http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not
>This tangled history contains a few warnings about different political conceptions of the UBI idea. “The right tends to see it as a replacement for the welfare state,” says Snircek. “Basically, in their conception, UBI is a way to do away with benefits and marketise everything. And, obviously, that has to be warded off completely.”
>“The other aspect is, it should be as a high as possible. It can’t just be some middling level, like the Green party was proposing at the last election.” Their idea, he explains, was to pay everyone around £72 a week, roughly the same level as Jobseekers’ Allowance. “That would help people, but they would still have to go out and find a 40-hour job to survive, so it doesn’t do any of the political things that are so important.”
>As Inventing the Future explains, these include boosting people’s bargaining power with employers, and UBI’s distinct feminist aspect: “One of my favourite stories from the experiments with UBI in Canada and the US is that they found that divorces went up. Women had suddenly got financial independence to leave bad and abusive relationships.”
>>70878638
Intelligent racists just hide their racism
http://www.latintimes.com/are-smarter-people-less-racist-new-study-says-more-intelligent-people-just-hide-racism-better-130192
>>70878638
As much as I abhor the concept, it would probably be more efficient in the long run.
The only problem is that socialists would eventually create a new welfare system on top of the basic income to cover the people who waste their basic income dollars.
So you'd have to guarantee that doesn't happen.
>>70878638
If you truly want to rage, then watch these videos in this order:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZFY0dqC0Ks
Then watch this after you've finished watching the previous one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52M2_c42eQY
>>70879271
The Black one was stupid but the White one was on point.
>>70879271
>respond to the name a color
>instantly talking about humans not the color
>>70878638
It's a damn nice idea, but even giving everyone 75 pounds a week would cost the UK about 227.5 billion pounds a year. They currently only spend about 54 billion on welfare in total. Even if they scrapped Welfare, this is a bit more than four times their current welfare budget. And they're only expected to have a national tax revenue for 2016 of about 224 billion pounds.
So, yeah, the article is actually a good idea, but unlike what they're saying about it applying to every single person regardless of income isn't going to work. They'd have to restrict it to the bottom 25% of income earners to match the current welfare budget - assuming they scrap it all - and even then, the bottom 25% would only make about 3,341 pounds a year, or 64 pounds and 25 cents a week.
Rage? No. Just "Gee, Libs, what a nice idea.. shame it doesn't work." I ain't mad, just kinda bummed. It's one of those things that sounds like a great idea, but...
>>70878638
Sure, why not.
Might kill off industry and eventually agriculture, then the collapse of nations. Sounds great really.
wow great an increase in divorce
i couldnt be happier
>>70881872
That's not what matters. 100 pound a week would inflate the pound. If everyone can buy a loaf of bread, why should it stay at, say, one pound a loaf? This is why basic income just does not work. Capitalists will want to keep things proportional. If 100 pounds becomes pocket money, it will have the purchasing power of pocket money.
>>70881872
>>70883795
Oh, I won't even get into that part of things. I'm just pointing out that the logistics alone are impossible, never mind the economics. It's just one of those things that just isn't going to work. Despite looking like a great idea or a solution to some problems, it's going to make things worse.
>>70878638
>Women had suddenly got financial independence to leave bad and abusive relationships.
Women suddenly found another provider, and so they ditched the one that wasn't making them "happy" all of the time. So now, whenever a marriage does not fit inside the definition of what feminists define as "utopia", women just bail because their impossible standards weren't met by a lowly human male.
Women no longer have to hunt for a provider, because they can now coerce every man in their nation into providing for them, on top of being able to provide for themselves.
