Who Wouldn’t Want Universal Basic Income?
SUBSCRIBE π https://www.prageru.com/join
If the government gave people enough money to take care of their basic needs, could we eliminate poverty? Proponents of Universal Basic Income think so. Are they right? Would it really be that simple? Aldo Buttazzoni lays out the pros and cons of UBI.
#ubi #basicincome #prageru
@aldobuttazzoni
Script:
How does this sound?
$1,000 a month. No questions asked. You donβt even have to buy a lottery ticket.
All you have to do⦠is breathe.
Too good to be true?
Well, that depends on your view of UBI or Universal Basic Income.
UBI is an idea that has been kicking around for a while.
The concept goes like this: give people enough money to take care of their basic needs and we can eliminate poverty. In other words, we establish a floor below which no one will fall. Every citizen is provided for.
Appealing, no? After all, we live in the wealthiest country on earth and yet we have people living in the street. Itβs a moral travesty. UBI solves it.
Of course, thereβs the small question of who is going to pay for it.
Giving $1,000 a month to every American citizen (thatβs the Universal part of UBI) would cost something like three trillion dollars a year.
That would make it by far the most expensive item in the federal budget. Of course, everybodyβs taxes would have to go up to pay for this gigantic new expense.
How much?
David Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution calculates that to pay for UBI βthe federal government would have to increase taxes by 74 percent.β
Venture investor and former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, a vocal proponent of UBI, says we can fund UBI with a 10% value-added tax, which means that everything you buy will have a 10% surcharge built in. Would Americans agree to such a big tax on top of all the taxes they already pay? Seems unlikely.
The chances, then, that we could raise the money in taxesβby any methodβto pay for the program are almost zero. That means the government would have to make up the difference; that is, go deeper into debt, which is just another way of saying βprint more money.β The inflation this would almost certainly cause would raise prices and make the dollars people were getting from UBI worth steadily less, therefore defeating the purpose of the entire enterprise.
Of course, some proponents say that UBI would make many existing government assistance programsβlike food stamps and Medicaidβunnecessary, and that would save a lot of money. Okay, but as generous as a $1,000 monthly giveaway might seem, do you really think it would cover food, healthcare, and other living expenses? Let alone your iPhone?
For the sake of argument, letβs say money or inflation were not big obstacles. Would it be a good idea then?
View the full script: https://l.prageru.com/45MqI4A
source
wait, wait wait – I got 2 minutes in before it was flat out lying.
Government debt isn't printing money. Quantitative easing is printing money, they are two completely different things.
Even if you oppose UBI, lying to try and push your opinions just isn't on, especially when you call yourself a 'university'
Universal basic income would cut out a lot of beurocracy surrounding determining who is and isn't applicable for state/federal aid programs.
1000 dollars to 300 million people ends up costing 3 trillion a year?
The only solution is a Resource Based Econony (Moneyless, No Barter, No exchange) a system where all people needs are tended whether you want it or not but RBE is only possible when all Earth resources are declared common heritage for all humanity and when politics end. In a society where money doesn't exist terms like stealing and corruption are erased from existence and replaced with post scarcity and abundance. We will never have money for all people on earth but we will always have more then enough resources for everybody especially with the emergent technologies that we can create more with less.
This is the dumbest take on how taxes work.
orrrr money is more made up than this piece of propaganda makes it out to be and they have a deep interest in convincing you otherwise?
THIS IS WHY there are so many homeless in my home state of Hawaiβi. They have a taste of the βfree lifeβ on the street, AND they DONβT WANT to go back!!!
Anyone who would even consider this idea for more than a second, have something wrong with them.
Shouldβve explained the downsides more and clearer.
The βtrialβ in small section of the population is the stupidest thing ever.
The part of UBI that becomes completely useless is the βUβ aka Universal part of it.
If you give 1000 people $12,000 each, they love it. Theyβll be able to buy a bunch of things they wanted with that.
If you give everyone in the US $1,000,000 each then that money is worth a lot less than that. Every price for every thing will go up.
First there will be mass of people quitting their jobs. And then after a while they realize that after hyper inflation, their $1,000,000 is more like $30,000 and theyβll have to go back to their jobs.
I used to think this way until I became a parent. Now I donβt understand how single parents are supposed to survive. Youβre telling me all the singer mothers out there just gotta work harder when virtually no jobs offer childcare. Yeah no.
I wonder is prageru does a video on how capitalism requires an eternal underclass of servants and a large reserve pool of unemployed to be available to provide cheap labor for new businesses ?
oh, and the fact that if there weren't any crime, the unemployment rate would be three times what it is at the moment.
The question I never get an answer to from UBi advocates is "Where does the food come from if nobody wants to be a farmer?"
You can't automate 100%; you need human supervision and maintainence. And you can't rely on imports because now you're at the mercy of other nations who can manipulate the cost of your food supply, and they may not be interested in accepting your fiat currency as payment for that food.
This is an important question that needs to have a detailed answer before any UBI is considered.
Finland had a 2-year study, they didnβt βgive upβ. Also, for Stockton CAβs test they didnβt just βlike free moneyβ but they saw numerous benefits including employment rates
i'm starting to like the depopulation idea like welfare people and hopeless drug addicts and throw in politicians in there to.
So effectively you're paying the government to exist so they can pay you back. Seems pointless compared to just lowering taxes.
But in the case of labor disruption from AI, an appropriate tax on that technology could be useful while simultaneously lowering taxes for citizens.
It could work if you limit it to people who have a job and if you loose it you need to get employed again to recive it think of it like a state pension yet you get the money for it by taxing the top 10% 2% more not a increase in taxes for everyone because a rich person can easily still afford a 2% tax increase but someone earning 16k a year and strugelling will feel it more. Also calling everyone lazy slobs is an insult to 80% of Youtubers. Also hold tech companies accountable then if tech and gamong ruins lives tax Microsoft, Activision, Disney and Sony. However then the top 10% will be like I earned the right to buy expensive tech for my kids because I got to the top the hard way. No most people get rich based on right place right time or who you know or if your born into a rich family.
It will not work and I donβt want it.
PwC Analysis: In a 2017 report, PwC estimated that AI and related technologies could displace around 38% of US jobs by the early 2030s but also create new jobs, resulting in a net loss of approximately 20% of current jobs. There are 157 million jobs in the US. That's 31,400,000 lost jobs.
The above statement was generated by ChatGPT. Prepare for the culling of the American middle class.
We face a severe inevitability. The AI revolution is upon us at this moment. Already countless jobs have been lost to AI in the customer support industry. When did you last call a company for help and get a computer (which you couldn't shake) instead? AI will quickly advance to the point that π‘πππ ππ ππππππππ will lose their jobs effectively π¬ππ₯ππ£π π€πͺπ© π©ππ πΌπ’ππ§ππππ£ π’ππππ‘π ππ‘ππ¨π¨. Drivers of all kinds, factory workers, office workers, brick-and-mortar retail shops, and even teachers of all kinds. Few remember what the ATMs did to the banking industry. What do you think will be the reaction of these tens of millions when they lose everything they own?
UBI-Universal Basic Income: It's 3 lies in 1 phrase.
#1 INCOME: Income is what you earn, and welfare is what the government gives you. So it's not INCOME, it's WELFARE. UBW – "Universal Basic Welfare"
#2. BASIC? Since when has any person or organization receiving money from the government wanted just the Basic amount? No, they are always demanding more and more. It's never enough. It's not BASIC, but it's EVERY INCREASING. UEIW – "Universal Ever Increasing Welfare"
#3. UNIVERSAL: for anyone, even millionaires and billionaires eligible? So people can take it even if they don't need it. How long until governments realize they can't afford it for everyone? So it's not Universal.
NUEIWEFPWDNI – "Not Universal, Ever Increasing Welfare, Even For People Who Don't Need It"
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
This video, βWhat about the dignity of being a wage slave and getting written up when your bus ran 5 minutes late?β I also love how he talked about how expensive food, housing, and health care are. How βbout you tap into unprecedented profits in some of those sectors to pay for it?
YANG GANG
This completely ignores taxing the income of the ultra rich a reasonable amount as a method for acquiring the funds lol
Oh yes… only rich should get free income… right.