What do the numbers look like if you back out all the wealth of the people we know were known acquaintances of Epstein. Its just an interesting math problem.
1 Like
The only way to do this successfully without raising taxes is to force tech companies to compensate users for the data they unavoidably create from using modern technology. Terms of service agreements extort users by forcing them to relinquish ownership of personal data in order to use any device. In the modern era, device use is unavoidable and the commissions earned would be used for UBi
1 Like
Because the second you permit a welfare program youâll be called a demon for ever wanting to get rid of it.
Are you aware that food stamps started as a stimulus program for farmers, and wasnât supposed to be an infinite free food spigot for the worthless parasites of society to consume for their whole lives?
You can never get rid of it because nobody wants to vote for âstarving people to deathâ. Well except me.
2 Likes
Not if the bill comes with conditions that automatically & gradually roll it back if conditions arenât met
1 Like
People learn loopholes and cheat the system again I refer you to the uk system of universal credit
1 Like
I see comments asking where weâd get the money, how would this not disincentivize work, and how would we prevent abuse.
The answer is in the OPâs first sentence: âReplace all welfare programs with UBI.â
Our current welfare system overspends, disincentivizes work, and encourages abuse. UBI is likely the better social safety net.
3 Likes
Terrible idea.
2 Likes
Thatâs a common reaction from people who donât deeply look into it
I highly recommend doing so - itâs fine to be against an idea after youâve deeply dug into it & deeply understand it
But dismissing it without fully understanding does no one any good
3 Likes
A mother of eight who scrounged almost ÂŁ100,000 in benefits she claimed for relatives living in Pakistan has been spared jail after she offered to enrol on a taxpayer funded programme to help her realise her crimes were not âvictimless.â Source Daily mail uk
So you replace benefits, and end up still paying for people in another country.
They always find a loophole!!!
It just wouldnât work
This! Came here to say this exactly! The moment itâs applied, it will be useless!
1 Like
As someone who has lived this in California, this would be and has been an utter disaster. No, we need to bring competitive markets, bring more jobs, lower energy costs, and cut the fat in government spending. This has been nothing but a disaster and nothing more should ever happen. Itâs one thing to write about it but to put into practice would be a gruesome end to our republic.
They got rid of this in Norway because itâs not a functional idea that works. It just serves to create more problems
You mean the ongoing pilot in Norway?
Theyâre currently running it, what do you mean âgot rid of itâ - theyâre all-in
Interesting response, âif they want something, they will have to go to work to get the money to buy itâ Seems that is a basic concept and makes sense to be and support individual responsibility. Wonder if there may need to be some exceptions for people who can not work: blind, immobile, mental health, so might need some basic life costs covered, then apply VAT after a minimum threshold?
Individual responsibility is a big part, but you also canât ignore generational wealth, it makes a difference
Someone with rich parents (& in turn grandparents, and their parents, and their parents) has a lot more room for error
UBI is the capitalistic way to give people some boots, so that they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps
Finland universal basic income experiment to end after two years - CBS News
Sorry I remembered it incorrectly. It was Finland that ended it
So there was a trial in Denver or Colorado somewhere, of UBI for people unemployed and homeless. The results were not great for the UBI case though.
Test UBI groups were split into $50/month as a placebo or control group, one group got like a grand a month and one group got a lump sum up front and more per month and the number of people who had found a home and a job were about an even split across all 3 groups so it had very little effect on outcomes despite the large range. They estimated the cost savings for community provided services and it was small a fraction of the cost of the program. Was it conclusive enough to end this conversation? No. Did it really shed a positive light on widening the pilot idea ? Also, no.
UBI for adults who are capable of entering the workforce and below retirement age by choice is not feasible imo but Iâm not a famous economist. Also, a computer model as a trial would need to be based on some real world precedent in America and in the current financial climate. If you modeled it after the Colorado trial I donât think that analysis would be persuasive.
No disrespect intended, Iâm just trying to add to the discussion.
1 Like
I suggest you read up on Finland - it was quite positive (they didnât end it because it failed)
The Denver study (I live in CO) had a lot of good information
Not sure if you know how bad the homeless problem here is, itâs quite bad - how much does it cost?
Every morning on my bike path I see a cleanup crew + a police officer cleaning up after homeless - itâs hard to take that cost into account when doing an apples-to-apples comparison
(No disrespect taken, appreciate the conversation 
)
