You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Hi Steemit! Scott Santens here. If you've ever googled "basic income", you may have read something I've written.
I agree with you on netizen dividend. But equally I think people will have to pay for access to information.
I don't think you're on a basic income. You appear to be living off donations or something close to employment.
I don't believe in basic income because I believe there will be those who will never work. Economically it might make sense but from an ethical perspective I don't want to work and pay taxes for some people to do nothing. I think this is the biggest obstacle to basic income.
I've modeled my Patreon after a basic income by self-limiting it to $1,000 per month. The point is to simulate an income floor that is not connected to doing something in exchange for work. I don't get paid because I did something. I write stuff for free, do podcasts for free, and do a lot of other things for free, and receive an income from over 300 people each month that enables me to continue working for free or to earn additional income, which I also do.
If you have a classic job, one person controls your paycheck, and you must do your job to earn your check. Even if you do your job, you can be fired by one person. I earn an income from over 300 people, and there are no conditions whatsoever on that income. A true basic income would mostly only be different by virtue of being crowdfunded by 300 million people instead of 300.
Please read this about what I've learned having a secure income base as a starting point each month.
There are already people who "never work". They get on welfare. Welfare is targeted. Welfare is removed with work, which effectively punishes it. Would you work if the deal was that you got to keep 10 cents for every dollar earned? Would you work if you actually lost more than $1 for every dollar earned? That's welfare. There's no getting around it. Additionally you yourself are likely getting multiple tax credits. This is identical to not lowering your taxes and just giving you money. If we just provide UBI, we remove the disincentives to work, and can also simplify the tax code, perhaps even switching to a flat tax.
Also, income taxes are not required to pay for basic income. We have a lot of options. Here's how I'd go about it.
Finally, you can dislike the idea of UBI all you want, but I hope you're recognizing the reality of automation and the fact tens of millions of jobs are going to be automated over the next decade, and the new jobs created are going to be nowhere near that number in the same amount of time.
All your points are well taken but here is where I agree and differ.
Yes, the welfare system is way too complicated. Basic income would save a lot of national budget, through simplification alone.
There is indeed a disincentive to work if the marginal income gains are tiny compared to welfare. However, this is only because welfare is so generous in the West. I disagree with the current, what I regard as "high", levels of welfare in the West.
I still think there is a big problem with people getting paid with no need to work. What effect will this have on those who do work? I know a guy right now (in fact several) who scams the system and effectively gets a basic income. He hasn't worked for 20 years. He can only do this because people like me are paying for him. This will divide society with resentment if basic income becomes widespread.
Also, you overplay automation. I've looked into automation, machine learning, AI etc. Yes, many existing jobs will disappear but they will be replaced by others, as has happened ever since the industrial revolution. There are also many jobs that will never disappear, where machines cannot replace humans. I think you also seem to be worried about low value workers on minimum wage losing their jobs. I have always maintained that such people should not be on such jobs for life, these jobs are intended for the young - anyone who works a minimum wage job over the age of 30 is not investing in improving themselves and therefore the value they can obtain in the job market.
As automation and AI reduce available jobs for humans to do, it is inevitable that more and more people are going to have to be officially unemployed. I just put up a short article I wrote on UBI, and at the end I address this "ethical" issue. The reality is that capitalism can't sustain itself under the current trajectory. What's more important to you - maintaining a functioning society, or getting hung up over the fact that some people chose not to work in a traditional employment arrangement?
Like I said, we had the industrial revolution before and new job types were created.
Yes this won't be exactly the same but I have confidence. Just because advances are being made in automation does not mean that capitalism Is unsustainable. That's an ideological belief rather than a proven fact.
Under the current model it has to be unsustainable. If un(der)-employment is allowed to keep growing, then the consumer base falls out of capitalism. Without consumers capitalism can't function. We will need a mechanism to get money into the hands of consumers.
Regarding the analogy to the industrial revolution, it's fundamentally different this time. AI will allow computers to outthink us. Robotics and miniaturisation will allow machines to outmanoeuvre us. None of this was the case in the industrial revolution. And these processes have already started. And to be clear, this is a good thing in principle. Who doesn't want more time to spend with family and friends and doing things that provide them happiness?
These are your beliefs, I beg to differ. Who is right? Only time will tell. We can only agree to disagree.
I do agree that the current model is broken, however. Family units being broken up, kids being brought up in daycare instead of at home which is not really ideal, even though some great people work in daycare centers.