Socialist Crypto Dystopia

[Machinist]

If my recollection is correct it's 1k a year. Hardly anything like what UBI proponents suggest for a UBI.

If that's true, then Alaska is not any sort of proof that it would work throughout the rest of the country.

[Starlight]

If my recollection is correct it's 1k a year. Hardly anything like what UBI proponents suggest for a UBI.

Well if I am being alleged to be a UBI proponent (e.g. as per Sparko in the OP), $1000 per year is along the lines of what I would suggest starting with for a UBI.

There are plenty of people in the US who report in surveys that they couldn't afford a $500 emergency expense. So it seems to me that $1000 per year could provide a lot of help for a lot of people.

[CivilDiscourse]

If that's true, then Alaska is not any sort of proof that it would work throughout the rest of the country.

Look up Alaska Permanent Fund. It's essentially oil dividends, in 2019 was worth about 1600 a person. Its not enough to do much with, though for a family of 4 would be a nice chunk of change once a year, but not enough to lower work requirements.

[CivilDiscourse]

Well if I am being alleged to be a UBI proponent (e.g. as per Sparko in the OP), $1000 per year is along the lines of what I would suggest starting with for a UBI.

There are plenty of people in the US who report in surveys that they couldn't afford a $500 emergency expense. So it seems to me that $1000 per year could provide a lot of help for a lot of people.

Unlikely. Remember, most people who can't afford a $500 emergency expense also get 1k or more back on income tax returns. That lump sum once a year doesn't give them the 500 cushion, why would another?

[Diogenes]

If that's true, then Alaska is not any sort of proof that it would work throughout the rest of the country.

Alaska most certainly is not proof it would work in the rest of the county. The Alaskan economy is in no sense comparable to the rest of the US. For one, the money comes from actual production rather than taxes. Second, Alaska has one of the lowest tax rates (including no state sales or income tax) in the country. Third, the entirety of the state's population is lower than Seattle. Seeing as the same people who advocate the UBI would also advocate the end of drilling, Alaska's oil checks are not going to be repeatable elsewhere. The only other way to offset the UBI payments would be new taxes. The issue then becomes who gets taxed. Property taxes would increase the cost of home ownership, rents, and even good and services thus affecting the very people receiving the payments. Sales taxes will increase the cost of living for the very people getting the UBI payments as well. Business taxes harm small businesses disproportionately (higher income taxes would have the effect) and would also increase the costs of goods and services, again, impacting the individuals receiving the payments. Higher progressive income taxes (both individual and corporate) contribute to capital flight.

[Mountain Man]

So it would need to be tested globally in order to know if it really works? Yikes! What if it didn't work?

UBI would work if every citizen were productive with their off work time.

There actually have been small scale tests done in the US using a carefully handpicked selection of applicants to "prove" that a universal basic income has only upsides and no downsides. Of course being small in scale and only giving the money to people who were picked as most likely to be responsible with it produced almost exclusively positive results.

That's why I look at the unemployment situation during the pandemic as a widespread test, where people were being paid around $4000 a month to not work. The problem is that it actually removed people's incentive to work, so when businesses started hiring again, nobody wanted to apply because it would have meant giving up the life of luxury they had been enjoying for the past year or so, and even now, our labor force participation rate remains considerably below where it was before the pandemic (one of the reasons why the official unemployment figure remains low, because it doesn't include those people who could be working but simply dropped out of the labor market instead).

On a related note, I'm old enough to remember when being on unemployment was considered shameful. Personally, I would rather work a low paying job than collect unemployment, even if unemployment offered more money, which is exactly the situation I found myself in when the pandemic hit. I was laid off from my very good paying job and wound up taking work answering phones for my state's unemployment office, ironically enough, and every week, I talked to hundreds of people who were being paid more to not work than I was being paid to be yelled at by them because their free money was a day or two late showing up in their bank account. It was the worst job I've ever had in my life, but at least it was a job.

[Mountain Man]

Well if I am being alleged to be a UBI proponent (e.g. as per Sparko in the OP), $1000 per year is along the lines of what I would suggest starting with for a UBI.

There are plenty of people in the US who report in surveys that they couldn't afford a $500 emergency expense. So it seems to me that $1000 per year could provide a lot of help for a lot of people.

The primary reason people find themselves in that kind of situation is not because they aren't earning enough money, but because they are irresponsible with the money they have, and an extra $1000 a year would do precisely nothing to help them. They would either blow it on some frivolity like a new television or video game console, or it would simply be swallowed up by debt, and they would be right back where they started, unable to come up with $500 cash in an emergency. People need to be taught financial responsibility instead of just being given free money.

[Sparko]

Well if I am being alleged to be a UBI proponent (e.g. as per Sparko in the OP), $1000 per year is along the lines of what I would suggest starting with for a UBI.

There are plenty of people in the US who report in surveys that they couldn't afford a $500 emergency expense. So it seems to me that $1000 per year could provide a lot of help for a lot of people.

I thought you suggested UBI was a good idea previously. If not, I apologize. But it would fit in with socialism, no?

I don't think these "tests" with pocket change like Alaska will tell us anything. It is just a little extra spending money at that level. $85/month is nothing to quit your job over or enough to live on at even a basic level. The test would be to give a group of people enough money to live at a basic living wage and see how that affects the economy and job market. Maybe $1000 - $2000/month. I think at that level it would start to affect people, they would work less or not at all. Prices would start rising as production falls and money is more available. The problem with most small scale tests is that they give too little, or even if they give people a lot of UBI, the economy in the test area is not isolated, meaning production is not dependent on the local test zone. Goods are still being produced normally in the rest of the country so if the test subjects work less, the goods are still there. The economy would not be really affected.

[Sparko]

The primary reason people find themselves in that kind of situation is not because they aren't earning enough money, but because they are irresponsible with the money they have, and an extra $1000 a year would do precisely nothing to help them. They would either blow it on some frivolity like a new television or video game console, or it would simply be swallowed up by debt, and they would be right back where they started, unable to come up with $500 cash in an emergency. People need to be taught financial responsibility instead of just being given free money.

True. I was like that in my 20s. I racked up $20+K in credit card debt, buying stuff I wanted but didn't need. (This was in the 80's when $20K was a lot, especially for me who only made about $20K/year back then) - I was struggling just to pay the minimum monthly credit card payments. Then I went to a Dave Ramsey seminar and decided to turn my life around. I spent every extra dime I had on paying off the credit cards (first I consolidated them into a home equity loan at a lower interest rate and canceled the cards). I was actually eating Raman for a while to cut costs. Took me years to pay off but I did it and now the only debt I have is my home mortgage and I have enough emergency funds saved up to last a year.

[Gondwanaland]

The eye scanner is to create a "unique identifier number" for that person. You know, like "666"

It supposedly is deleted after that and then they just use your number. They claim they want to scan you to make sure you don't try to create extra accounts, and that you are a human.

They also say they won't sell your data. Ever. like data miners never lied before huh?

But once you use their software and have it on your phone, they can track your location and everything you buy or sell with the worldcoin wallet. And like you say, they can freeze it or suspend your UBI anytime they want.

1. 666 is the opposite of a unique identifier number if every person has it.
2. 666 (or as some manuscripts use, 616), is nothing more than Jewish gematria disguising the name of Nero.
3. I considered sharing my opinon on the actual meat of the topic but it appears the thread has devolved into an End Times Christian • Edited by a Moderator • so I'll leave y'all to it.

[Starlight]

I thought you suggested UBI was a good idea previously.

I would like to see it tested and tried more in different sized areas at different levels.

I'm not sure if it's better than targeted assistance programs or not.

But it would fit in with socialism, no?

I think it could be compatible with libertarianism, capitalism, or socialism.

In my experience, the most enthusiastic supporters of UBIs tend to be heterodox centrists. e.g. in the US the main promoter of it at the federal level has been Andrew Yang, who runs a centrist party with a variety of unorthodox ideas. There is a similar heterodox centrist minor party in my own country that likes the idea.

As far as 'socialists' go, Bernie Sanders is pretty tepid in his support for a UBI when asked, and doesn't campaign on the issue the way Yang did. Most socialists I have heard talk about UBI are concerned that it's a scam meant to undercut funding for targeted benefit programs.

I think at that level it would start to affect people, they would work less or not at all.

With increasing automation, and AI etc, aren't we going to need people to work less anyway?

And just to take a jab at this OP comment:

The eye scanner is to create a "unique identifier number" for that person. You know, like "666"

You know, like the already existent social security number. (cue ominous music)

[Mountain Man]

True. I was like that in my 20s. I racked up $20+K in credit card debt, buying stuff I wanted but didn't need. (This was in the 80's when $20K was a lot, especially for me who only made about $20K/year back then) - I was struggling just to pay the minimum monthly credit card payments. Then I went to a Dave Ramsey seminar and decided to turn my life around. I spent every extra dime I had on paying off the credit cards (first I consolidated them into a home equity loan at a lower interest rate and canceled the cards). I was actually eating Raman for a while to cut costs. Took me years to pay off but I did it and now the only debt I have is my home mortgage and I have enough emergency funds saved up to last a year.

Yes, Dave Ramsey is awesome. "Financial Peace University" sounds a bit cheesy until you're finally out of debt and understand what financial peace really means.

[Catholicity]

1. 666 is the opposite of a unique identifier number if every person has it.
2. 666 (or as some manuscripts use, 616), is nothing more than Jewish gematria disguising the name of Nero.
3. I considered sharing my opinon on the actual meat of the topic but it appears the thread has devolved into an End Times Christian • Edited by a Moderator • so I'll leave y'all to it.

In Catholicism, we know that Nero's number was the number associated with the beast. However we also believe that there is some implication for the end times. Essentially we think that what happened to Christians back then will happen again, and it will likely be worldwide, before the return of Christ. However we aren't "dispensationalists" That said, this sounds like a sort of test predecessor. IMHO its the testing of these kinds of technologies that concerns me of what is to come and what these technologies are being designed for. I personally wouldn't want any of this sort of information about me in any database.

[seanD]

In Catholicism, we know that Nero's number was the number associated with the beast. However we also believe that there is some implication for the end times. Essentially we think that what happened to Christians back then will happen again, and it will likely be worldwide, before the return of Christ. However we aren't "dispensationalists" That said, this sounds like a sort of test predecessor. IMHO its the testing of these kinds of technologies that concerns me of what is to come and what these technologies are being designed for. I personally wouldn't want any of this sort of information about me in any database.

Well, shoot, at the risk of tuning this into an eschatology thread I can't let this go. I'm confused by what you said in the bold. When did that happen in the first century?

[Starlight]

It's worth noting that even if UBI program do lead to higher unemployment or greater inflation, those are not necessarily sufficient reasons not to do them. The positive effects might outweigh the negative effects. A lot of people who are a bit iffy on the idea of a UBI seem suddenly a lot more happier with it when it is couched in the form of them getting a dividend of the profits of some companies.

Sometimes Sparko's arguments that giving the poor money will lead to inflation seem to contain the strange assumption that that inflation will somehow make the money given to the poor worthless and that this will therefore not help the poor. Obviously too much inflation would be bad, but it does not at all necessarily mean that greater good isn't being achieved or that poor aren't still being helped by that money.