Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
One of the big things we expect to happen in the future is the potential to combine things like self driving cars, Uber-style ride sharing, and GBI. Even in America, suddenly you'd not need to own a car any more. Going to work would need to pay for commuting costs, not going to work would save that. So you can imagine how much less money would be needed in an economy with many fewer cars, much less overall driving, less wear and tear on roads (reducing the number of road workers needed), etc. Individuals on GBI would not need to own cars, pay car insurance, or even deal with getting licenses. All things that would be available to them if they wanted, but totally unnecessary. Reducing cost of living even further.
I find the "not needing to own a car" to be a little ridiculous especially for people in the rural areas. There won't be any ridesharing happening in the far-flung rural areas. Heck most of them can't even get cable because the cable company doesn't see them as enough of a profit to run the cable out to them.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
One of the big things we expect to happen in the future is the potential to combine things like self driving cars, Uber-style ride sharing, and GBI. Even in America, suddenly you'd not need to own a car any more. Going to work would need to pay for commuting costs, not going to work would save that. So you can imagine how much less money would be needed in an economy with many fewer cars, much less overall driving, less wear and tear on roads (reducing the number of road workers needed), etc. Individuals on GBI would not need to own cars, pay car insurance, or even deal with getting licenses. All things that would be available to them if they wanted, but totally unnecessary. Reducing cost of living even further.
I find the "not needing to own a car" to be a little ridiculous especially for people in the rural areas. There won't be any ridesharing happening in the far-flung rural areas. Heck most of them can't even get cable because the cable company doesn't see them as enough of a profit to run the cable out to them.
People on GBI probably won't get the luxury of living in isolated areas. At some point, you have to likely compromise somewhere. Or you have to save up and make getting a car a priority. But really, once there are self driving cars, there is no reason that rural areas won't have ride sharing. It's the need for humans, not cars, that keeps that from existing today. Even where I grew up, seven miles from the nearest crossroads and ten miles from a village, it would be obvious that ride sharing would be way cheaper than owning your own car.
Ride sharing cost less than current situations, even in rural areas, unlike cable where it costs far more than current (nothing) scenarios.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Not mentioning any other expenses the Federal government has Military, personnel, etc. which would be:
Military: $866,000,000,000
Other: $766,000,000,000You have overlapping costs here. Most of the cost of military is in salaries. So you are counting all of that twice.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Universal Health Care would have to factor into that. Estimates range from 1.3 Trillion to 2.8 Trillion and higher. So I took the average of 1.3 Trillion (Bernie Sanders' plan estimate) and the higher 2.8 Trillion number that his opponents say is more likely. It comes out to: $2,050,000,000,000.00 just over 2 Trillion dollars.
Both are very high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
To be on the top end for world health care costs would be 1.65tn. Coming even close to that means we are paying for corruption, not healthcare.
To be more in line with world standards would be closer to $1tn.
Assuming 330m US pop, $5K per cap for cost on high end, $2.5K+ for average.
-
But again, MOST of the cost of healthcare is in salaries, not hardware. So a significant portion of that budget as well is overlap "being counted twice." You don't pay GBI to people with salaries elsewhere and/or you reduce their salaries by the amount of the GBI. So the military and medical budgets would be dramatically lower given how you are using them here.
-
Or the GBI number would be lower if you did it in a different way. Either way, you are double dipping in the numbers.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Not mentioning any other expenses the Federal government has Military, personnel, etc. which would be:
Military: $866,000,000,000
Other: $766,000,000,000You have overlapping costs here. Most of the cost of military is in salaries. So you are counting all of that twice.
No I am not look here Defense then all other spending:
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So let's say because of GBI you can now live on $25,000.00 a year. plus $500.00 for each child (That is what I pay in child support).
So total cost for GBI for adults and children added together would be $6,336,827,689,000.00
That number makes no sense. You are assuming that the entire population will stop working and go to minimum income. That's not how it works. If that happened, there would be no doctors, no military, like you have in your budgets. No government, even.
In reality, the number would be tiny compared to this. Most people would keep working. Loads would not, no one knows exactly how many, but tons and tons of people would keep working because they want more than the minimum income level.
And the people most likely to stop working are the ones early lesser amounts. So the impact on income tax would be far less than it seems, possibly nominal.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Not mentioning any other expenses the Federal government has Military, personnel, etc. which would be:
Military: $866,000,000,000
Other: $766,000,000,000You have overlapping costs here. Most of the cost of military is in salaries. So you are counting all of that twice.
No I am not look here Defense then all other spending:
right, that's double dipping. The defense budget you show here includes the salaries of the military. But your GBI numbers ALSO include their salaries. You are counting the need to pay all those people, twice.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So let's say because of GBI you can now live on $25,000.00 a year. plus $500.00 for each child (That is what I pay in child support).
So total cost for GBI for adults and children added together would be $6,336,827,689,000.00
That number makes no sense. You are assuming that the entire population will stop working and go to minimum income. That's not how it works. If that happened, there would be no doctors, no military, like you have in your budgets. No government, even.
In reality, the number would be tiny compared to this. Most people would keep working. Loads would not, no one knows exactly how many, but tons and tons of people would keep working because they want more than the minimum income level.
And the people most likely to stop working are the ones early lesser amounts. So the impact on income tax would be far less than it seems, possibly nominal.
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
-
Bottom line, you are looking at GBI in completely the wrong way. This isn't how you rationalize it. You are trying to use a non-GBI budget and figure out how to pay for it with the existing system. That doesn't make sense. GBI is part of whatever system it becomes.
How GBI pays for itself is simple - it doesn't really need to. It increases the size of the economy, while lowering the overhead. That is, literally, all you need to know. Now you can not believe that, that's different. But the theory of GBI is that is makes businesses make more money, and the country cost less to run. There is more money for each person. More for everyone. The only thing that the government has to work out is how to handle the distribution of it, that's the hard parts. But the underlying "how do we pay for it" is so simple that it's all done for us.
The money "comes" from everywhere. And we need far less of it than imagined.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
The problem is, especially with American ethics, useless jobs are seen as WAY better than GBI. American ethics prefers "fair" treatment. "You work, you get paid. "
European ethics prefers overall well being. "Whatever is best for everyone."
American ethics sound great, because we grew up here. Fair sounds nice. It is nice. But it means we are all willing to lose a few dollars to keep someone else for getting a hundred dollars we don't feel that he deserves. It's not logical, it's spiteful in the end. But that's why useless jobs are SO popular in the US.
Not that they dont' exist in Europe, I've seen them a lot. But the US seems passionate about keeping them while Europe seems to want to fight them.
Here is the post where I explained that this would come out from the "fair" perception.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
So we should force people to move to a different part of the world? How about camps, I know at least one guy who did this and it didn't end up so well for him. . .
-
As long as we call people on GBI slackers, we are actually stating that we want useless work for no purpose other than punishing those people so that we don't perceive them as receiving benefits.
Honestly, I already see everyone in useless jobs this way, as just riding the system to get welfare from adding no value, but getting paid anyway. LIke most university employees... all just part of a hidden welfare system. But one that is inefficient and costing us way more than it should.
The one benefit to the current system is that it artificially taxes the "stupid" rather than the "rich". It uses a lot of somewhat obvious trickery to make people voluntarily "tax themselves" rather than taxing people who stop and think about things.
It's like the lotto. It's not a tax on the poor, but on the stupid. Helping to make stupid people poor and smart people rich, rather than poor people stupid and rich people smart, as some countries attempt to do.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
Not really, America is highly homogeneous. Moreso than most places I know. It's famous globally for its uniform culture and lack of diversity.
The problem in the US for thing is that essentially ALL Americans feel this way, not just some. And the rare ones of us who don't feel this way, try to leave.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
So we should force people to move to a different part of the world? How about camps, I know at least one guy who did this and it didn't end up so well for him. . .
I think he's just supporting the "divided America" theory. Which I agree with as well. As a Texan now seeing the feds no longer see us as clearly citizens, our need to leave is stronger than ever.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
So only people who stop working get GBI? Why in the hell should the people working pay for the slackers?
And BOOM, exactly why it won't work in America. Because the "fair" ethics come out. It's not "fair" for people to get paid and we are willing to LOSE money, to stop other people from getting perceived benefits.
This is exactly why I explained that American ethic effect earlier, because this is always, in the end, why Americans dislike this plan. Even though they would get more out of it, they aren't willing to do so because they perceive people on GBI as slackers and will hurt themselves before they let everyone benefit.
And BOOM exactly why I don't think our country can exist much longer together. We have people that are too ideologically divergent to coexist together much longer.
So we should force people to move to a different part of the world? How about camps, I know at least one guy who did this and it didn't end up so well for him. . .
I think he's just supporting the "divided America" theory. Which I agree with as well. As a Texan now seeing the feds no longer see us as clearly citizens, our need to leave is stronger than ever.
That won't ever happen, not with the money I'm spending for that stupid wall. Sorry Texas, you're as much mine as any other state. . .
-
The original, infamous source of America's unique "fairness ethic" comes from the Jamestown colony. It was the "you work, you eat" thing. Which made sense with 50 people trying not to starve collectively.
Today, it makes no sense. But it has been drilled into us through systematic education programs. To a degree that Americans have no idea that no other country in the world thinks of "fair" with the priority that we do. It's uniquely American.
