You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Talc 7 points -4 points (+3|-7) ago 

Why is everyone so against basic income? Surely it's better to give equally to all regardless of their employment status rather than disincentivising the poor from the labor market with means-tested benefits. Universal income turns welfare queens into fools, means testing keeps them as welfare queens whilst giving everyone else's share away to the multinationals who are employed to do the means testing.


[–] vastrightwing 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Basic income is an euphemism for feudalism. It won't be cash payments, probably an EBT card that will only be good for specific things. Then you will be taxed on it. Once you are captive onto this "basic income" escaping will be nearly impossible. In essence, you will be serf just like everyone else except for a few plutocrats who will benefit from the serf's payments.

The problem with automation and AI is they don't consume. There is no circulation of labor into the economy. Human labor will not create value and robots will not contribute to the economy. This means humans won't have wealth, they will not own anything. The end game is the people who have stolen all the wealth win. They will control everyone until the serfs go to war and nearly everyone is killed.


[–] Talc 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

So what you're saying is there's nothing wrong with basic income other than you can imagine a variant of it which would be bad and therefore wish to tar any version with the same brush.

Here's another version, if only we can get the kleptocrats to stop asset-stripping it. The country is a business, it's capable of making a profit, and when it does it pays a dividend to its shareholders (the citizens). This is how the UK is supposed to be structured, UK PLC is a limited liability company, the shareholder contract is signed for us at the registration of our births and is also the only thing binding us to obey acts of parliament.

One advantage of basic income is that it doesn't waste a fortune on means-testing. A recent UK study showed less than 8.5% of the budget for the Universal Credit combined unemployment / sickness benefit was delivered to service users with the vast majority consumed by administration fees in the means-testing process. It would be more cost-effective to give "benefits" to everyone than to waste a fortune deciding who needs it.

Only being able to spend your basic income on certain things would not be a disaster, if you can only spend it on food then you always have the option of working and spending your wages on the luxury goods you're not allowed to buy with your basic income, so there's yet another incentive to work. As far as being taxed on it, you're taxed on everything, we don't use "you'll be taxed on it" as an excuse for rejecting paid employment, why should this be different?