The Entrepreneur Forum | Startups | Entrepreneurship | Starting a Business | Motivation | Success
  • Sell-Me Saturday is Now Live!

    Have something to sell? Like to post a video from your YouTube channel? Want to promote your design service? Recommend a company? SELL-ME SATURDAY is your opportunity to self-promote whatever you'd like within the realm of entrepreneurship on one central thread... and at no cost. Go There
    Note: Indiscriminate SEO backlinking to questionable material is not allowed.
  • It's back! As an INSIDER you can now SORT any thread by LIKES. See this post for more info.
  • Join 50,000+ entrepreneurs who are earning their freedom and living their dream.

    "Fastlane" is an entrepreneur discussion forum based on The C.E.N.T.S Framework outlined in the two best-selling books by MJ DeMarco (The Millionaire Fastlane and UNSCRIPTED®). From multimillionaires to digital nomads to side hustlers who are grinding a job, the Fastlane Forum features real entrepreneurs creating real businesses with one goal in mind: Freedom— both financial and temporal.

    Download (Unscripted) Download (Millionaire Fastlane) Register
    Registering for the forum removes this block.

OFF-TOPIC Time to shake things up: Universal Basic Income?

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
892
454
178
Holbeach Hurn
Also, some jobs require human sensitivities. It’s doubtful that people will want their psychologists or social workers to be machines.

Yes and see woebot.io people are prepared to give more information to the machine than the human,as they trust it only wants to help them and will avoid spreading info.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

srodrigo

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Sep 11, 2018
300
388
184
I'm against to both UBI and no taxes at all.

Against UBI: because in many countries people would just do nothing but being in the bar or on the beach. And loosing your job is not a reason to get UBI. Evolve or get extincted. "I'm 40+, I can't learn to do X (which actually means "I'm too lazy to put my neurons and butt to work")" - Ok, then starve to death.

Against no taxes at all: because spending a few hundred grand on treating your cancer, if you are unlucky enough to get one, means your bankruptcy and your family's. The are some basic and very expensive things that need to be guaranteed, specially for people who are unable to work (I mean people who are genuinely impeded, not people who cry at the doctor's and then go play paddle).
 

Justice Beaver

Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Apr 2, 2019
18
20
20
Austin, TX
I'm against to both UBI and no taxes at all.

Against UBI: because in many countries people would just do nothing but being in the bar or on the beach. And loosing your job is not a reason to get UBI. Evolve or get extincted. "I'm 40+, I can't learn to do X (which actually means "I'm too lazy to put my neurons and butt to work")" - Ok, then starve to death.

Against no taxes at all: because spending a few hundred grand on treating your cancer, if you are unlucky enough to get one, means your bankruptcy and your family's. The are some basic and very expensive things that need to be guaranteed, specially for people who are unable to work (I mean people who are genuinely impeded, not people who cry at the doctor's and then go play paddle).
Not sure what country you live in, but a $1k per month UBI in the US wouldn't be nearly enough to live comfortably without a job or some other income. That's still well below the poverty line meaning everyone would still feel incentivized to work. So idk if I'd consider that a legitimate argument, but to each their own I guess.
 

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
892
454
178
Holbeach Hurn
. The are some basic and very expensive things that need to be guaranteed, specially for people who are unable to work (I mean people who are genuinely impeded, not people who cry at the doctor's and then go play paddle).
The issue is; how do you reach the genuinely impeded and how do you tell?

Often people who are in need are ashamed to ask for help,and the lazy people are happy to lie (and better persuaders) than those in need.

Is it better to concentrate on preventing the lazy people at the expense of those in need or better to make sure everyone in need gets the help at the risk of giving help to lazy people who don't need it?
 

SamRussell

Silver Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Dec 3, 2018
330
501
236
UK
Against no taxes at all: because spending a few hundred grand on treating your cancer, if you are unlucky enough to get one, means your bankruptcy and your family's. The are some basic and very expensive things that need to be guaranteed, specially for people who are unable to work (I mean people who are genuinely impeded, not people who cry at the doctor's and then go play paddle).
Why must some basics be guaranteed?

If one person has a tragic misfortune in life, I can empathise with that, but why must I be held responsible for it?

I'm not against helping people, but I am against being forced to help people.
 

srodrigo

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Sep 11, 2018
300
388
184
Not sure what country you live in, but a $1k per month UBI in the US wouldn't be nearly enough to live comfortably without a job or some other income. That's still well below the poverty line meaning everyone would still feel incentivized to work. So idk if I'd consider that a legitimate argument, but to each their own I guess.
I'm European, we have a different view about this topic, and I understand why some people would disagree with me. Anyway, as I said I'm not in favour of UBI at all. Just don't let people die because they can't pay for cancer treatment, or they can't move from a bed.
The issue is; how do you reach the genuinely impeded and how do you tell?

Often people who are in need are ashamed to ask for help,and the lazy people are happy to lie (and better persuaders) than those in need.

Is it better to concentrate on preventing the lazy people at the expense of those in need or better to make sure everyone in need gets the help at the risk of giving help to lazy people who don't need it?
Indeed, there will always be people who lie to get benefits, and that's a problem. But given enough strictness, I want to think that they'll be a minority and most people would genuinely need the help the get.

It's similar to death sentence or being imprisoned for life. There's a minority of innocents who don't deserve the mistakes that happen, but usually the ones condemned are guilty. Should we remove death sentence or life imprisonment?

Why must some basics be guaranteed?

If one person has a tragic misfortune in life, I can empathise with that, but why must I be held responsible for it?

I'm not against helping people, but I am against being forced to help people.
I want to think that we are evolved animals and can help people who *really* need it, as a society. Obviously, not some Joe who prefers to watch TV and drink beer while getting benefits, rather than work on getting new skills to become employable again.
 

SamRussell

Silver Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Dec 3, 2018
330
501
236
UK
I want to think that we are evolved animals and can help people who *really* need it, as a society. Obviously, not some Joe who prefers to watch TV and drink beer while getting benefits, rather than work on getting new skills to become employable again.
People can, and do, help each other.

But, if one person doesn't want to help another, for whatever reason, why do you advocate forcing them to do so?
 

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
892
454
178
Holbeach Hurn
Should we remove death sentence?


I prefers to watch TV and drink beer while getting benefits, rather than work on getting new skills to become employable again.
In my opinion, yes we should remove the death sentence it is much easier to release people and expunge records when new evidence comes to light than to reverse their death.

Was it a us founding father who said "better a 100 guilty men go free than a single inmocent man be condemned "?

Based on the studies I also suspect the prefer to watch tv and drink beer segment is smaller than most think. Bearing in mind the current system encourages thst behaviour.

It looks at revenue not cashflow, so if you make a sale 3k on net 30, benefits are gone. No money,no rent for next 13 weeks.

Do it as a top up, e.g. cashflow too low, you get a top up and you give lots of people a leg up.

Perception is an issue too, way bettet to use emoloyer expense type cards(accepted just about every shop) because then expenditure can be watched and permissions automated so you can buy bread but not fireworks or caviar

However then people think it is a credit card and object to being saved money on welfare(perhaps the gov should have refunded the surplus to local taxpayers)

Or see how homeless charites point out that mobile phones(so cheap they are given away by carriers with airtime) are a major lifeline as they let them find and contact homeless people about resources available (about 80% of their job being finding the homeless in need) and gives them a number to be contacted for work

Yet people object to the homeless being given phones especially smart phones which can allow them to make job applictions or do gig work. That old smart phone is a modern day fishing rod for them,because now they can be finding the gig work, which they can use to buy a meal.

The objections make it harder for the charity to find donors or mobile carriers who will donate due to PR concerns.

While hampering the homeless attempts to get help(oh,they must be doing all right they have a smart phone)
 

srodrigo

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Sep 11, 2018
300
388
184
People can, and do, help each other.

But, if one person doesn't want to help another, for whatever reason, why do you advocate forcing them to do so?
We are forced to so many things that helping others is the least of the problems. I don't know in the US, but in at least a few European countries, not helping people (e.g. when there's an accident and you walk away) could get you in front of a judge. So I'm still unsure why other ways of helping some people look so bad (money, I guess).

I'm against most types of benefits, as it makes people lazy, but I think a minimum of health coverage is needed. You can do your best to live healthy, but you can still get a death sentence at the doctor's, and some treatments/operations are extremely expensive. I personally don't understand what's the problem with covering that, given we spend taxes in a lot of things, including the ones who decide what is taxed and where the money goes (nice irony). Some taxes are going to be there, I prefer them to go to saving lives than other things.

Apart from money, we are forced to many other things. Because, as a society, we have to be forced to follow rules (anarchy doesn't work). Helping others (either via taxes or law) looks like one of the least annoying ones to me. Example: I was forced to print, fill and scan some paperwork. I had to buy a scanner/printer for that (there will be more occasions). 40 quid gone (apart from another gadget filling up space) on something that could have been done by plain email text. I'd rather had spent that money on taxes if that went into the public health system to save the life of someone who can't spend a few hundred grand on treating a bad disease.
 

SamRussell

Silver Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Dec 3, 2018
330
501
236
UK
We are forced to so many things that helping others is the least of the problems. I don't know in the US, but in at least a few European countries, not helping people (e.g. when there's an accident and you walk away) could get you in front of a judge. So I'm still unsure why other ways of helping some people look so bad (money, I guess).

I'm against most types of benefits, as it makes people lazy, but I think a minimum of health coverage is needed. You can do your best to live healthy, but you can still get a death sentence at the doctor's, and some treatments/operations are extremely expensive. I personally don't understand what's the problem with covering that, given we spend taxes in a lot of things, including the ones who decide what is taxed and where the money goes (nice irony). Some taxes are going to be there, I prefer them to go to saving lives than other things.

Apart from money, we are forced to many other things. Because, as a society, we have to be forced to follow rules (anarchy doesn't work). Helping others (either via taxes or law) looks like one of the least annoying ones to me. Example: I was forced to print, fill and scan some paperwork. I had to buy a scanner/printer for that (there will be more occasions). 40 quid gone (apart from another gadget filling up space) on something that could have been done by plain email text. I'd rather had spent that money on taxes if that went into the public health system to save the life of someone who can't spend a few hundred grand on treating a bad disease.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant from a purely moral, not legal, perspective:

Why should one person be forced to help another?

"We are already forced to do stuff anyway", which is what I think your argument boils down to, doesn't seem like a convincing argument to me.

For me, this argument has two parts:
1. If your moral code involves forcing people to do something they don't want to do, that code of morality needs reconsidering. "I'm going to beat people into being better human beings" is the mantra of every champagne socialist and dictator through history. I've found that most people who think this way have some sort of hatred for their species.

2. How much of your life can be mortgaged to another mans needs? In your above example, if another man needs a heart operation to save his life, how much of your life should he be allowed to impact? Can he sell your house to cover it? After all, he needs a heart more than you need a house...
What about your childrens food? Surely they can skip a few meals so that he can have a new heart... ?

Bad things happen... that are not necessarily anyones fault. But that is a fact of reality... and 'bad luck' is not an open check to pillage the lives of others.

---

Having said that, I think most people would voluntarily help people out if they can. But again, it should be their choice... not yours.
 

srodrigo

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Sep 11, 2018
300
388
184
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant from a purely moral, not legal, perspective:

Why should one person be forced to help another?

"We are already forced to do stuff anyway", which is what I think your argument boils down to, doesn't seem like a convincing argument to me.

For me, this argument has two parts:
1. If your moral code involves forcing people to do something they don't want to do, that code of morality needs reconsidering. "I'm going to beat people into being better human beings" is the mantra of every champagne socialist and dictator through history. I've found that most people who think this way have some sort of hatred for their species.

2. How much of your life can be mortgaged to another mans needs? In your above example, if another man needs a heart operation to save his life, how much of your life should he be allowed to impact? Can he sell your house to cover it? After all, he needs a heart more than you need a house...
What about your childrens food? Surely they can skip a few meals so that he can have a new heart... ?

Bad things happen... that are not necessarily anyones fault. But that is a fact of reality... and 'bad luck' is not an open check to pillage the lives of others.

---

Having said that, I think most people would voluntarily help people out if they can. But again, it should be their choice... not yours.
I see what you mean, I didn't understand your point before, sorry.

I agree that we shouldn't be morally forced to help people.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

Devampre

Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Jan 6, 2016
107
88
67
24
Canada
I see UBI as a good thing as long as we can have programs in place that also help support people's environments and assist them with finding meaning/purpose and a path in life.
 

Guyfieri5

New Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Jul 13, 2019
3
1
15
Pittsburgh
Personally I don't see any reason we need UBI right now (or ever). While I agree automation will change our economy drastically, we're decades away from things like self-driving trucks. While large tech companies have invested billions in infrastructure (these trucks will need their own lanes outfitted with sensors and such spanning the nation), it will take decades to build it. The phase-out wont be sudden either. Companies face a lot of risk employing new self-driving technology, especially when their entire distribution chain will rely on it. The technology will roll out slowly over the span of decades giving employees affected time to relocate, retire, etc. Also keep in mind that the technology will be expensive to use too. Smaller companies may not have the capital to use self-driving trucks right away and will still employ drivers.
 
OP
OP
ChrisV

ChrisV

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 10, 2015
2,438
4,469
1,022
Islands of Calleja
Unfortunately I doubt this show will change their minds ... oh well, they can always vote for Bernie or Yang.
On a slight political derail, I was surprised to find Andrew Yang has had some decent entrepreneurial background, part of a team running a test prep company. Felt quite different from the others.
So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..

I actually like Yang. If you actually watch his Rogan interview he's really pro-entrepreneurship. Hands down the most pro-entrepreneur candidate in the lineup. He's a successful serial entrepreneur himself. Bernie is just a rich-people-hater.

Andrew Yang (born January 13, 1975) is an American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, entrepreneur, lawyer, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Venture for America (VFA), a nonprofit that focuses on creating jobs in struggling American cities. Yang worked in various startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive from 2000 to 2009. After he founded VFA in 2011, the Obama administration selected him in 2012 as a "Champion of Change" and in 2015 as a "Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship". Yang is the author of the 2014 book Smart People Should Build Things and the 2018 book The War on Normal People.
Anyway, not to get political... but I think Yang and Sanders are totally different candidates. Yang is rabidly pro-entrepreneurship.
 

ZF Lee

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jul 27, 2016
2,036
3,583
906
21
Malaysia
So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..

I actually like Yang. If you actually watch his Rogan interview he's really pro-entrepreneurship. Hands down the most pro-entrepreneur candidate in the lineup. He's a successful serial entrepreneur himself. Bernie is just a rich-people-hater.

Andrew Yang (born January 13, 1975) is an American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, entrepreneur, lawyer, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Venture for America (VFA), a nonprofit that focuses on creating jobs in struggling American cities. Yang worked in various startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive from 2000 to 2009. After he founded VFA in 2011, the Obama administration selected him in 2012 as a "Champion of Change" and in 2015 as a "Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship". Yang is the author of the 2014 book Smart People Should Build Things and the 2018 book The War on Normal People.
Anyway, not to get political... but I think Yang and Sanders are totally different candidates. Yang is rabidly pro-entrepreneurship.
Yup, I found that to be the case for Yang.

For Bernie, I found his concerns on solving healthcare issues legit, but I kept thinking about whether his plan might disrupt the usual market incentives for health service providers.
 

1step

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Dec 4, 2012
968
2,047
571
Kentucky
You can do your best to live healthy, but you can still get a death sentence at the doctor's, and some treatments/operations are extremely expensive. I personally don't understand what's the problem with covering that,
Are you ok also paying for all the health problems from people who smoke 3 packs a day? Or eat terrible diets?

I personally think the less government the better they are only good at messing things up
 

Ninjakid

Platinum Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 23, 2014
1,831
3,856
891
Buddy Guy Eh
So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..

I actually like Yang. If you actually watch his Rogan interview he's really pro-entrepreneurship. Hands down the most pro-entrepreneur candidate in the lineup. He's a successful serial entrepreneur himself. Bernie is just a rich-people-hater.

Andrew Yang (born January 13, 1975) is an American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, entrepreneur, lawyer, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Venture for America (VFA), a nonprofit that focuses on creating jobs in struggling American cities. Yang worked in various startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive from 2000 to 2009. After he founded VFA in 2011, the Obama administration selected him in 2012 as a "Champion of Change" and in 2015 as a "Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship". Yang is the author of the 2014 book Smart People Should Build Things and the 2018 book The War on Normal People.
Anyway, not to get political... but I think Yang and Sanders are totally different candidates. Yang is rabidly pro-entrepreneurship.
I really like Andrew Yang too. Andrew Yang's stance on UBI is that the $1000 to each person is less expensive than how much it costs to lock people up and deal with additions and other aspect of poverty. People who think he's just giving away free money, he's not.
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
564
496
224
Singapore
I really like Andrew Yang too. Andrew Yang's stance on UBI is that the $1000 to each person is less expensive than how much it costs to lock people up and deal with additions and other aspect of poverty. People who think he's just giving away free money, he's not.
Yang wants to use ubi to replace other welfare. While ubi is going to cost a lot for sure there is going to be a lot less waste elsewhere not just in term of spending but also bureaucrats who monitor the clauses and the strings attached.

Universal health insurance is going to lower the total health care cost also.

UBI is really a “chips on the tables capitalism”. Okay now you don't start with nothing. So no more complaints and no more welfare and no more redistribution. Let us run free market competition now. At least thats the undertone of his vision, in theory. I like the theory of it.

When it comes to execution I have more concerns. I think 1k a month is too much as a pilot test. We really should start with 500. I dont think VAT is going to cover this fiscal hole as Yang confidently think so. The easy money and high valuation in wall street gave silicon valley new business models he ability to thrive in the market longer than it should. Amazon made most money from cloud services. There is still uncertainty about the long term profitability of ecommerce transaction without investor burning their cash. VAT might just kill the business.
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
564
496
224
Singapore
Are you ok also paying for all the health problems from people who smoke 3 packs a day? Or eat terrible diets?

I personally think the less government the better they are only good at messing things up
I am in the insurance business. The consensus is that a basic universal coverage for medical insurance is by and large still very economic choice for public health for following reasons.

-The government health ministry has a solid bargaining power for cheaper medical service and medical drug providers

-Eliminates information asymmetry and adverse selection. A lot of the cost on underwriting could be eliminated which could be better spend on coverage. This cannot happen unless everyone is forced to be enrolled in a program.

- The redistribution effect (from healthy to unhealthy people) is very small as the basic coverage still involve a substantial copayment, almost 50 percent of a 10k bill. Even the most healthy person stands to benefit due to economics of scale (previous two points).
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
564
496
224
Singapore
So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..

I actually like Yang. If you actually watch his Rogan interview he's really pro-entrepreneurship. Hands down the most pro-entrepreneur candidate in the lineup. He's a successful serial entrepreneur himself. Bernie is just a rich-people-hater.

Andrew Yang (born January 13, 1975) is an American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, entrepreneur, lawyer, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Venture for America (VFA), a nonprofit that focuses on creating jobs in struggling American cities. Yang worked in various startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive from 2000 to 2009. After he founded VFA in 2011, the Obama administration selected him in 2012 as a "Champion of Change" and in 2015 as a "Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship". Yang is the author of the 2014 book Smart People Should Build Things and the 2018 book The War on Normal People.
Anyway, not to get political... but I think Yang and Sanders are totally different candidates. Yang is rabidly pro-entrepreneurship.
Bernie Sanders is going back in history. He wanted federal guaranteed jobs. Repeating the mistake of soviets economy.
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
564
496
224
Singapore
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant from a purely moral, not legal, perspective:

Why should one person be forced to help another?

"We are already forced to do stuff anyway", which is what I think your argument boils down to, doesn't seem like a convincing argument to me.

For me, this argument has two parts:
1. If your moral code involves forcing people to do something they don't want to do, that code of morality needs reconsidering. "I'm going to beat people into being better human beings" is the mantra of every champagne socialist and dictator through history. I've found that most people who think this way have some sort of hatred for their species.

2. How much of your life can be mortgaged to another mans needs? In your above example, if another man needs a heart operation to save his life, how much of your life should he be allowed to impact? Can he sell your house to cover it? After all, he needs a heart more than you need a house...
What about your childrens food? Surely they can skip a few meals so that he can have a new heart... ?

Bad things happen... that are not necessarily anyones fault. But that is a fact of reality... and 'bad luck' is not an open check to pillage the lives of others.

---

Having said that, I think most people would voluntarily help people out if they can. But again, it should be their choice... not yours.
Well in abstract moral terms its a philosophical debate...strict individualism vs you own your success to a part of your environment...

I will argue from the pure practical point of it. No political system can sustain if the mass majority are unhappy with the status quo. It is better for those who have to make concession than to have a revolt.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

MJ DeMarco

Administrator
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jul 23, 2007
29,215
100,828
3,751
Fountain Hills, AZ
So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..
Thanks, actually of all the "hate the rich and take your guns" Dem candidates, I find Yang to be the most palatable, and yes, because he has an entrepreneurial focus and doesn't seem to be whackadoodle like the rest of 'em. Unfortunately voters vote on emotion, not data, facts, or logic... so I'm not sure he has a chance.
 

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
892
454
178
Holbeach Hurn
Let us run free market competition now. At least thats the undertone of his vision, in theory. I like the theory of it.
That would require 100% Inheritance tax + UBI in place of all other taxes and beenfits. Want to go to Haravd? Fine,earn the half a million or so on your own first.

That way everyone starts on an even footing and anything else is less than truly free.
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
564
496
224
Singapore
That would require 100% Inheritance tax + UBI in place of all other taxes and beenfits. Want to go to Haravd? Fine,earn the half a million or so on your own first.

That way everyone starts on an even footing and anything else is less than truly free.
UBI is to get rid of desperation. If you are too worried about next meal thats not a good ground to start your development/personal ambition.

Harvard I believe has more than enough endowment to give any American citizen to study there without worrying about tuition bill if they can make it on the grades.

The idea of social safety net is about the world “safety” itself, preventing someone falling too far behind with no chip on the table. To play poker game in the casino you need to start with one thousand bucks. Dun start with nothing. It is not to “equalise” opportunity or inheritance. Just because someone else starts the game with a million dollar doesn't make you “not free”.
 

Tourmaline

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jun 4, 2019
538
498
167
Texas
Why isn't being worried about your next meal a good ground to work on your development? To me it gives a great reason to focus on development!

UBI requires a change in thinking. If people don't see the value in contributing much if at all, in doing more than consuming for good feelings, then UBI will simply enable that more. Which I find is the commonplace thinking. If it were not, MJ's books would have been unnecessary, and the Script would have been fine to follow.
 

Kevin88660

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Feb 8, 2019
564
496
224
Singapore
Why isn't being worried about your next meal a good ground to work on your development? To me it gives a great reason to focus on development!

UBI requires a change in thinking. If people don't see the value in contributing much if at all, in doing more than consuming for good feelings, then UBI will simply enable that more. Which I find is the commonplace thinking. If it were not, MJ's books would have been unnecessary, and the Script would have been fine to follow.
Very simply example. A UBI will encourage many business people to quit their jobs first and start on their hustle right away instead of trying to juggle both.

It cuts short the development process.
 

Tourmaline

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jun 4, 2019
538
498
167
Texas
Oh UBI is going to give people $100k a year? So they can maintain their lifestyle without having to rely on their business?
 

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
892
454
178
Holbeach Hurn
Harvard I believe has more than enough endowment to give any American citizen to study there without worrying about tuition bill if they can make it on the grades.
Which is in itself a distortion of the free market,because they are limiting it to only US citizens. Surley a free market should object to immigration barriers? If the guy from New Delhi is better able to serve the market than the guy from New Jersey,let him.

the idea of social safety net is about the world “safety” itself, preventing someone falling too far behind with no chip on the table.
Yes,UBI acts as a saftey net,it's far from making it a free market for all,now I'm fine with that but call it what it is.

To play poker game in the casino you need to start with one thousand bucks. Dun start with nothing. It is not to “equalise” opportunity or inheritance.
Sure that's enough for everyone to join in a rigged game(the house always wins in the long run, and the more you can lose the more risks you can take)

[/QUOTE]
just because someone else starts the game with a million dollar doesn't make you “not free”.
[/QUOTE]

Yes and I'm saying it makes the game not a "free market".

You know what is a perfect demonstration of free market theory (and was designed as such?) Monopoly.

Every player is given an equal amount of money at the start,now imagine you give out say 25% of each player's parents income and see how the game changes.
 
OP
OP
ChrisV

ChrisV

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
May 10, 2015
2,438
4,469
1,022
Islands of Calleja
You know what is a perfect demonstration of free market theory (and was designed as such?) Monopoly.
They were trying to make a political statement with the game, but drawing parallels to real life is somewhat ridiculous. Monopoly is completely random, with a throw of the dice. Real life isn't so random. There are exact principals to follow to make money.
 

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
892
454
178
Holbeach Hurn
. Monopoly is completely random, with a throw of the dice. Real life isn't so random. There are exact principals to follow to make money.
It is pretty random as to whom your parents are or as buffet calls it the "ovarian lottery" do you think you would be successful if you were born as a subsistence farmer in africa?

I think it did make a poltical statement maybe not the one they intended, especially as hasbro knocked the other side of the board.(which included a version of UBI)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.


Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Monthly conference calls with doers
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top Bottom