Is the push for Basic Income a push for Communism?

Is the push for Basic Income a push for Communism?

Are these people ignorant to the concept of inflation?

There are 242,470,820 adults in the US. at an income of 20k a year we would need 4,849,416,400,000 dollars for this welfare.

These people also want government paid College education.

So not only we need 4.8 million for welfare, but money for k-12 education,college, infrastructure , government paid health care,military,and pension.


Why haven't we sent these people to the local insane asylum?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax).
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

nice slide thread faggot
but to answer your question, yes

People who support gommunism are inevitably one of these two:
Scum that deserves nothing but a rope either way

Central planning (communism) and welfare are different concepts. They may both be fail but best not to confuse them.

It's conceivable basic income would work as a simpler and cheaper replacement to the welfare state.

I'm fine with basic income for basic work.

Basic Income is a subset of Communism.

Although once the robots start taking over and there are an infinite number of robot slaves for everyone there might be no way around it any more.

Learn simple maths before posting again.

I meant trillion.


Isn't Basic income basically rations?

Yes.

That's 4.8 Trillion

Basic income is huge push for communism and once it's implemented it will be impossible for an elected government to repeal it because tens of millions or more people will be hooked on the free money train. Nations that adopt it will eventually run out of spare money lying around, forcing them to either borrow money to keep paying the basic income of the populace and thereby cause rapid debt growth, or simply printing the money and destroying it's value in the process.

If you guarantee every citizen a basic income of $50 a day, a hamburger and fries will be $51 and the burger joint advertise it as a bargain meal.

So they're going to destroy the value of curency by inflation,and give you goy points that they can take away for not being PC to spend on basics?

...

Ted Kaczinsky seems more accurate in his assessments of modernity daily.

Basic income is just an admission that the judeo-capitalist system is not sustainable.

Why ask a question your own picture answers?

Nigga, rationing our resources would be necessary, since we have 6 billion shitskins to share our wealth with, unless we can somehow limit the technological spread and devastate their ability to develop the capabilities themselves.

Either we go to space in search of necessary resources to supply a world with a nigh unlimited capacity for labor, or we ration it.

I don't like it at all but I don't see an alternative in an economy where machines replace over half of the workers.

its a different thing here in easter europe.
in socialism there was always some kind of income, either state scolarships, regular pay, pensions, crippled/sick pensions, etc..
slackers and hobos were (atleast here) oftenly persecuted for not working.
Anyway then with the shift to capitalism the whole system (not surprisingly) crumbles and they think of a basic income (to replace the states role in socio-economic life of the poorer in society).
ofcourse most of the time money cant even be found for it, then when they pull it from some other vital program its usualy for those who came after here after socialism.

so do i think we need basic income in our country?
depending on the state its in yes, it should just be alot more regulated and strict as to who gets it.

does it push for communism? lel not happening.

Your comic is pretty wrong. In short:
Communism: The people own the means of production.
Basic Income: The people get paid by the State every month.

Basic income, like Communism, would not work at this point in time. Maybe in a few centuries it could be done with some technomagic, but not today.

Giving free food to a raccoon will lead the raccoon back to your home each night as he looks for his meal. Soon he will bring friends, or offspring. Eventually these raccoons will no longer know how to find their own food or be too lazy to get their own. They will take to living in your house walls or rummaging through your yard. They will become violent seeking more food each night than you gave them before.

Now take their source of food away. They will be violent, they will die in the walls giving your house a miasma of death. They will fight amongst one another and keep you up all night with their hissing and kicking. They will begin to tear your house to shreds seeking the food they once received each night.

None of that happens when raccoons are forced to forage for their food, to work for their keep. That is the natural way of things. A man or a raccoon it makes no difference, bad things happen when a creature is given what it didn't work for.

When robots take all the service and unskilled labor jobs, products become much cheaper to produce. You need to work for much less time in order to get the basics. It doesn't really matter if your wages deflate as a result (unless minimum wage laws come to fuck you raw) because you can work 20 hours a week and keep a roof above your head and your belly full.

Right now automation is only useful for companies exploiting economies of scale. You'll find work at small businesses or startups and I'm sure the Internet makes organizing temp work contracts much easier. This will continue for at least the near future. If you're going to provide any state support, it shouldn't be free money. It should be free trade training to help people avoid the transition woes. Turn unskilled labor into skilled labor to do jobs robots can't do yet. Stay ahead of the curve.

If robots get REALLY cheap and actually threaten to replace a majority of jobs, you can pool resources with others to buy and maintain a robot to do meaningful work and split the profits. Now everybody can be the fat-cat, Monopoly-man-lookin-ass capitalist stereotype that communists always complain about, and unless your robots start developing sentience they can't complain about stealing surplus labor. You're rich and the commies are forever BTFO. Good end.

I don't know what to think of Basic Income. Obviously, in the current year, if we were to implement Basic Income, we'd be giving niggers and spics who don't work shitloads more money than we already do. But, hypothetically, if it were to be implemented in an all-white ethnostate where people work and pay their taxes, I can't really think of a reason it'd be a bad thing. You could get rid of minimum wage in order to control for the inevitable inflation that would come from tax hikes on the rich to pay for it, and you could get rid of all other forms of welfare to control the cost of the program (most likely making it the cheapest way of having a social safety net). This would mean that businesses couldn't incentivize people at the lowest level of incoome to work for them with the promise of higher wages as effectively as before, so they'd have to entice them with benefits which could actually take the place of government sponsored welfare programs.

However, this is assuming that everyone would work and pay taxes, which seems pretty unlikely. If people don't work, then Basic Income becomes more of a parasite than a safety net.

Basic Income isn't a push for communism, but a compromise welfare scheme conceived by Milton Friedman which has been badly mangled by the current American left and which has been pushed relentlessly. His plan was to substitute welfare programs for a direct cash transfer while cutting back on the costs of pushing paperwork (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax). Welfare recepients aren't the brightest people around, so giving large amounts of cash to them without strings attached isn't a stellar idea. But Friedman's plan at least had a mean to wean people out of welfare.

Actual Marxists wouldn't have been for Basic Income. Welfare programs are capitalist compromises. They just wanted to kill all capitalists.

How is super welfare "simpler and cheaper" than already horrible regular welfare?

You are wrong.


Communism: The communist dictator owns the means of production and the people as slaves.

Stop using (((their))) terms, you dumb fucking commie faggot.

The 'cheaper replacement to current welfare state ' (of which an obscene amount goes to administration contributing to big government) angle makes basic income very attractive to me.

finding the balance between barely comfortable basic income to encourage people to work and taxes to immediately recoup basic income from the workforce would require some serious thought.

The welfare state exists. this is a given in the current year, The question of basic income vs administered income assitance is no contest in favor of basic income imo

their terminology is "Universal Basic Income" or UBI.

"National Basic Income" could be a viable socialist policy in a National socialist state.

Simple question, is there even enough money to have the bgi in the current working environment?
That is, doing an 80 hour work week for everyone, is there enough money to pay them all or is there not enough money for even the current system.

$250 a month. Not a penny more. In exchange we deport all the illegals.
STEM only and we cut all foreign aid. Colleges and Universities will be "encouraged" to increase their standards as well, so that we only pay for the best.
Citizens only, but non-whites lose citizenship. No deportations of former citizens, but unless they leave they still have to pay taxes for the privilege of living here.

That's my offer bernouts. You get some of what you want, I get some of what I want.

Still commie horse shit.

Jobs.

What about no?

...

...

the push for a basic income is mostly to gain complete control over the monetary and economic systems in place. you cannot have a basic income with physical currency, it must be digital and controlled by a central issuing body. this allows them to track all spending. basic income removes all economic freedom.

if there's an infinite number of robot slaves, we're already extinct. the march towards complete mechanization is a march towards extinction.

It's a fucking lie you dipshit, there is no "lets just turn on basic income and turn off all other welfare" you don't fucking do that. What WILL happen if it comes is ALL the welfare will stay AND people will just get a "basic income". Inflation will run rampant and no one even talks about the issue of front loading yourself with money by selling your basic income payments. IE you give me 5 years worth of basic income payments, I give you 2.5 years equal value upfront. Solve that one faggot without complete monetary and economic control by the State(IE FUCKING COMMUNISM)

Basic Income is both possible and inevitable. However, it requires an economy where the labor is nearly completely automated by robots, and that labor needs to be taxed.

It's why I support hiking the minimum wage as high as possible and deporting cheap illegal labor (and protectionism), in order to encourage as much automation as possible.

Kill yourself commie

All you have to do to get affordable college is ban college loans

in a society where the Big Corps have social responsibility (actually, maybe just ethics) and where Banks weren't a thing, basic income wouldn't be needed since they would pay the actual value of the work that people do.

Basic Income becomes a necessity if big business are able to underpay the workers, and almost in all countries they are able to, since most people have access to loans from (((Banks))),so they can use them to buy things like houses, cars or most of the stuff that requires saving. However, the issue is that on the other hand Basic Income is a way for the Big Fishes to keep themselves on top, while starving the smaller ones. A new guy trying his luck in making shoes on *MOST* western countries (just an example, don't think of it as literally) can't see himself making money until a long time has passed, since he needs to pay wages that may be too high, and I'm not taking into account the loans he must have taken. Most of the Western World (even Latinamerica) is designed as an Oligarchy where both Workers and Small Entrepreneurs (or Petit Bourgeoisie if you are into that stuff) see themselves as enemies and fight into issues that should be uniting them, as whether or not Basic Income is viable. And the Government (and the State itself) doesn't contribute as a mediator, but as a keeper of the Elite's interests.

If you have a country where most people are either self employed or there are multiple small business, then Basic Income becomes redundant and obvious, there would be a healthy (not perfect) market and the State and Laws wouldn't be dictated by a group of Oligarchs. This is not the case of the US though.

Hard question to crack to be honest. Even if you put Ethics aside.

Absolutely not. The best thing about basic income is that everyone gets it. Instead of the system we have now where the population is carved up and handouts used to buy 51% of the vote.

That sounds like a goldmine for accelerationists tbh fam. INB4 kike - I'm still against it, but if things go bad this would make for a vector to subvert and drive the social system against a wall.

The higher the grades, the less you pay. Students who get straight A's should pay close to nothing, especially those in a high-demand degree program.


I'd prefer cutting taxes for every child born (after mass deportations), and lower taxes for entrepreneurs. "Basic Income" should be restricted to those in the 18-24 age bracket; I also think limiting it to ~250/mo is ideal.


I agree on all your points.