions on the behalf of the government is that they make it difficult to react to things external to the domestic market, unless of course there is some kind of powerful multinational group associated with the US (it isn't NATO or the UN rather NASDAQ or NYSE). The trade off to having these powerful groups "protecting" the US is that they have a tendency to fuck everybody who isn't them or their buddy.

Our options, if you believe extremely cynical policy makers, are to either be fucked by our own people or get fucked by foreign people. It might be better to ignore current analysts and go back to labor side intervention coupled with massive public works spending, since it doesn't seem to make anyone friendlier to us when we try to preemptively fuck them. Doing so might really be the downfall of American hegemony though.

>>1014772
People will get their basic necessities taken care of, and everything else will have to be worked for. That means if you want luxury goods or services not provided through the government you will need to get a job. I think that means the majority of people will work. As far as paying for public goods the government can spend as much as it wants as long as they don't create excessive inflation, which is admittedly a pretty soft cap on spending (totally arbitrary).

Now as far as people squandering their allotment, or generally acting self-destructive, they will either
a) Be taken care of by their now less financially burdened family/friends/neighbors/community
or
b) The government will need to create a program to manage them
or lastly
c) They get fucked because there aren't that many of them and they don't participate in the system

>>1014743
The government could just put in rent control or offer cheaper public housing to compete

>>1014466
The unique opportunity of huge turnover ratios when people don't feel like they're being catered too on every whim. Basic income is a terrible idea and no /biz/raeli would advocate for it, nor should any other sane party.

>>1014785

>The government could just put in rent control or offer cheaper public housing to compete

Oh yeah wow, this is genius, government price controls. Boy this just keeps getting better and better!

Idiots.

Lol get a job Bernie fags

No one is paying for your shit and after we build the wall, you and Desmondo are going behind it

>>1014807
Why is it dumb? Rent controls have been used before to prevent practices that occur when supply is prevented from expanding, or landlords just get greedy.

Oh wait are you a "Government can't do anything right" kind of guy? We should really let companies like Enron run amok buying up public goods, that can't possibly go wrong.

>>1014466
Anybody else have the opinion that eitc and child tax credit are essentially basic income already?

>>1014820
>Rent controls have been used before to prevent practices that occur when supply is prevented from expanding

Because zoning regs hold expansion back.

>>1014820

Government intervention hurts efficiency, violates property rights, and creates artificial bubbles.

But don't let that stop your socialist utopida fantasies.

>>1014466
It would work in a county that is both rational and compassionate. Unfortunately the United States today is neither. Too many value not what they have but what others do not have. Thus, any system that allows others to have real choices driven by forces other than fear or misery will be met with howls of rage. Don't believe me? Look at the dynamics of health care or unions or unemployment. The arguments against all distill down to "if I can't have it, then nobody should, and this equal misery is totally different from the equal misery of anti-socialist rhetoric I parrot."

>>1014576
its a lot cheaper than giving out
>welfare check
>medicare
>school subsidies
>health insurance mandate
>etc

the idea behind basic income is, fuck the welfare state, here's your fucking paycheck so nobody can tell me I don't care about the starving children anymore but we're getting rid of everything else so if you want fucking health insurance call a fucking insurance broker you stupid nigger

the more enlightened versions have some pretty transformational implications desu. like giving 800/mo to everyone but only over-18s can touch the cash meaning 18 years worth of capital accumulation for every citizen.

if nothing else it would save us the threads about
>how does start business without money /biz/??

>>1014722

Milton Friedman was one of the main backers of basic income

what now anon?

>>1014886

I haven't said anything about Milton Friedman. Who here is talking about Milton Friedman?

>>1014884

No, it's not cheaper. There is no free lunch. You're rolling with an either/or fallacy. I'll go with my third option: none of the above.

And it doesn't matter what you call it: welfare, basic income, whatever. It's wealth redistribution and carries all the same problems.

You stupid faggot.

>>1014884

this guy gets it. the whole idea makes sense because the infrastructure needed to sustain the current welfare systems costs about the same as just giving everyone their basic income 'no questions asked'.

personally i think it should NOT be unconditional. age being the first factor to come to mind. but maybe citizenship should be a factor too. i don't want my beautiful country overrun by uneducated muslims or any other group of people whose ideals so oppose that of the host country.

>era of low interest rates and low inflation
>fed pumps trillions of dollars into the market and no inflationary impact

>basic income is pointless because it will get eaten up by inflation

Seriously fuck off, retards.

>>1014851
Profit is waste too, kiddo.

File: 1438465384745.gif (2MB, 360x238px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x238px

>>1014898

>>1014884
This is the only good argument I've seen for basic income.

>>1014893
It's redistribution, yes, but in pure currency. The wealthy, who pay off their cost of living with their job, take the basic income as pure profits. 18 year olds will finally have college funds or business capital. This actually seems like a decent idea. It'll never happen, but it's the best push for it yet.

A lot of poverty activists think that affordable/subsidized housing is more important than a basic income. Real estate and housing expenses are a large portion of household budgets and it is more efficient to manage housing that is higher density and through single management organization.

It's an example of a good government service that maximizes efficiency in dollars spent and provides real results for those in need.

>>1014893

I never said these were the only two social protection models available to humanity

you cockswallowing mouthbreather

the savings come from not having to pay whichever government department hands out welfare in whatever shitty country raises niggers like you.

that's a lot of overhead, but I don't expect dogmatic jizzlickers like you to get it

>he'd rather keep the system that has us $50 Trn in debt+unfunded liabilities

>>1014500
>people will flee to thailand etc.

In my country if you are getting UnemploymentBUX you have to show your face every 14 days in the unemployment office or they cut your shit

>>1014952
Pay a lookalike to collect for you, for a cut, problem solved.

>>1014466
I feel like it has an enormous amount of potential and will likely be necessary in some form eventually, due to automation eliminating low-skill jobs.

I also believe that, if you actually want it to work well, it has to be implemented and maintained with the utmost skill and care.

There are so many things that could ruin the system, which you'd have to counteract in the beginning and the long term:
>what's to keep the people and/or businesses who pay more into the system than they receive from moving somewhere else with a tax system more favorable to them?
>what's to prevent a massive influx of foreigners (likely from shitty poor countries) who want free money from coming and throwing the system off balance?
>how do you prevent the price(s) of everything from rocketing up to match the basic income level?
>how do you decide exactly how much everyone should get? Too low and it's worthless, too much and it bankrupts all the net contributors and destroys the system
>shouldn't people living in places with a higher cost of living get more? How much more? What's to prevent people from moving to these places for larger checks?
>if you don't make allowances for cost of living, what's to prevent everyone moving out of expensive cities and/or into poorer ones to maximize their spending money after paying for cost of living?

I think all these problems are solvable, but it certainly won't be easy. If I were running a country considering implementing this, I would want tons of different studies done beforehand to see unexpected effects and help figure out the best way to do it. Especially in a culture with a burning hatred of "lazy" people, like the U.S.

None of this matters, WW3 will hit before basic income. US is supporting the rebels in Syria, Russia is supporting Assad, both of them can kill the other's faction and pass it off like they meant to attack the third faction (ISIS). Eventually the proxy war will become a real war.

>>1014466
Where does the money for basic income come from?

>>1014851

How about we take away your brain and let every cell in your body do whatever it wants because centralization is such a terrible evil?

>>1014884
>"the idea behind basic income is, fuck the welfare state"
Fuck the welfare state by making it an unqualified right?

>"so nobody can tell me I don't care about the starving children anymore"
It never ends anon. You already have people bitching about how they aren't rich enough living on welfare. You really think a unified check every month is going to make people happy with what they have?

At the end of the day you're still paying people to be unproductive lumps.

File: Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.png (103KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x600px

>>1014466

The problem with this, as it is with welfare in the USA, is that it incentives people to have children just for money.

Unless you also implement a child limit policy, you will have people popping out kids just for more money, who will grow up to spawn more kids to get more money, and so on until you have a huge population that does nothing but reproduce at super high rates for benefits.

I agree that with automation and the mess that is the welfare state, it will be something that is needed soon.

I also think that if there was Basic Income, you would have less people working full-time, and more people who work only a little so as to feel like they have a purpose(see: elderly on Social Security who work as greeters). You would get more people that work because they want to, not because they have to, and it would increase the quality of workers as well as shrink the labor pool(may also increase wages for those who still are working).

Personally I would like it as it would leave me free to pursue my hobbies, or have more time to pursue higher education. That's not to say I would not continue to work-but I would feel less daily stress and pressure to find whatever work is possible instead of finding somewhere I actually want to work.

>>1015769
>tfw missing sex, security, and all of the belonging tier.

The top of that pyramid is not there.

File: 1450944679034.jpg (103KB, 831x762px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 831x762px

I think the basic income should also be somehow protected by law against debt collection - i.e. it can't be used as debt payment method.

Otherwise you will have bank industry riding the gravy train and consuming it all through predatory lending and indebted idiots not having any money to buy food and shelter despite this socialist utopia.

>what unique opportunities arise from having a population that receives basic income?
If such laws aren't implement become a credit banker.

>>1014896
I'm with you to be honest. I don't think basic income is a good idea at all, but the edgy 17 year olds that think they know their economics are just painful to listen to

I'm ok with it. I just think that for people who actually work it should just be there first $10,000 (or whatever amount) earned tax free. No point in paying a middleman to give people their money back

>>1015769
>huge population that does nothing but reproduce at super high rates for benefits

this is spot on. and it would be precisely the 'problematic' part of the population that has zero desire to do anything productive, ever. a tough problem to solve in the age of political correctness.

>>1015854
That is already the case in the UK. A basic income would still be cheaper than the various benefits that are given out.

File: penguin.jpg (56KB, 1280x702px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1280x702px

>>1015833

If you work your job and are happy with it, you have purpose, which I feel falls under self-actualization(in the problem solving category, imo).

>>1015883

Yeah. It's a joke idea, but offering a lump sum of cash for sterilization could be a possible way to fix this. A child-limit policy sounds sensible, but then you run into-what happens if people have more children? Do you fine them, remove the children? How do you even enforce that? What about populations like the Amish, that survive based on having large families to work in their communities?

I always hate to put it this way, but it's accurate. It's the same problem with feral cats. They reproduce wildly because they aren't neutered,and someone has to take care of all those kittens. If those kittens aren't taken care of and spayed/fixed, they will also reproduce wildly. I don't want to say I don't have faith in people, but I would rather err on caution when it comes to people.

I wish we could end political correctness, so we could actually talk about these problems instead of tip-toeing around them.

>>1015883
>>1016126

The populations for most first world countries have been shrinking, most countries have to import citizens in order to continue to grow. Millennials are already skipping out on marriage/having kids because they can't afford it.

And you want to start a sterilization program for poors?

Stop pretending the government is the root of all evil and let's at least try to live in a society that isn't Orwellian and built to serve the ultra-rich, you fucking cucks.

This is such a waste of time. The country cant even decide on a 15/hr wage increase.
W A S T E
A
S
T
E

>>1016142

Hopefully they ban that shit. My $12 an hour job isn't going to go up to $24 if they raise the minimum wage to $15.

>>1015747

too deep for this board anon

>>1014502
But programming greatly benefits from having a small number of highly skilled individuals over a mass of low level monkeys. That way you end up creating systems that are far easier to manage.

>>1014886
I like that both the far right and the radical left love the idea.

>>1016138

Perhaps those countries should encourage their own to marry and have families instead of importing citizens? I know of some eastern European countries that are already putting such things into effect-where a couple will get a lump sum of cash(amount to buying a house) if they agree to have 3 children within the next 10 years.

It is not sterilization for the poor, it's sterilization for anyone that wants it. There are many men right now that would not want to bother with marriage, and I'm sure would be happy to take a few thousand dollars in exchange for being sterilized-or whatever amount is negotiated.

How is any of what I previously said supposed to serve the ultra rich? And how did I say the government was the root of all evil?

All I am saying is that we have a benefits feedback loop when it comes to reproducing, and all that is going to do is create more people that are likely going to behave the same way. I've already seen it-a mother on benefits, and a pregnant teenage daughter that shall surely be on benefits as well. We have multiple generations being raised to behave and do things a certain way so they can life off benefits-this is unsustainable and needs changed.
There is a difference between a newlywed couple who are working and want to have children, and someone who is unemployed and on benefits having children when they clearly can't afford it.

>>1016727
In a country in which the median wage per person is $26k, is it affordable for any family unit to raise a child? Do you think your daddy sustain you, your mother who takes care of you (lest you spend a fortune on childcare), and your brother/sister on $26k? Oh by the way, if you earn less than $24k, you're eligible for food stamps, and thus cannot afford to have kids according to you.

Sorry, half of America, you're all wastes of space who should never breed! Hopefully you die tomorrow to save us taxpayers a quick buck!

>>1017083
>Implying half the world population dying off is a bad thing
We'd be perfectly fine, it would literally be the same population numbers we had in 1965.

>>1017083

If you're going to try to appeal to emotion please try to have some better arguments.

You also seem to be ignoring my previous statements on how the welfare system in the USA is fucked(welfare cliff).
Why should someone who is on assistance have children? If they clearly do not have the means to take care of themselves, how on earth can they have the means to take care of a child? And why should other people foot the bill? I understand it is not the child's fault, but if we keep throwing money at people who have children, they are going to keep having children. Do you think those kinds of people give a shit about the welfare of the child? There are clearly some moral problems that are not being addressed-and they will keep growing and compounding until we honestly talk about the issue.

Yes, bad things happen, and sometimes people need help. There is a difference between a widow and a baby-mama who doesn't know who the father of her 3 children are. There is a difference between a family where the breadwinner was laid off, and a family that has never worked. There are people who abuse the welfare system, and people who honestly need it. We need to be able to determine that better.

It can be argued that overpopulation has caused a lot of issues, globally. A lower population in the USA would lower the supply of labor, and increase wages(unless there is unchecked immigration that fills in those spots). It would raise the standard of living for everyone. It's not a taxpayer problem, it's a societal problem that affects all of us.

>>1017202
I like that you're pragmatic, people don't practice that enough. The bottom line is somebody's going to suffer for all these extra kids being produced and raised dubiously. We can't just put on rose-colored glasses and pretend the problem isn't there.

For many of us we grew up in a early-generational life in North America where growth was normal and space was everywhere. But as humans do, we have saturated this continent as well and that means our approach has to change.

I wonder if the third-world-ization of western nations is some kind of conspiracy or it it's just the outcome of a gentrified socio-political state. If a system fights against its tendency to correct, the correction becomes inevitable and deep.

>>1017276
Thank you; I appreciate that. I used to be a lot more emotional about things, but after a while I realized it wasn't fixing anything. Feelings don't fix things, logical solutions fix things.

Hard times make strong people, strong people make good times, good times make soft people, and soft people make hard times.
We're at the end of that equation, where soft people who have enjoyed life are in charge, and cannot make the hard decisions and talk honestly about problems to fix them. We're already deep in hard times, and you are already seeing rumblings of worse across Europe and the ME.

Growth in 3rd world countries has skyrocketed and no one is willing to discuss it. Instead, I see more people in 1st world countries who say they themselves need to carry the burden of overpopulation and not have children-not India, China, or Africa. I can't be sure if it's a conspiracy, or just that everyone is so fueled by feelings and emotions that there's no room for pragmatic thinking. And you're right; the system is trying to correct and people aren't letting it. And just like the crash of 2008 getting extended into today, it's only going to be worse if not allowed to happen.

It's too expensive.

If we gutted absolutely all government expenditures at the federal level, we'd have 11.5k USD for each person in the US per year. We're not going to gut the military, education and social security/healthcare for old people anytime soon (which is dumb — old people should be sacrificing for the young more in my opinion). The only other option is to spend more.

We could give everyone 5k USD per year at a cost of 1.6 trillion dollars to the federal government. Taxes across the board would have to be raised by 43% of their current levels.

The top bracket would go from 35% to 50%. This is basically what Bernie Sanders wants to do, but the vast majority of the rich are strongly opposed. I think we could give people a couple thousand dollars a year by massively cutting defense and medicare, though. It's still not a livable amount, but it would help.

File: 1373889868629.gif (2MB, 331x248px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x248px

>>1017202
The real appeal to emotion here is the constant bringing up of the "welfare queen" meme, when according to the Department of Labour, only about 1 in 40 people abuse welfare fraud. I guess if it makes you feel better that no one abuses the system it must be better for society, right?

>>1017308
I don't mean to change the topic, but I wish I had a solution for the "not having kids" quandary.

>both parents work and lose intimacy with one another
>kids are raised by public school, daycare, and probably at least one step parent
>a man is basically a sperm donor charged with providing for a child he can barely raise or instill with virtuous values
>family court bias
>bitches ain't loyal
>fear that the world may be entering a truly dark period of resource wars, climate change, police state expansion, and general strife that makes the horror of the 20th century look quaint

The only thing I can think of is to try to make a bunch of money and try to find a younger woman in the Ozarks or from East Africa or something.

>>1017338

The top bracket going to 50% is horrifying and I say this as a poor fag.

>>1017843
>according to the Department of Labour, only about 1 in 40 people abuse welfare fraud.
>according to the department of labour

Literally just laughed out loud at you

>>1017338
Presumably, you wouldn't literally spread the money to every single person in the country. It would have to be more like a negative income tax. And probably account for existing assets so that people with millions in property can't go "lol I only make 15k/year from my investments"

And yeah, you would have to stop the massive programs that pander to elderly voters, roll social security into the new plan, etc. Employers would no longer have to pay for unemployment insurance and worker's comp, and especially with a single payer healthcare system, roll traditional benefits back to zilch.

You're also neglecting corporate tax. Reform the tax system so that companies
>actually pay tax
>don't have to or aren't allowed to spend like mad hiring accountants and compliance people to weasel out of what they owe

I imagine it would be a big boon to rural areas. Lots of people might take up homesteading or just living somewhere chill and inexpensive.

>>1014466
I assume a basic income will result in a rise in the cost of living to essentially negate the basic income - e.g. if it were $15,000 then the cost of essential items will raise to eat away that $15,000.

Well that's essentially what happened when Australia introduced a "First Homeowners Grant" - a 'helpful' monetary grant to help buy houses which sellers simply built into their 'new' sale price (e.g. a $300k house was subsequently listed for $310k)

>>1018771
I imagine we'd meet somewhere in the middle. Prices would rise a bit, but many people would be lifted out of poverty. Remember that we already have a rube goldberg machine of benefits and tax breaks designed to keep people from starving in the streets, while letting irrational conservatives pretend we live in a capitalist nation.

I'm not an expert, but I don't think the bottom of the market would have such a dramatic effect. You could also step up the benefits over decades.

I'll be interested to see how it works out in smaller countries first... I think the US is just too big of a juggernaut to experiment like that. Perhaps a state like Minnesota or Oregon will experiment with something akin to basic income.

What worries me most is that it will be the final nail in the coffin for traditional family and the uniquely American spirit of independence... but it seems like both of those things have passed into legend already, and we can't turn back time. Perhaps, freed from the bondage of just trying to survive, we'd come up with something better.

>>1014489
AAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW

SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT


never happening

>>1018788

Capitalism has made this country rediculously easy to survive in. Go to Walmart and look around. The cost of the basic necessities for a week require like 5 hours of work. The poorest faggots I know still have cars or plasma TVs.

True poverty doesn't even really exist in this country. What we have is an economists definition of poverty that is based on percentages. If you don't have a legit disability or mental problem it's trivially easy to survive.

>>1018809

well... the big ass 55 inch plasma TV and pimped out ricer wigger car are the two tell tale signs of the subhuman low iq poorcel.

>>1018815

That's the point. Even these retards do okay. Why would anyone think it's a system that needs to be massively overhauled especially considering every alternative has been an absolute failure.

>>1018764
> Lots of people might take up homesteading or just living somewhere chill and inexpensive.

That's pretty much what I'm already doing. It's the only way to survive if you make under 100k a year in the USA these days and don't want to end up in massive debt.

The problem with fixing the corporate ax loopholes are that corporations pretty much own the government. It's pretty sickening, really. It's to the point that the only way the government really listens to anything is if enough people band together to make a non-profit corporation that says "stop doing that crap." and, even then, it's an uphill fight as nonprofits don't have millions to give out in "gifts". The only way this would ever possibly get passed is if somehow the amount lost to taxes was way less than the income generated by a basic income law being passed.

>>1018788
>the final nail in the coffin for traditional family
The final nail in the coffin was feminism, when women wanted to work. Corporations agreed, prices adjusted to double-income housholds, and women can't afford NOT to work.

Before there were less workers (men only), so a much higher demand, and higher pay. Now there's less pay for the same work, both parents are stressed out, and nobody has time to look after the child.

File: 1399046489884.png (186KB, 1000x841px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1000x841px

>>1018732
Go back to /pol/.

>>1018959

Nobody ever paid that you retard. It was easy to get out of taxes back in the day.

At 50% tax you're a minority share holder in your own life and should go ahead and kill yourself.

>>1014466
>guardian

Its the fucking eu liberals. They want to destroy individual Europeans countries and whats the better way than bribe their residents, make them lazy and complacent with free money, also attract millions of shitskins from 3rd world countries who can barely read and pay them fucking "basic income", shit eu dont even pretend that thay gonna integrate them.
Given how ECB become has become the new fed and started printing euro like there is no tomorrow without any consequences I lost all fucking hope of eu ever collapsing.

File: keanu-reeves-whoa.jpg (11KB, 299x274px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 299x274px

>>1018961
>At 50% tax you're a minority share holder in your own life

>>1018961
If it's so easy to evade taxes, why do people care so much about lowering them?

>>1018987
Because only the wealthy can really evade them. Evading taxes is expensive so anyone not rich can't do it without getting caught.

>>1018927
Pretty much this. I have no issue with women who want to be financially independent themselves, but the pressure on everyone else to 'do it all' is absolutely stupid and counter to the freedom feminism originally aimed to achieve. The effect on housing especially is disastrous, as it makes actual independence much more difficult. What's worse is that most women either can't or wont work in a large class of production intensive jobs, while the ones that they were good at have largely been phased out by technology. So a larger proportion of women end up working in things like administration and caring anyway.

>>1014466
Basic income:

>let's steal from hardworking individuals to fund laziness

File: 1444299227494.jpg (47KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1024x683px

basic income will fuck up any nation that uses it and it's flawed from all sides

if you simply feel bad for your citizens for being homeless and starving -> make a card that can only pay food and rent

make specific cheap buildings where these poor retards can rot away from the civilization.

I am "poor"(not really, I am mid, but I consider mids to be poor, its either top or bottom for me) and I don't want the basic income. it will just induce more stupidity and less intention into making and giving something to humanity, thus regression as an entire specie making us more dependant and retarded in few years time just for having free food free sex free games free house, and hippy life.

If the reason for this "basic income" meme is to; give a chance to those poor but intellient and infamous people who are "REALLY" intelligent but weren't ever given the chance and opportunity in life, maybe they are not that intelligent, therebefore a test should be done for free to each person, thus increasing the intelligence of a nation if they meet the criteria.

instead of wasting money into "basic income", spend it into promoting free school, books, trials, tests for people to learn. spend that "basic income" funds into well prepared teachers or shit teachers (as they are right now, because you learn faster with internet, because of their manners for expression/teaching their students)


Citizens taking free money on a monthly basis, will flee to Thailand or other poorer countries as already happens from Swedish (I think they were Swedish) citizens, as I met a group of them in Thailand last year...

Thus then transfering that basic income from "basic income country A" to "poor country which happily accepts country's A citizens for their easy basic income funds"

Flawed even more, I could write an economics book.

I want to think the basic income shit is just propaganda,don't believe it, only retards would give "free lunch" to everybody(because there is nothing as a free lunch)

>>1019081
>its either top or bottom for me
Faggot.

>>1019081
Its a part of much bigger agenda and the rich jewish, bilderberg group and american and european financial institutions will support this. And other countries will join them because otherwise they will not get included in international trade agrements, various treaties etc.

>>1019096
Ok so what do the rich jewish, bilderberg, etc get from giving free money to cock roaches?
If the total sum of money in the world is not rigged/static and they will print money out of thin air for the poor people to live, then thats inflation.

I don't see it working if I was them. again, what do they get from giving free money?

>>1019099
Staving off a revolution until they can get off the planet.

Basic income is retarded

Welfare will never be removed in the US. This is something the BI NEETS are lying to you about.

BI is nothing more than creating complete government dependency

>>1019104
satving a revolution? WHAT? how is giving free money to poor rats going to create a revolution? while that will make them happy with coke/meth/mdma/lsd/sex/free food/rent without having to work?

sure I am the type of "Machines should do the work and People should think" but this is not the way to do it, lol.

>>1019105
Sorry I am not US. how is welfare? care to give an article? thanks anon

>>1019113
>how is giving free money to poor rats going to create a revolution?
It's not, that's why they're doing it. Give them free money before it becomes a problem, now no revolution, bam. They can have a higher wealth gap than ever before but history won't repeat itself because this time the poor think they have something to lose.

>>1019081
As other posters have mentioned, means testing and setting up restrictions costs money and introduces government bureaucracy. Instead of hiring administrators you can just give people cash and have more to go around, and it would be more efficient. As you have mentioned, there is no free lunch. This is the major draw of basic income.

You'd think traditional conservatives who buy into the limited government shtick would be in to, you know, limited government.

>>1019099
Compliance, voters etc and if person refuses to comply then no more free money for him/her. Its like credit cards again but credit card slavery has run its course. Average burger is like 50k in debt. 50k or 100k it makes no difference, people dont care anymore so the jews came with the new plan. Just give everyone free money, money that will be spent buying useless shit from the same jews, money that will not be saved but spent almost instantly.

>>1014884
>like giving 800/mo to everyone but only over-18s can touch the cash meaning 18 years worth of capital accumulation for every citizen.
Honestly at the very least it should be given to every child under 18 like a college fund.
Or just make college cheaper/free.

>>1019122
Because price controls have always worked out well everywhere they've been tried... actually they've never worked anywhere.

Making a law that dictates the price of something is a sure way to wreck the market for that thing.

>>1014502
It's uneducated posters like this that really make this board worthless to discuss any kind of topic.

These people don't even understand the core concept of automation.

>>1019338
Education doesn't work the same way that other commodities do, and you are right commodity price controls rarely work. Education is like healthcare, or real estate, or insurance in that if you don't have access to it you are totally fucked and will just be a drain on the economy, because of this it makes sense for the government to pay for it (which it already sort of does). A problem that occurs is that when these services are privatized the private sector can charge huge amounts of money that no one can normally pay, and then reap a big profit because the government steps in to subsidize it. The problem is that those subsidies are paid for with tax dollars so the people who get an education end up paying the massively inflated price anyway, through either taxes or cuts to other services, and ultimately demand for college education goes down because less people can afford even the subsidized price.

This is the problem of rent seeking behavior in economies that was recognized as one of the biggest obstacles to industrial capitalism by... pretty much everyone up until recently. What should be done though isn't to just dump more money on people, because it would just go to paying off the debt that they've accrued, but rather directly alleviate their debt so that it doesn't just eat up all of their income and then make it so that massive debt doesn't just accumulate again.

You've got the same deal with real estate and insurance in that people can't pay for it and end up buried under a mountain of debt. It's stupid because the practice of lending money to people who can't pay it off will end up being a net loss for the lender unless they can get someone else to pay for it (the government), and then we get into the same problem.

The goal of all these people is ultimately to have all value produced in the economy to go toward servicing debt that they own.

>TLDR ayn rand was right fuck the moochers and the looters, industrialists rule!

>>1019122

Why the fuck are idiots like you on a business board just accept that you're going to be poor for the long haul and nothing will change it.

How about instead of taxing people so you can give them 25% of their money back, you just remove the income tax completely.

Now you can keep more of the money you earn.

>>1019587
That's a good idea and would normally make sense, but that increase in money kept by the average person will just go toward servicing debts. The problem right now is that people see taxes as being the only leech on their finances, and sometimes they are certainly a leech, while at the same time they hand over money to banks who do even less for them than the government.

I live in Utrecht.

The government already pays a lot more in health care insurance subsidization, money for rent, social housing and wellfare. So people will receive less then they already do. People will stop receiving anything besides a basic income, but in return the obligation to apply for a job to get wellfare will be lifted. They hope people will start developing initiatives out of themselves.

I think it's a stupid idea and most likely will result in more unemployed foreigners being drawn to the city. But it's a nice experiment. At least now we'll get some real evidence of what would happen.

>>1020115
Well, considering it's just an experiment people wont get drawn to it yet. But if it would be implemented for real it probably would.

>>1014466
i want to know what prevents the cost of goods from going up in response to this guaranteed money.

>>1014785
>The government could just put in rent control
so now what we have is a shortage of rental properties as owners sell off their assets to maximize their profits or convert apartments to condos

if landlords are forbidden from raising their rents to cover rising labor and tax costs, they will just move away from it.
not only that but how do you prevent the higher income areas from becoming depressed when landlords are forced to accommodate section 8 renters and are unable to raise rents to maintain their target clientele?

>>1020070

Maybe if the government didnt set interest rates so low people wouldnt aquire so much debt.

Honestly, if youre lending me money at 3% I will take as much as I possibly can. Give me 10 billion dollars of debt. Just fuck my shit up.

>>1020134
>if landlords are forbidden from raising their rents
Rent control isn't just a freeze on prices. Usually the local government has a regulatory committee that sets up rules that take into account the needs of the area. Those needs are not just those of the renters and the landlords they're also of local industries who need housing for their workers.

Rent controls provide a lot of benefits and don't force landlords to give away property at a loss like you seem to think. It still doesn't provide what is needed which is for the government to just take over the job of landlords and administer real estate without a middle man to sponge up money.

>i want to know what prevents the cost of goods from going up in response to this guaranteed money.
The producers of those goods wouldn't want to lose their market share to a competitor who doesn't raise their prices. Of course people who provide services that people can't go without can snatch up as much of that money as they want.

>>1020170

>this guy is seriously advocating rent controls

Why the fuck are you even on /biz/. Go on pol and talk about your venus project or whatever stupid shit you idiots are into these days.

>>1020170
>The producers of those goods wouldn't want to lose their market share to a competitor who doesn't raise their prices.

and yet whole foods, sprout, fresh market, etc are doing just fine even though they charge an exorbitant more for the same exact food that can be found at walmart.

the
>im not shopping there because bread costs $2 more
argument is invalid.

>>1020170
>what is needed which is for the government to just take over the job of landlords and administer real estate without a middle man to sponge up money.


so gov't becomes the middle man to sponge up money?


seriously, why would anyone own any property if the gov't is going to dictate to you 100% of everything you are and arent allowed to do to the property financially?

>>1020128

So far the answer looks like price controls. Of course once we have price controls we will be asking how keep from having runs on items that are priced incorrectly by the government. The answer will of course be rationing. We full commie now.

>>1020170

Goddamn you people live in a dream world

Let me guess, youre in college and have never had a real job or been involved in a real business. I know your college professors sound smart, but it's all fallacious propaganda

>>1020178
Any profit made by the landlord is waste.

Due to economies of scale, if you had a single governmental entity that controlled a whole bunch of buildings, there would be less administrative overhead. Thus lower prices, and more often than not, better service.

File: lol.png (76KB, 576x324px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 576x324px

>>1020326

you got greedy there with the last sentence.