Beginning of Universal Basic Income?
- Thread starter HagginHall1999
- Start date
When the robots are doing that for you, they are likely doing everything else... at which point you don't need money anyway, the robot does it all.
I feel like I've just finished reading an issue of Popular Mechanics from the 1950s.
Thanks brother. It’s ridiculous though. Why would automation take away all jobs, couldn’t you have made the same argument when the industrial revolution started? And it won’t happen overnight, it’ll happen gradually over years giving people time to react and prepare. It could also spark thousands of new jobs in the electrical and computer sectors in addition to bringing some manufacturing jobs back to the US.
Just don’t see it in our lifetimes.
I don’t think anyone is saying automatic will replace every job. It certainly has the capability to replace a very significant number of jobs though. Don’t even need robots in some instances, just a partially manually operated computer system, people will literally do a person’s job for free if it’s more convenient, like the self checkouts at stores replacing cashiers.
And so far the jobs getting replaced by robots and other machinery hasn’t been offset by an equal or greater number of human-powered jobs to maintain the robotic/machinery work force.
Last edited:
If you factor in all of the taxes you pay on your home, vehicles, utilities, fuel, food, and all other miscellaneous items you pay for, most people will find that combined with taxes already taken out of paycheck, we already pay close to 50% in taxes for those who don't have much left over after paying bills and buying necessities. I don't think most people realize just how much in taxes they are actually paying.
Last edited:
It’s not just physical machines, it’s software making the menial tasks (that used to take manpower) easier, but it will take time to realize what is and isn’t needed.
My last project (as a project architect) was a $100MM+ high rise conversion from offices into apartments. I had a small team that mostly screwed around (didn’t push the pile much), but I was able to draw a 70 sheet DD set in 7 weeks essentially by myself, working halftime. (It was supposed to only be 30% SD for historic tax credit scope). 260 apartment plans, all vertical circulation, MEP and structural narratives and diagrams, outline specs, etc.
Five years ago, this effort would’ve taken 10 people 6 months. And around here people still work that way, because they haven’t figured out the tools yet. I left that job to work as a satellite office for a company in Chicago that is essentially working “in the future” compared to what we’re doing around here.
Just don’t see it in our lifetimes.[/QUOTE]
It (the industrial revolution) is where the term Luddite came from. People pushed backed against it then through sabotage of the machinery in England
lead by a man name Ned Ludd. But, we survived that, I am certain we will survive the next round. Maybe Wally is not such a far fetched movie afterall.
It (the industrial revolution) is where the term Luddite came from. People pushed backed against it then through sabotage of the machinery in England
lead by a man name Ned Ludd. But, we survived that, I am certain we will survive the next round. Maybe Wally is not such a far fetched movie afterall.
I mean I totally get that less people will be needed for certain jobs, but what some people are arguing in this thread is that the architects or project managers that are no longer needed because of what you described will now be unemployed and wanting universal income or whatever, but we obviously know that’s not happening. People will adapt, people want to work.
People mentioned truck drivers in here, but I’ve interacted with lots of truck drivers. They work their asses off and actually make a good income. Those people aren’t just going to sit around and get 24k a year or whatever. At some point a certain level of unemployment becomes self defeating for everyone, including big business. A 15 or 20% unemployment rate will be beneficial for no one, humans aren’t going to self sabotage themselves for the sake of progress, it goes against human nature.
The people I’m describing are the draftsman, or junior architects, they probably make around 40 after school and most owe 100k in student loans and there’ll be nothing for them to do.
Dishonest about which part? Using the lower of the two numbers or $1,200/mo would equate to $14,400/year of additional income.
Shoot, last time I checked the median household income was around $60,000/year. However, this is a household and doesn't represent the individuals of said household. I believe it was MIT who did a study about this and said the household constitutes of 2.2 wage earners. $60k/2.2 is a meager 27,272/year.
In other words, UBI would boost an individual's income by more than 50% and that's not a lot?
And for those that reply saying the per capita income in the United States is higher, also around $60,000/year, I didn't use that because it's a misleading number. Higher wage earners inflate the number, giving a false sense of prosperity at the per capita level.
Take 100 individuals, 99 making 25k/year and one making 250k/year, the average per capita income of this group is $27,250, almost 10% more than what 99% of the people make. Now imagine someone making 1 million, 10 million, etc.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggie...avings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#5dfda444e0d9
And with making jobs require less knowledge and skill, it's making it easier for companies to start off people with lower salaries and lower rates of salary growth.
As long as rich people are still making their money they aren't going to generally care about anyone else.
Hey, I think he's referencing the article he used in his post.
Here's an excerpt from the article. I'll check out SSA.gov to see if the data used in the article are still true. In the meantime, I've pasted the link to the Forbes article as well as to SSA.gov.
Exercept
As the law currently stands, Social Security beneficiaries pay income taxes on their benefits if they have total income in excess of $25,000 as an individual, $32,000 if filing a joint return with a spouse. They also pay income tax on any income they may earn separate and apart from their social security receipts.
Does it make sense to require an elderly married couple, bringing in less than $32,000 a year, to pay income taxes? Maybe. But keep in mind that as we take more of their benefits checks via higher payments on income taxes, we move them closer and closer to the welfare roles where the cost to those of us who do pay income taxes becomes far more substantial. It is also worth noting that the process would also begin to negate the entire point of the Social Security system.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickun...ple-paying-federal-income-taxes/#2cf9c0542398
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.html
The average goes up to 34,750 for one person making a million. For 10 million, it drives the average up to 124,750.
He's saying, I presume, you'redishonest about living in Chicago at 2k per month, which I don't care about if you do or don't, or your honesty.
I'm saying your logic, and reasoning, here and otherwise, is insufficient and brought to you by the same people who thought if you split Bloomberg's wealth it would give everyone 1 million dollars when in actuality it's about 100.
exactly. And that he thinks “most people” can live off $2000 a month. No they can’t. I’m calling ******** on that
That, I'd leave up to the economists/professionals to figure out. I know people are freaking out about inflation, but if those in charge were able to figure out how to pay for UBI, then inflation wouldn't be as much of an issue as they are worried about. Now, if they just pushed something through without factoring in the upward inflationary pressures, we'll be ******.
My guess is the govt would have to raise taxes, especially on the highest income earners. Some would say to cut military spending, but I believe we "only" spend 1 trillion/year on the military. At the same time, UBI would cost 4 to 8 trillion dollars, depending on the amount everyone would get per year.
Of course, the 8 trillion assumes every American would get 2,000/mo, and I don't think it would work out that way. I think those who are 18 or older would qualify, and then the amount would decrease depending on income level.
The 4 trillion was computed by doing 300 million (arbitrary number) and multiplying it by 14,400 or 1,200/mo.
Aaah yes, the black hearted, evil rich versus the pure of heart, noble poor.
Either way it was still misleading to say they (retirees 65 and over) don't pay taxes. My point was that depending on how much they bring home as a whole, depended on how much was taxed from SS. Plus, they also pay taxes on most annuities. Pre tax 401K's are taxed as well. I know this because I have done some research of late trying to see how to avoid taxes in retirement and at what age do we stop paying them. There is no age where they stop when you exceed a certain yearly income minimum.
Idk what the Bloomberg example has anything to do with what I said? Of course, dividing 60 billion by our population wouldn't result in a large number, our country is made up of over 320 million people. That's around 180 bucks.
This thread was about UBI and people were saying 2k/mo was not enough to live on. All I did was argue that 2k was plenty and even 1,200 could change the lives of my Americans. I don't understand what's hard to get about that.
Well it's true. For example, Jeff Bezos makes several billions a year but was telling his Whole Foods employees to donate their sick leave to the employees that didn't have any and it took massive negative press and threats of a strike to get them to provide sick leave for everyone who tested positive for Coronavirus. Instead of being an ******* that didn't care about his employees, he could have been doing that from the outset.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. From my readings on UBI are that it would be tax-free, in other words, you'll be getting X/mo in tax-free income. So 24k/year would mean having 2k/mo to live off of.
If 2k/mo per person is not enough for the average person to live on, I have no idea what kind of lives the average person is living.
You have to remember, the 2k/mo is per person, so if you're married the family is essentially bringing in an extra 4k/mo.
Pipe dream. As has been eluded to earlier, there are tax breaks for the rich and they know how to pay less taxes and have well paid lawyers to get around our current system. Plus, those making the rules/laws are the rich ones who allow this to happen. You would have to completely rewrite the tax codes and laws to eliminate the breaks. Now, that being said, I would be for it. I was with Herman Cain on the 9 9 9 plan and eliminate the tax breaks.
On to who gets UBI. What would be the cut off yearly income rate? Would you not also have to provide it in increments then to help those who just missed the cut off now make as much as those you just helped to keep things fair for them. Afterall, the point was to increase the standard for those below the mark and they will now live better than those who did not make the mark. Vicious cycle right?
How many people would start getting married just to get $4000.00 a month? How many would quit work because that will be more than enough for a large portion of Americans. I know a lot of people now who work and don't make that much. A lot of people paying taxes would no longer be working and paying taxes.
Thanks for using the richest person in the world and his company that provides jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans as an example [eyeroll]
What people are talking about is taxing higher income people to pay for lower income people, how the hell is that not greed from the poor? You can argue it’s more greed. The “rich” guy just wants to keep more of his and the poor wants to take away from the rich without earning it. The rich aren’t advocating taking from the poor. It’s like if two people that make the same amount of money are bartering over an item then they’re both just being good with their money. But if a guy that makes 100k is bartering with a guy that makes 25k all of a sudden the guy making 100k is a greedy and evil.
I just don’t understand the attitude that because someone is successful then they are somehow lower morally. At the end of the day everyone is looking out for their best interests, even the poor. Everyone is “greedy”.
Yeah, that's the thing we'd have to figure out how to get rid or reduce these tax breaks, and since the rich are the ones that create these laws in the first place, it is kind of a pipe dream. I was stating how it could be paid for. The problem about the 9 9 9 plan is the government would be getting even less in the form of tax payments. Even ignoring UBI, we'd still need to improve things across the nation, such as education and our infrastructure. We'll need to finance that somehow.
Not sure what the cut off rate would be but I guess we can use Trumpbux as an example? Those making 75k or less get the full benefit, 75-99k would get a decreasing benefit and more than 99 would get zero benefits.
Of course, they could just lower the number so that UBI helps give the poor some sort of safety net.
my rent is $1700 a month. Bout to have a $2000 mortgage. In a low tax state.
sorry guy, $2k is not enough and “most people” would never agree to this
Harsh is right. "A little harsh" is a good example of a modern "shoot the messenger" reply, to signal applicable recipients to their emotional safe spaces. But, obviously, your overall agreement indicates this was not your intent. Once upon a time "a little harsh" or phrases like it came in the form of "the truth hurts". And whenever a young man heard those words he immediately knew he had a problem that required fixing, where he was both exclusive owner and repairman. Today, not so much.
The top 400 richest families had a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 50% in 2018.
All good questions, and that's where I'd leave it to the professionals. I think the whole theory behind UBI is that while a large number of people would likely quit working, others might use that money to try to better society.
For example, let's say a person chose a major not because of interest but out of the desire to make money. If UBI had existed, maybe they would've preferred a role that helps better society even though they are getting paid much less.
I know several people I went to grad school with that only chose to go to make high five figures by the time they graduated. Some wanted to be teachers or have a blue-collar job, but parental pressure and peer pressure got in the way. Now, these people or at least some are miserable making $$$ when if UBI existed they could at least do what they wanted to do as they have that UBI check coming in.
Using myself as an example, I always liked helping my dad around the house and building stuff. In high school, I would ask if I can follow him around at work and help out. He was a plumber and owned a small business in small-town Kentucky. I think doing that or being an electrician would be much more interesting than working in finance, looking at numbers all day. Plus, you have more interactions with people.
No, the government would get the same or more with 9 9 9 because you eliminate all of the breaks. Flat tax that everyone pays.
Now back to UBI. I am not opposed to helping those who help themselves. By that I mean, you don't work, you don't get help. Excluding the physically and mentally disabled. Prior to Covid and after there are enough jobs out here be it full or part time. You want to suck off of the government dole, suck air.
The Bloomberg example has everything to do with what is being discussed here.
I'm not sure if you are just trolling, but the people who are feeding you this nonsense on the internet or youtube videos or whatever else are taking advantage of your naivete... the overly simplistic arguments that leads you to believe you are making a point of any substance whatsoever, one that's simply too obvious for others to understand is a complete waste of your/our time.
The economists/professionals can't figure it out either because it can't work; the communist dream will never die though with some of them and the useful idiots that they can indoctrinate along the way to be their footsoldiers all suffer from their own form of greed, an anger at the nature of wealth disparity in a competitive society.
You will never be able to better the lot of the common man by taking from the productive to give to the unproductive. If you want to better the life of the common man, you create an environment conducive to his success, but any environment where success is an achievement/possibility is going to produce disparate outcome. You simply can't knock Bezos or Zuckerberg or whomever back down to your level, without bring down Ron Mehico there or Joey Rupption or any/all above average Joe too, in a manner that doesn't make life worse for everyone else. None of these failed ideas you read about on the internet or presented to you by Bernie or Warren are new; you don't really have an argument much less the moral high ground argument you think you achieve with the lame arguments you might present about everyone being free to follow their passions or someone rich pays a lower effective percentage than someone not.
Anyway, I'll leave it here, I've been getting in to exceedingly ignorant conversations here lately on the CatPaw with posters who think they are much smarter than they actually are, maybe spend a little time reading your finance textbooks more carefully and you'll be able to figure out your 2k per person pipe dream is indeed unattainable.
I'm not sure if you are just trolling, but the people who are feeding you this nonsense on the internet or youtube videos or whatever else are taking advantage of your naivete... the overly simplistic arguments that leads you to believe you are making a point of any substance whatsoever, one that's simply too obvious for others to understand is a complete waste of your/our time.
The economists/professionals can't figure it out either because it can't work; the communist dream will never die though with some of them and the useful idiots that they can indoctrinate along the way to be their footsoldiers all suffer from their own form of greed, an anger at the nature of wealth disparity in a competitive society.
You will never be able to better the lot of the common man by taking from the productive to give to the unproductive. If you want to better the life of the common man, you create an environment conducive to his success, but any environment where success is an achievement/possibility is going to produce disparate outcome. You simply can't knock Bezos or Zuckerberg or whomever back down to your level, without bring down Ron Mehico there or Joey Rupption or any/all above average Joe too, in a manner that doesn't make life worse for everyone else. None of these failed ideas you read about on the internet or presented to you by Bernie or Warren are new; you don't really have an argument much less the moral high ground argument you think you achieve with the lame arguments you might present about everyone being free to follow their passions or someone rich pays a lower effective percentage than someone not.
Anyway, I'll leave it here, I've been getting in to exceedingly ignorant conversations here lately on the CatPaw with posters who think they are much smarter than they actually are, maybe spend a little time reading your finance textbooks more carefully and you'll be able to figure out your 2k per person pipe dream is indeed unattainable.
I understand your position but I'm pretty sure you pay more than most so I wouldn't use your example as a representation of the typical American. I could live in downtown Chicago on $1,700/mo in a nice condo.
https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/national-average-monthly-mortgage-payment/
"Using myself as an example, I always liked helping my dad around the house and building stuff. In high school, I would ask if I can follow him around at work and help out. He was a plumber and owned a small business in small-town Kentucky. I think doing that or being an electrician would be much more interesting than working in finance, looking at numbers all day. Plus, you have more interactions with people."
I can agree with this. I am leaving a good paying job because of it going sour and the stress involved with it is not worth my health. I am retiring early taking early SS with my military retirement and civil service (job now) retirement. Not where I wanted to be financially but, will do part time work on something I like to get to where I need to be. It will take a little longer but, I will be happier.
I can agree with this. I am leaving a good paying job because of it going sour and the stress involved with it is not worth my health. I am retiring early taking early SS with my military retirement and civil service (job now) retirement. Not where I wanted to be financially but, will do part time work on something I like to get to where I need to be. It will take a little longer but, I will be happier.
I understand your position but I'm pretty sure you pay more than most so I wouldn't use your example as a representation of the typical American. I could live in downtown Chicago on $1,700/mo in a nice condo.
https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/national-average-monthly-mortgage-payment/
well, at $1700 for a condo in Chicago. Not much room left with $300
Cmon that's not a fair argument. I wouldn't stop working if I got UBI, but 2k/mo would still go a long way for most people.
My parents in KY were paying 500/mo on their mortgage for a 3BR house they bought back in 1995. They are both retired now and have combined expenses of no more than $1,200/mo.
Using myself as an example, I'm pretty sure if people did a summation of their needs, it would yield a lower number than expected.
We should give everybody a million dollars; the we’d all be rich and live in big houses and drive fancy cars. That’s how money works, right?