Hello, I’m not that informed about UBI, but here is my arguement:
Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn’t companies just subside the income by raising their prices? Also, do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?
Hello, I’m not that informed about UBI, but here is my arguement:
Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn’t companies just subside the income by raising their prices? Also, do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?
A few days ago, I saw a post about negative income tax which is something that had occurred to me independently. Wasn’t surprised to learn that someone with more brains had actually given it some serious thought and that it had an actual name.
That would be the sort of thing I’d be interested in being implemented, so that those who are on little to no income - especially those who can’t simply “get a (better) job” for whatever reason - don’t fall below the poverty line.
This is not to say that the UK benefits system (where I am) doesn’t work at all, but it’s often coupled with the expectation of getting the recipient back into work or to getting a better job where you don’t need them any more.
It would be nice if that part went away.
I guess that’s essentially what UBI is – benefits, except that they’re high enough and you’re not forced to seek for a job. The negative income tax could perhaps be constantly adjusted to respond to how many humans were currently needed in the economy; although I suppose that the size of the wages themselves would be enough to achieve this. Also, I think UBI could be paid for by taxing the robots, whenever it could be proved that the robot had the same abilities as an employee. The monthly tax could be the size of the replaced employee’s montly salary and it could go directly to the specific person that the robot replaced. Come to think of it, the legal framework could be that only employees are allowed to own robots (and not companies), and the robots would therefore work and earn directly on behalf of that person.