The Entrepreneur Forum | Startups | Entrepreneurship | Starting a Business | Motivation | Success

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

LittleWolfie

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
Jun 28, 2018
695
381
147
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
264
341
167
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

New Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Apr 2, 2019
16
17
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
695
381
147
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

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Speedway Pass
Dec 3, 2018
180
248
152
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
264
341
167
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

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Speedway Pass
Dec 3, 2018
180
248
152
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
695
381
147
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
264
341
167
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

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Speedway Pass
Dec 3, 2018
180
248
152
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
264
341
167
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
Jan 6, 2016
67
55
48
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.
 

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.



Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe to become an INSIDER.

Post New Topic

Please SEARCH before posting.
Please select the BEST category.

Post new topic

New Topics

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