F.A. Hayek:
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

Milton Friedman:
"(My proposal for a negative income tax) has been greeted with considerable (though far from unanimous) enthusiasm on the left and with considerable (though again far from unanimous) hostility on the right. Yet, in my opinion, the negative income tax is more compatible with the philosophy and aims of the proponents of limited government and maximum individual freedom than with the philosophy and aims of the proponents of the welfare state and greater government control of the economy."

It seems there is general agreement across the political spectrum that a government provided, guaranteed minimum income is beneficial and ethical to implement. Why, then, is this topic of almost universal agreement not advanced or actually implemented?

read marx

>>24527956
My man, Marx is one of the most prolific writers in economics, and I have read quite a bit of him. What specifically does he say that is relevant to this? Again, I am pointing out that even austerity hawks and extreme conservative/small government thinkers come to the conclusion that a UBI or negative income tax is both economically beneficial and a general ethical good.

that's why america as a 15k standard tax deduction and a bunch of tax credits so if ur poor u always get like 2000 dollars back which is essentially friendman's negative income tax

>>24527956
Karl Marx was an insane degenerate who worked with the Freemasons to enslave the world. All world leaders are Marxists, this is why you are having children undergo sex change surgeries just for playing with barbie dolls.

>>24528074
You make Karl Marx sound like the most powerful man of all time

>>24528219
he made a deal with the devil

>>24528002
Milton Friedman's example for negative income tax, adjusted for inflation, would be about a $15k negative income tax payment for a person making zero income. A person would receive a negative income tax payment up to the point their working income reached $60k in today's dollars, at which point they would neither receive nor pay anything for income tax. This is absolutely not how the current system is.

>>24528002
Milton Friedman's example for negative income tax, adjusted for inflation, would be about a $30k negative income tax payment for a person making zero income. A person would receive a negative income tax payment up to the point their working income reached $60k in today's dollars, at which point they would neither receive nor pay anything for income tax. This is absolutely not how the current system is.

>>24527952 (OP)
Read Belloc. This is essentially how the servile state will come into being. UBI will remove the incentive to work for a significant portion of the population, resulting in a massive loss of security for employers. The only way to restore security to the employers (and ensure that the nation's necessary work gets done) will be for the state to make working for them mandatory. When the average worker loses his legal right to withhold his labor, he will cease to be a proletarian and become a type of slave. This would obviously be a major decrease in general freedom.

>>24527952 (OP)
I think some people would just waste it on drugs or dumb shit and ask for more money. the way to "solve" such problem would be to provide people with "some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health" directly, and also far more efficient in terms of money/effect, IMO. I've been told in this board that that measure would be too paternalistic, though.

another problem is that a portion of unemployed people would get used to it and avoid work or education. it would basically create NEETs. this is a problem because, in general (with exceptions) the ones that had jobs, became unemployed and had any work skills would lose them over time, and the ones that had no skills or never worked would have no motivation to learn anything at all. the solution to this is social, and comes in the form of moral messages to motivate people to improve themselves as well as their communities. but politicians don't even pretend anymore to have any morality to guide people to be part of the improvement of a community/nation/$GROUP in this neoliberal society.

finally, UBI would generate inflation, just like the COVID pandemic showed us. which is kind of funny considering that the proponents were the right-wing lolberts that founded that branch of politics.

in short, I think the idea of UBI is kind of dumb.

but I'm no expert in any of this shit.

>>24528322
>the ones that had no skills or never worked would have no motivation to learn anything at all
and no motivation to work...

what >>24528310 said is true. you'd have to make working mandatory. this, AFAIU, sounds similar to how some unemployment programs work today...

>>24527952 (OP)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGBQwZsp3T0

>>24528310
I think you overestimate the impact of UBI regarding employers. First, the "necessary work" of the nation must be easier and easier as technology progresses, since technology multiples labor. Thus, theoretically, there should be a cross where technology sufficiently multiplies labor that it becomes viable to extract enough labor from the system to ensure basic living for all. Further, it is a misanthropic view of humans that you think there must be either an authority forcing people to work or the threat of deprivation forcing people to work. Most people have a drive to build, to advance, to obtain a higher standard of living.

>>24528322
This seems like an argument against freedom, since some use their freedom in self destructive ways. Just because some people can't handle cash payments should not prevent the responsible majority from receiving it. Another way of framing your post, is the idea that all people should be deprived freedom because some people become self destructive with their freedom. This simply doesn't fly for me.

>>24528341
Don't you think Hayek and Friedman would take the issues raised into account when doing their work? Why, then, have both of these economists concluded that a basic standard of living can reasonably be afforded to all at the current economic output (which was decades ago, which means it is surely feasible now.) Applies to >>24528322 post as well.

>>24528341
>Paul Cockshott

>>24528360
isn't he a cs professor who larps as an economist?

>>24528347
ok, well,
1) those are actual problems. I've seen or heard some of that shit happen. people living in poverty receiving gibs and doing nothing of value at all for years, then suffering the consequences of an economic crisis or whatever. some will become thieves because they became so retarded, they don't even have enough ideas on what to do with their free time, and abhor working for others.
2) I don't like druggies, and to me, drugs are like a virus. people get infected. some of those recover, some don't. some even become crazy enough to be considered a threat to our society.
if I was a dictator, I'd hang every single narco mussolini style to solve the drugs problem, but that won't stop drugs from existing anyway.

>>24528357
>>24528360
The tl;dr- no one currently on disability or pension would support such a thing as UBI because it actually screws them out of money which they said in to social security. Also UBI requires such heavy taxation that after a certain bracket you're paying in a majority of your wages. It also leads to such odd things as a married couple who one works and one doesnt - they will get more UBI than a family where both work so it leads to having no incentive to working.

That's a basic overview of his arguments.

>>24528378
>It also leads to such odd things as a married couple who one works and one doesnt - they will get more UBI than a family where both work so it leads to having no incentive to working.
That's not how UBI or negative income tax work

>>24528388
Watch the video, pls. Every citizen is taxed for UBI so two people who work full time would be heavily taxed as opposed to a family where only one works - the unemployed parent would get full UBI while also having their partner's income plus his UBI which means more income than the two workers who had their incomes taxed for the UBI.

>>24528393
Again, that's not how it works.

>>24528230
God forbid a nigga care for the general population

>>24528398
Nobody is taxed. UBI just magically grows out of your ass I take it.

>>24528401
nta but central banks can print money out of thin air

>>24528401
(1. The nationalization of resources can fund a UBI, see the state of Alaska
(2. income beyond a certain point becomes taxable, this incentivizes people to earn more and is taxed appropriately. In your example, you would have to have one high earner to be more highly taxed than two modest earners.

>>24527969
Pretty sure Anon is referring to
>A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.
>To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
>We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.
>The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.
>A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.
>Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.
>Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.
>It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.
And other similar passages. You're seeing Friedman and Hayek as essentially bourgeois socialist forces in this regard.

>>24528412
That's fair. It is a maximally pessimistic view though, that essentially our modern economies can never deliver economic freedom to the citizenry. Personally, I would settle for a situation like Norway where there are high taxes and nationalized resources and they are used to give all citizens the resources necessary to built the life of their choosing.

>>24528310
now I gotta read this

>>24528427
Okay, well that's different. Wanting what Norway has is different than UBI.

>>24528330
They're trying to force me to do that too

>>24528436
I think, with the structure in place in Norway, they could sustain a UBI. A big problem with the USA is the gross and rampant corruption regarding government spending. Everything is controlled by corporate interests, just take their healthcare system. Literally every politician runs on the fact that it is broken and needs fixing, but every administration keeps roughly the same system in place, because it makes the insurance companies and the pharma companies a lot of money this way. A competently composed budget could easily cover a UBI.

so, what's the consensus? doesn't help fix anything?

>>24527952 (OP)
>money is replaced by government good boy tokens
>value is completely arbitrary and will never be consistent because it's more or less monopoly money
>you cannot negotiate better pay because your boss is the IRS
>you cannot save money because value is arbitrary
Where does the money come from?
>1. Muh tacks tha ritch!
Net worth and holdings != money sitting in an account somewhere. The rich own property, stocks, companies, bonds, etc. that their wealth is tied up in, and like it or not these assets they own drive the economy; there's debate as to whether this is good or not, but you can't just appropriate them or their equivalent value. The rich are also the ones writing loopholes into tax bills so that only the middle class actually has to pay taxes.
>We'll just borrow it! We can just print infinite money!
The national debt skyrockets and the country becomes a third world shithole at the mercy of banks (this is already the case in the US)
The current neoliberal corporate-state hegemony is already trending toward these things, but "muh infinite free stuff" only makes the problems worse.

>>24529298
You aren't seriously thinking about the topic. No one is claiming "infinite free stuff", we are talking about ensuring enough cash flow to every citizen to secure the basic necessities of life. Again, the actual manufacture and upkeep of the basic necessities would be a trivial matter for the current federal budgets of most western countries to cover and not have any drastic change to how the economy functions. As you allude to, places like the USA already have an astronomical budget, deficit spending a significant portion (which ends up padding profit margins for private individuals). Also, an injection of cash to people most likely to immediately spend it increases demand in the economy, increasing economic activity and encouraging production. Further, assets held by rich people are almost always expected to return some sort of interest, dividend, or gain. There are concrete steps to shore up the taxing of these revenue streams, whereas currently there are all kinds of loopholes and maneuvering that can be done to evade taxation (Just look at the Panama Papers or how the Cayman Islands operate.) In short, you seem to be dismissing a topic which is viable and which economists from across the entire political spectrum have concluded is possible and desirable.

>>24529518
>You aren't seriously thinking about the topic.
The next sentence:
>we are talking about ensuring enough cash flow to every citizen to secure the basic necessities of life.
Holy shit

>>24527952 (OP)
because maybe not all but too many intelligent people who are actually doing the work are clearly aware of this struggle not being worth it and they would drop out. that would hurt the economy as they are the actual taxpayers and not the tax benefiters such as you know who.

>>24529550
You're right, the economy can't possibly generate that kind of value