bigato wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:32 pm
I agree that if the basic income is universal, a part of it will go to waste and not only not benefit society as a whole but also not even benefit those it was given to. I don’t think anybody here is denying this, because it is obvious human nature.
I agree but more than just a small part will be wasted. Everyone 18yrs old and above who is a US citizen will get UBI -that means rich people and upper middle class people will get the money too. Considering that the rich are getting richer, you are just giving them more money - that is wasteful.
There are approximately 550K homeless people on any given night in the US. A lot of them are dying from drug overdose - it's an epidemic. Many are homeless because of drug addiction. Now you're going to hand the homeless $1000 per month without requiring drug addiction intervention (no strings attached right?). You've now exacerbated the homeless opioid death and addiction rate. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factshe ... iction.pdf
How many other things are going to be negatively impacted that you haven't considered? Can we now agree that perhaps some type of requirements may be needed for UBI?
On the other side, I also know that part of the population will improve their lifes as a consequence and at least move the economy some more. Furthermore, having the income be universal will also guarantee that *every* genius will have at their disposal the possibility of living a spartan life or semi-bum without worrying about what they may see as the stupidities of earning a living, and they will be able to focus all their energy on whatever obsession they have.
That is no justification for taking someone else's money by force. That someone considers employment stupid is even more incentive not to give them money. We shouldn't be paying people to be lazy with money taken by force.
If you can step aside from the moral programming that was drilled into you, and if you know the bare minimum about innovation, startups and statistics, you’ll probably see that this would be of the biggest benefit for all in that it would not try to select for the best geniuses by some potentially flawed and gameable criteria. You just assume that the ones that will spend it all wasting themselves are a tiny price to pay for the benefit you get. Imagine some quirky weirdo like Tesla discovering cold fusion clean energy or something of that level. It’s pretty much the spirit of venture capital and startups, where they invest in lot of them knowing well in advance that almost all of them will fail completely, but some of them will create crazy stuff and make up for the losses. Now imagine that in a national scale. Or even bigger.
Start ups have a high failure rate; 75% and higher depending on the data set. It's not moral programming, it's facts and logic. Why would I forcefully take money from proven money makers and redistribute to people who have no track record in business? Let them fund their ventures via private loans and not forced redistribution of money. And I'm also against corporate welfare too.
Add strings and you’ll have a system that can be gamed. And according to the game theory and human nature, it will be gamed and thus benefit the best gamers in detriment of the rest.
But somehow UBI is immune to gamification just because there are no strings attached to it?