Citizen's income common misconceptions and assumptions and how robots can lead to a tax free society
Misconceptions and assumptions about Citizen's income
I notice in the debate around universal basic income which more aptly should be defined as citizen's income is filled with common misconceptions, deliberate confusions, and other problems. Some examples below.
Confusion generated when mainstream media discusses Mincome as if it's Universal Basic Income. Mincome is really an alternative to welfare but it is means tested, it's not doled out on the basis of citizenship. Universal basic income is really citizens income and every citizen by right under the constitution would be given a share in the dividends of society whether by redistribution from taxes or dividends.
The assumption that a UBI can only be paid for by redistribution in the form of taxes. We see this common in libertarian circles and it is used to shut down the debate by claiming UBI violates the non-aggression principle or that "taxation is theft.
The assumption that only humans can do labor and that human labor is scarce. This assumption treats the situation such that if people are given "money for nothing" then other people are working so that this can happen. This assumption often paints a picture of a small group of workers in society working 40 or 60 + hour weeks so the rest of society can get a basic income with the assumption built in that the humans are the only possible labor force that can exist.
The assumption that taxes can only be paid by humans. This assumption is based on the fact that humans pay 100% of taxes today and that there is a national debt. This assumption doesn't seem to be based on anything really other than tradition, humans are just expected to pay off the debts of humans.
This last assumption may be the most dangerous which is that the cost of human labor will forever go up as if human labor is the most precious thing in the economy and always will remain the most precious even when new humans are born every day, and the amount of labor required to run society is static. This assumption also seems to have a built in presupposition that society requires an infinite amount of human labor to run so human beings must work to keep society running.
Can we agree to these basic facts?
- The amount of labor required to run society is finite.
- The cost of labor is going down as labor power becomes less scarce.
- Humans aren't the only possible laborers.
- Humans aren't the only possible tax payers.
- Humans will not run out of stuff to do if humans don't require a 9-5 salary job with a boss.
Now, if 3 and 4 are both true then isn't it possible that electronic persons or agents can work electronically, capture digital currency, pay a percentage in tribute to humanity as citizens income? These agents aren't human and would not mind paying 90% income taxes or whatever the programmers set it or maybe it can be dynamic.
Now, if 1, 2, 3, 4, are true, then wouldn't the solution to technological unemployment be decentralization of AI so that all humans have access to intelligent agents to "grow" and "farm" like humans used to with chickens?
And if 1, 2, 3, 4, are true then as the cost of labor goes down due to increased AI capabilities the citizen's income goes up? This would couple wealth generation in the form of AI/automation to higher dividends or income for human citizens.
Now, if 1, 2, 3, 4, are true, then couldn't we reach a point where most of the jobs are done by machines? Wouldn't it also be an option for the government to build an automation commons if desired to provide a wealth generator?
And finally if 1,2,3,4 and 5 are all true, then human beings could go back to living as humans lived prior to the 9-5 work for a boss lifestyle? After all for most of human history human beings either were hunter gatherers or farmers. So being a farmer in this context could be using the AI to become fully sustainable. Would humans lose their mind if they can't do what has become work this past 100 years or will humans be able to do something else? If humans can adapt psychologically then what would be the cost to citizen's income which isn't positive?
Costs vs benefits [humans can eventually live tax free]
As far as I can see citizens income offers many many benefits and I can't find many costs which aren't based on false or incorrect assumptions. The only cost I find which could be valid is psychological and this is really only for a small small group of humans who have truly fulfilling gainful careers. So we could be talking about the 0.01% of humanity in developed countries who live in ivory towers who cannot imagine what life would be like to be a farmer or to not work in an office doing a 9-5 or to not feel important.
Conclusion
The amount of citizens may increase indefinitely. At the same time to maintain and sustain each citizen does not increase indefinitely. So to sustain a human life requires a fixed cost, and the rate of reproduction is limited even if there is no population cap. So what this means is the goal for each human could be to achieve sustainability and the reason to work at all could be to achieve personal self sufficiency and or collective sustainability for society. If the work could be done by non-human laborers whether machine or anything else (for instance farmers have chickens which lay eggs) then every human could have a productive capacity.
When human labor is decoupled from income then you can have a society where no humans pay taxes. In addition non-human animals will not have to be exploited for the sake of humans because robots be designed not to be capable of suffering, and to not mine supporting or sustaining their human family members.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jan 31. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $7.22 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 31 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I strongly believe UBI can work, even in the medium term it would free people up from fears like 'how am I going to feed my family?' which prevent them from starting a new venture / spending time on pursuits that could actually benefit society as a whole.
People will be freed to do things they have a passion for.
Interesting post!! Thanks for sharing, Dana.
Upvoted & Followed you as well.
I think it is not a question of logic, it is a question about which society we want to build and how to agree about common objectives.
Shared self interest is the only way to unite people who hate each other. Two families can own shares in the same company and despise one another.
People will never agree without incentives. Those incentives have to outweigh the disincentives. And then you can appeal to reason over emotion.
Logic and rationality is the how. Your preferred society or desired outcome doesn't just happen because you imagine it. So you cannot escape the fact that logic is critical to achieving anything and rationality is the only way to get anything done.
Do you really think people are just going to fall in line with your wishes? Give it a try and find out.
Logic and rationality are just human imagined tools to connect dots where imagined illogic and irrational connections have yet to be connected. Mankind continues to imagine better ways but it takes a strong and determined leader to convince enough of the current state of momentum that a newly imaged way is logical and rational to enough people to cause a movement in that direction.
"rationality is the only way to get anything done." I do not see at lot of rationality !
https://steemit.com/basicincome/@chrisaiki/work-money-society