Universal basic income

Pretty much

Oh fuck off you paranoid cunt

Won't refugees just flood whatever countries or areas that implement this until the system breaks down?

Won't refugees just flood whatever countries or areas that implement this until the system breaks down?

I feel like it could divide the working class further, but I could be wrong.
I just imagine there being massive propaganda against people receiving UBI the same way there is against people living on social security.

Rules on migration disincentivize that from happening.

There cannot be any discrimination against people who receive UBI because UBI is universal, i.e. everyone receives it.

Because just doing nothing the whole day is boring. Of course people wouldn't want to work voluntarily anymore in shitty jobs, because there would be no necessity for them anymore. They wouldn't be forced anymore to take any job, just to be able to survive. This is of course the whole point of it.
The UBI leads to a complete reconceptualization of the purpose of work and jobs. In modern society jobs are just a distribution mechanism for wealth anyway, which is supposed to be fair. Jobs don't really have the purpose of wealth creation anymore. Note that politicians always ask "how do we create more jobs?" instead of asking "how do we create more wealth?", even though it is the wealth that we actually want, not the jobs. But it is due to jobs being the only means how wealth is distributed in capitalist societies that jobs are so important. If we had a better wealth distribution mechanism the whole concept of jobs would become superflucious.

How?

Somebody has to clean the toilets.

Three options:
1. Do it yourself
2. Automatisation (Let robots do it)
3. Pay the one who does it enough so that they are willing to do it

1. The owner of a business won't be cleaning the toilet because he is running the business.
2. That is not always possible, even toilet cleaning can have dynamic situation and you can't tell a toilet cleaning robot to also do something else.
3. Unless you are a facility manager I.e. responsible for all upkeep, it is a basic job that deserves basic pay.

So what? It's the problem of the owner of the business to find a solution.
Those businesses which have cleaner toilets will make better profits. The business owner merely now cannot rely anymore on there being a enough people being forced to accept his low pay for shitty jobs.

UBI =/= negative income tax. UBI pays everybody the same amount regardless of whether they work or not.

Explain.

Correct.

UBI is enough to survive of. It ideally will cover your rent and bills with a little left over. So anything you earn working (after tax) is yours. You'll probably find more people choosing to work part time, ie creating more jobs. You may also find that people thanks to UBI are no longer willing to clean dishes for £5/hour. So if the work is important and needs done, they will have to pay more for it.

Yes. UBI cannot work with open door immigration policy.

So you're going to tax the very rich enough to give everyone a livable stipend and then inflate the cost of labor.

The market will regulate the cost of labor.
Some jobs will become more expensive (those that no one would do if they weren't forced to). Some will become less expensive (those that are enjoyable self-actualziation jobs).
Demand and supply will regulate the costs just as before, the only difference is that everyone's basic level has been raised so that wage slavery is abolished. UBI is the future there is no way around it, because automatization is killing more and more jobs, so that if we don't find a better way to distribute wealth than the job mechanism, there will be millions of unemployed, which will lead to severe social unrest and eventually revolution, which is why those who look forwards to a revolution might be opposed to it. But if you want to keep up ever increasing technological development, then UBI is the only way.

We'll see I guess.

Yeah, taxes will have to go up. But not as drastically as people seem to think. Top rate tax up 5-10%, slight increase in corporation tax and force the evaders to pay what they are meant to.

UBI in the UK would cost about 450bn a year. That'd be £750/month. The current welfare bill is 240bn. We pay 60bn in debt interest. This leaves a shortfall of about 150bn. Sales tax takings would increase too. So the difference in tax wouldn't be too massive. Provisions may be needed for the severely disabled though.

Can you live of 750 pounds? I think you use that on rent and water/gas/electricity alone.

I would really like to see the concept successfully adopted somewhere. But at this point I'm convinced it is impossible in America.

£750 = roughly $1000. My rent is £325/month. Utilities and tax another £100-150. So I could. Of course I am single and no kids so my living costs are lower than some. How much do you think would be suitable?There is a case for a payment to under 18s.

Oh 1000 euros seems more reasonable. Probably conversion that messed with my calculation.

This guy is a self-confessed neo-liberal shill and he reckons it could work in the US.

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/04/of-course-we-can-afford-a-universal-basic-income-do-we-want-one-though/#2758fd30e00a

Another good article here that compares UBI to job guarantee.

dw.com/en/whats-better-an-unconditional-basic-income-or-a-job-guarantee/a-19305445

Personally I'm skeptical of the job guarantee. While some here call workers 'wage slaves', job guarantee seems a step closer to actual slavery.

A job guarantee is completely retarded. It is not jobs that is the primary good, but wealth. Jobs are merely a means to an end, not an end in itself. If there simply are not enough jobs anymore, because there is simply no demand for low-skilled jobs, then what's the point of artificially creating jobs? It's like forcing everyone to run one hour in a hamster wheel everyday and then give them money for it, just so that one can say "they deserved it, because they have worked for it."

Kinda my thinkings on it. Though I can see a case for public works schemes.

What's your thoughts on the argument put forward here that the desperately needy would be adversely affected?

ft.com/cms/s/0/6d328764-28d2-11e6-8ba3-cdd781d02d89.html#axzz4B4e62HNr

Pretty funny too to see the FT trying to make the argument against it from the left, but they do raise a valid point.

From the article

I don't see it as a negative that people don't get paid for procreating anymore. They need to become more responsible and only procreate if they can afford it. Children should receive their own UBI being paid out once they are 12 years old which will enable them to become financially independent from their family, so that they can get away from abusive families.

Extra support for the disabled need not be curbed. What percentage of the whole social welfare cost actually constitutes payments for disabled people? I guess it's just a tiny percentage anyway.

As for the elderly. There need to be transition to privately funded retirement provision.

swiss guy here

and i don't think we should support the UBI

gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/

opinion discarded

I think that UBI is more generous than the current state pension, and private pensions are probably a good idea anyway given our demographic. So I don't think pensioners would do badly of UBI.

To an extent I agree. The point I think is that some people, say single mothers with two kids, will lose out. And you just have to look at the docties strikes over here to see that the modern left won't accept a few people losing out even if there is a greater good argument. So maybe £200 per kid/month unconditionally or something. This of course adds billions to the total bill and would be open to abuse (scumbag has 8 kids and spends it all on drugs and nights out). And being UBI, it is unconditional.

Sorry, just kinda working through all the issues in my head here. I am certain UBI is the way to go, but there are complex situations that need answered first without falling back to over-bureaucracy. The bill for simply running the DWP in the UK (benefits + welfare people) is 6bn a year.

...

Checking it out. Who is source?

some german groups operating together under the name Gruppen gegen Kapital und Nation.

I was meaning what's their politics. Found them.

translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruppen_gegen_Kapital_und_Nation&prev=search

Marxist and against nation state. Their opposition to the nation state is probably the root of their analysis as so far I've read nothing compelling against UBI. They seem a bit all or nothing, because UBI isn't the abolition of capitalism they reject it.

No wonder leftcoms support them

the first part of their critique is exposition. But yes, they are principled communists.

it must be hard being an opportunist.

Whats wrong opportunism? Any way to promote the cause or hell the working class is one we should take.

I oppose UBI because it seems to be an overall restructuring of social service which in times of recession and austerity can only mean a bad thing. here in switzerland for example the state would've used the UBI to excuse the reduction of pensions and other benefits (which are in danger here bc there are more and more pensioners compared to working people who are basically financing a part of their pension)

I got this much. I just couldn't find the meat of their case against UBI. IT strikes me they are arguing in favour of the current system over UBI. Fair enough, dirty reformists and all. But if it's going to make life better for the working class then why not?

This struck me as particularly odd.

What is the current state pension? Would SF2500 not have been an increase? Also the second part,

This is an issue across most of the west and will only get worse with or without UBI.

sure
read:

I don't have the time to get into it right now bc I need to go to class. But they're right basically. I wouldn't want to work in a society that is alienating either if I got free $$$

we shouldn't really argue that abstaining from work won't happen; it most certainly would happen in capitalism if people weren't compelled to work. But this isn't something us communists should fight as capitalist labor is estranging, alienating, time consuming and slowly killing us. Communism is and has always been anti work.

krisis.org/1999/manifesto-against-labour/

Until third world overpopulation and consequent migration is under control there can be no universal income. The first government to implement it is going to get swarmed and destroyed. The first step towards implementing it is therefore to end all food and medicine aid for the third world. Let them pull their own weight until they have reached a sustainable equilibrium.

Yea because theres no such thing as immigration control eh?

Hope you make it back after class cause I'm not following the alienation line.

Not if they enforced borders.

Not at levels required for this to work. All immigration would have to be halted or only guest workers would be allowed without possibility of citizenship and UBI would only be for citizens.

That's racist, how could you be so heartless ;^)
But in all seriousness there does not seem to be any political will to enforce borders and in Europe the EU would have to go before UBI can be implemented as the EU is both against border controls and for limitless third world immigration.

UBI is a desperate attempt by capitalists to save their broken system.

And what better way to push for revolution than to force the capitalists to try and fail to fix it? Only then will people see that it is unfixable, and must be abolished entirely

UBI could be dependent on citizenship which can be earned in most yuro states. And the EU could well be on its way out.

That doesnt sound difficult at all.

also
Nice way to ruin what UBI is supposed to produce.

It absolutely must be and this then also means that there can be no welfare for non citizens.

It won't go quietly. The plans for an EU army have been accelerated and that army has never been about protecting the EU from external threats but to keep individual member states in line. There will be blood one way or the other so lets hope it will be from the lifeless bodies of eurocrats.

It will be difficult because first you have to get rid of the neoliberal globalists and they won't go without bloodshed.

Why? You would only take them if it was the only way to get the work that needs to be done done.

EU army ain't got shit on muh Trident. There are more US troops on Europe than an EU army could muster. Honestly if the UK Brexits then the Dutch and Greeks aren't far behind. France may follow too. Good luck to France and Germany with that 60bn a year in new aid they're giving Africa.

China is also giving aid to Africa and actually investing a lot into building African infrastructure and developing it. The right wing social darwinist idea that Africa will develop "equilibrium" if it is left to its own devices is completely retarded. It takes massive planned investments to raise a country out of poverty to a modernized developed nation. And that's what China did , which is why it is soon to surpass the US as the leading economic superpower.

China was on course to do this before they invested in Africa. The investment in Africa isn't some philanthropic solidarity. China needs desperately resources. They almost have a monopoly on rare earth elements as it stands. Africa cements this.

It is mutually beneficial though. Of course it isn't one-sided philanthropy. but it is economic cooperation.

Also i meant that China rose its own country out of poverty, not Africa, partly by opening up the market and allowing foreign investments, but without following the neo-liberal policies of the west, but maintaining authoritarian state control over its investments. It was mainly an agricultural nation, too, and modernization required a lot of targeted investments and planning and doesn't just occur naturally as a process of biological evolution or something.

I'm not sure how well the africans will do out of it in the long run.

China may make a case for state capitalism but it's only possible with China's oppressive social rules.

Yes, but the radical transformation of a country as large as China in just a few decades is only possible with an authoritarian state, because it is more efficient than democracy and also more efficient than letting international corporations free reign over your country and hoping that they will have the best interest of your people at heart, i.e. neo-liberalism.

Bizarrely China benefits massively from neo-liberalsm. If more states were protectionist China's slave labour trinkets wouldn't have carried them so far. I also don't see an easy transition for them into anything else. But yeah, I guess you're right that authoritarianism is required for rapid development. I wonder if any african nations will adopt this as a model?

Actually, accelerationists support UBI.

...

This could actually work. Last time we sat and took it cause the were stealing our future earnings. If they directly dip into everyone's pockets, we could well be dining on bankers and their families.

Instead of UBI why don't we just nationalize the automated work force and just have them work for us and provide everything we need in life for free? Of course this could only happen in a post-scarcity world but it is a much better alternative.

Yeah no shit, that's the end goal.

This discussion of UBI is the discussion of the first stepping stones.

initially maybe. Reduction of other benefits would immediately follow tho.
I agree that this issue is structural but the UBI won't solve it. It'll just let the bourgs kill off the current program so it can be replaced with the UBI which is far more flexible than any pension system as you could easily change the amount money people get. The UBI committee here in switzerland for example wanted the parliament to decide on the amount of money a person would get. 2500 CHF were just a proposition.

Why? Labor in capitalism is alienated. You wake up each morning to produce things for another person so this other person can profit from it. There's no fulfillment and no desire involved and yet you spend 10 hours every day so you could afford to live. I know that if I were to get free money I wouldn't want to work in a factory. I'd probably do something totally different, something that isn't deemed productive by capital.

Universal income w/ no welfare vs Universal icon w/ welfare. Is the former really better to combat poverty?

Illegal migrants can't qualify (for citizenship) under threat of deportation. Because they aren't citizens, they aren't entitled to it.

Legal migrants are usually on work permits and have stringent policies on how long and on what terms you can qualify for citizenship; up to years in most cases.