How would a UBI even work, and who would pay for it? Will it be ethical for it to be forced on an entire population...

the proposals for the us tend to suggest UBI as a replacement for all welfare programs, that's also where the money would come from.

In aggregate all of those who received the gibs will use most of the gibs, stimulating the economy.
UBI was prominently promoted by some libertarian economists as a negative income tax, just a way to ensure that people had some agency in their choices and could participate in the market even if they were not actively working.

You know how your money already pays for welfare programs? And how we already have UBI for poor and old people paid for by you? You know how by the time you reach the age where you can take out social security that you've paid into this whole time, that there will be no more funds left for you? Well, instead of them exclusively getting and wasting it, you'd get it. You already pay for UBI, you just don't fucking receive it. By killing welfare and social security programs and replacing them with UBI you also get rid of the useless bureaucratic non-jobs associated with these programs that exist to be money sinks.

It's literally that simple, and anyone advocating against it is retarded cucks who want to keep paying UBI but not receiving it.

Attached: all_so_tiresome_book.jpg (1200x913, 200.27K)

i really dont understand why fags dont want free money kek

I refuse to accept the promise of other forms of welfare being eliminated. Eliminating SS is impossible while even a single Boomer is still in office or voting

Oh yeah... if we spent less money on military it wouldn't do anything...

Attached: Spending.png (1133x761, 60.67K)

rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html
>We document the cumulative effect of four decades of income growth below the growth of per capita gross national income and estimate that aggregate income for the population below the 90th percentile over this time period would have been $2.5 trillion (67 percent) higher in 2018 had income growth since 1975 remained as equitable as it was in the first two post-War decades.

Regulatory and legislative capture by big money has reduced the aggregate annual income of the bottom 90% by $2.5T since about 1970. That's the elite literally stealing $2.5T from everyone else, every year, via various legal and policy enactments that they have sponsored. Meanwhile, a conservative UBI of $1000/mo to adult citizens is usually estimated at costing around $3-3.5T/yr.

That means a UBI of $1000/mo, paid for exclusively via taxed income on the top 10% of earners, would actually simply put most Americans back at a level of prosperity/wealth/income parity that they had already been enjoying up until 1970 or so, before various elite actors began capturing our government and started progressively dismantling its checks and balances, reducing it to a simple engine that further concentrates wealth in the pockets of those who already have wealth.

It wouldn't even be 'gibs'. It would literally just be America getting back to a level of shared prosperity that it already enjoyed half a century ago. The rich funnel up all the money into their vaults, close the door and then shrug and say there's no money to help the people they just finished robbing.

Attached: 1598755643393.jpg (460x443, 33.11K)

Most assume that it will somehow cause the Dollar or whatever fiat they are King's value will be so debased that inflation of all other goods will mean that the UBI won't be effective, which sounds reasonable enough, however even moderate-to large increases in min wage does not create enough inflation to flatten all benefits, currently the U.S's interest rate is near zero and it would be seriously disingenuous to say that long term boosting the ground floor for Americans or any other country would not create more value and more potentially successful society members, seriously imagine how bad America would be if we didn't have free schools, I see adults graduate and are barely literate, but compare thst to actual illerate workers, and you'll see the value in it.

i agree we're not ready, only saying there wouldn't be double dipping under most proposals.

Alternatively they could just reduce taxes for the lower income earners and reduce spending. That would also result in more disposable income, more employment, more economic growth.

Attached: larp2.jpg (800x600, 140.05K)

this is why I get pissed when people shit on UBI because it's 'redistributive' and redistribution is socialist or whatever. Every fucking law changes how much money people of different socioeconomic strata make, and how much of it they get to keep. People who refuse to look at policies like UBI are perfectly fine with shit like low CG tax rates, MIT deductions, S-corp loophole fuckery, all policies that alter how much money goes into various peoples' pockets just as much as UBI would. All policies are redistributive in that sense, it's retarded to think otherwise. Some group always has something to gain and another something to lose with any proposed law.

You have to work for the government for 6 years before you have full citizen benefits including UBI. The ones currently working support those that aren't.

587 million dollars is spent yearly on police budget, and this is from baguette middle of nowhere canada imagine the US

>How would a UBI even work?
In the future everything will be interconnected through IoT and 5G. Machines in factories will pay taxes and these taxes can be redistributed to people as UBI.
tl;dr buy Chainlink.

Poor people don't generate money. They spend money.

1200$/month ubi would cost ~50 billion$/a
Usa wastes over 700 billion$/a on military spending

>This message brought to you by Israel.

UBI works like this:
you make money, you gib money to gubment, gubment gib money to monke
youtube.com/watch?v=8pLU6bUFoKY
its monkey season FAGGOT

Attached: 1603004653903.png (392x350, 83.72K)

If you increase consumer spending by 50 billion you also raise prices on consumer goods, that effect isn't small and can lead to disaster. The military spending ensures the value of the currency. You're only capable of spending so much on the military because you spend so much on the military.

Here's the thing that bothers me:

If people is receiving free money, most of them will decide to skip entry-level, minimum wage jobs.

If people don't work minimum wage jobs, companies will have to pay more for minimum wage jobs.

If companies have to pay more in wages, then small and medium companies with razor thin margins will go bankrupt.

If companies have to pay more in wages, they'll simply pass that cost onto consumers by rising the prices of their goods and services.

If goods and services cost more, then UBI stops being enough to sustain the population that needs it.

It just seems to me like it causes inflation to the point all the UBI money is wasted paying for UBI-related inflation.

Attached: aca.jpg (640x1440, 104.19K)

It doesn't really follow that people won't take minimum wage jobs anymore. You can get a $1000/mo UBI and sit on your ass and do nothing because you have no money after paying for basic necessities for the month, or you can get a $1000/mo UBI and also work a $1000/mo fast food job and then have some chunk change leftover after necessities to spend on fun shit.

The balancing act with a UBI is to get it just right so that it pays for what people need to exist, such that they have security and retain some bargaining power in labor negotiations, but not give so much that it pays for entertainment, luxuries, etc which would disincentivize supplemental work.

I always liked the idea of UBI being THE gibs. Cut welfare, cut benefits, just give everyone the cash monthly. Simple as

notice how whenever the discussion is brought up there is:
visceral hate for ubi that affects everyone equally
meh tier shoutout to trillions in bigcorp bailouts

asking who pays for it is irrelevant at this point, ubi is to solution necessary to a exponentially growing problem of the current monetary system
at the base of it a question like who will pay for it is only relevant in a preautomated society with a hard currency
in most of the world the monetary policy has reached peaked clownlevels of insanity, a process that is already underway for half a century at this point
these policies have created several unintended consequences like massive accumulation at the point and stagnation at the bottom coupled with a need for every greater but hidden money printer goes brrr at the government level, these consequences will destroy the nation so two paths are possible
either give ubi to pacify the masses or live in a global brazillian favelo where death squads shoot the poor on a daily basis, the first choice is by far the better option
at this point all money is total clown so the only question is how to ensure production in this new world, with automation it can be done at a pricepoint barely higher than today so massive inflation is not going to happen for basic necessities

just look at the 2001 and 2008 bailouts the total hidden costs there were massive compared to the costs of a ubi, this didn't create runaway food prices, it did create runaway asset bubbles but most of these do not affect the average citizen
there is only one problem with the implementation of ubi and that is housing, this is the only basic necessity that would spiral out of control and demand a new government invention either massive building spree of social housing blocks or massive taxhikes on owning multiple properties

tl;dr ubi is inevitable and doesn't change much to the current system or we will be living in global favela