What are the arguments against basic income...

So 180 IQ genius, solve this:
>be dindu
>get $12000 UBI for me, my doll and my 2 kids (note order)
>spent $10000 on performance enhancers and $1900 on 2 sexy dresses
>spent $100 in red lobster
>broke on day 2
>go to welfare offices
>???

>What are the arguments against basic income. It seems to me that this is the best way to end existing entitlement programs like welfare, social security, medicare. Everyone would benefit more equally from tax dollars.

None.

Economically it will lead to a relatively rapid and severe collapse of course, but I'm now convinced that you socialist pieces of shit are so fucking stupid that you will willingly shoot yourself in the foot (or more likely head) over the prospect of even more effortless and "entitled" gibsmedat than what's currently available even though doing so will mean your likely death or at least abject poverty and misery when you nuke the economy. Of course the massive, hoop-laden current welfare bureacracy is "stable" for many more decades to come and you might be able to squeeze out a long time in comfort leeching from it, but as I want the entire welfare state to completely collapse and you r-selected pieces of shit to starve to death, I'm all for whatever system you want which brings that about sooner.

>mfw you people are unwittingly working for my own strategic interests

There is no 'total abundance-' people will *always want more.

> People who want to get ahead (and there will still be many of them) will get degrees in engineering and work.

People act for reasons- lessening reasons to act lessens such actions.

They don't get anymore. It is the best way to show the general population what a fair system looks like. It would be harder for them to dispute it's essential fairness.

The argument is who the hell is going to pay for it? We are already 20 trillion in debt, and most of america is taxed out of their damn minds, we can't even manage infrastructure across the country, and the federal government is bloated.

People are retarded.

checked but YOU are the lazy/stupid one for presupposing you are justified in taking from others

...

You will run out of other people's money or you won't be able to borrow anymore, those are the mathematical arguments.

But the main argument is, what does the average person do in their free time? They don't do artistic stuff, they don't learn new things, they don't develop hobbies, the big majority of people simply prefer lazing around and cheap entertainment, unlike what the proponents of basic income suggest, so it won't benefit society to give the opportunity to be even more lazy.

Last argument is, fairness doesn't exist. Some people are born better off, some are born poor or rich, there will always be poor people and you can't fix that because there will always be people who are stupid with their money and even with basic income will get stupid shit and have no money left for rent or food. What capitalism does is propomote competition and thus innovation, so poor people today are much better off than rich people two centuries ago thanks to capitalism, not thanks to forced income redistribution.

...

Fuck it, you know what, I agree.

But they have to be sterilised. If you want gibs, you have to accept sterilisation.

Fuck, germany should be doing that for the migrants. "Sure, we have a cheque for you, we just need to snap a little ring over der Jungen..."

from where do you plan to accrue the funds for this so-called "basic income"

>We are already 20 trillion in debt

So time to make some withdrawals from the corporate welfare queens then and behead some faggots if they don't cough up the cash

>who the hell is going to pay for it?

You'd have already paid for it many times over if you didn't splurge on rich people welfare

WTF!! You can expect me!! A single African american MOTHER to use MY BASIC INCOME to pay for my 10 childerens medical bills. And don't you expect them to use theirs either. How dey gonna get dem Jordan's n sheit.

Like I said, you would fund it by eliminating all other entitlement programs and slow removing other public programs eventually eliminating public education. I see as a path to slowly move towards a libertarian society, that might conceivably be passed by the lefties.

Get rid of medicare, social security, welfare. Eliminate many government departments.

so its still being paid through taxes? how about we just get rid of all those bullshit programs without any basic income.

>You will run out of other people's money or you won't be able to borrow anymore, those are the mathematical arguments.

Don't use the 'run out of money argument-' far too abstract.

>But the main argument is, what does the average person do in their free time? They don't do artistic stuff, they don't learn new things, they don't develop hobbies, the big majority of people simply prefer lazing around and cheap entertainment, unlike what the proponents of basic income suggest, so it won't benefit society to give the opportunity to be even more lazy.

Also escapes people- most, never having a large enough savings account to be unemployed without worrying about money, will never have experienced the absence of desire to find work.

>Last argument is, fairness doesn't exist. Some people are born better off, some are born poor or rich, there will always be poor people and you can't fix that because there will always be people who are stupid with their money and even with basic income will get stupid shit and have no money left for rent or food. What capitalism does is propomote competition and thus innovation, so poor people today are much better off than rich people two centuries ago thanks to capitalism, not thanks to forced income redistribution.

Fairness can exist, and in an attribute of human action. Fairness is a product of morality and action- and with the morality of freedom of personal autonomy, fairness means not denegrating the ability of others to excercise their personal autonomy.

Get a job you lazy shit.
And while your at it, get off my lawn.

I would love to do that, but that seems even less politically viable. The point is how to actually enact public policy, not live some fantasy world where half of this country isn't ultraliberal.

If we close our boarders, then imprison and cease the assets of anyone using illegal immigrant labor solely to cut their overhead costs, I would be willing to agree to a mandatory 10$ minimum wage.

I don't think there should be a "life tax" or a guaranteed income just for being alive. Just no. Gay.

*chillren's

I have a job. I make $90k a year. I'm tired of seeing people who don't work benefit from entitlement programs, while hard working people like me get shafted.

>And while your at it, get off my lawn.

You didn't build that lawn fuck off. Probably didn't pay for it with your own money either

> You didn't build that lawn fuck off.

Called the extended order, facilitated through money. -Hayek.

Assuming you would replace welfare by it and use the funds that welfare uses(as in welfare reform) then probably nothing. Medicare and probably education will collapse though.

>We're reaching a point of abundance where not everyone needs to work anymore
no we're not

we definitely are not you moron

she is cute

It's literally theft.

Basic income is the epitome of r-selection. It is cancer to civilization.

>Basic income is just a way to keep lazy/stupid people in check so that they stop complaining but we won't have to purge them.

But why not purge them though? Useless animals in the wild get killed, so should those useless fucks who use resources but don't contribute

Because we live in a society where that is not a real political option.

We're long past that point actually.. Since the industrial age.. The number of people required to feed everyone fell from ~85% to 3%.

This is true, but it is clear that we have an excess of humans. I'm all for basic minimum income if we sterilize all who receive it. Hell you could even use reversible procedures for people able to pay back all they received.

Test

>Basic income is the epitome of r-selection

I don't see this analogy at all. In fact, I don't see how it changes the dynamics of selection.

>But why not purge them though?

Oh don't worry, Mr. soros will be genociding you off soon enough

'Need' is meaningless without defining the criteria for 'need.'

>I don't see how it changes the dynamics of selection.

Argument goes that if one is not penalized for ones mistakes at any level then the dregs multiply out of bounds because their expenses pile on others who actually work and these people themselves end up reproducing less often

BI is r-selected because resources are plentiful- and they can be attained easily.

Too much shitty work still has to be done by humans. The only way basic income could work is if you combined it with significant limitations on people's freedom.

For instance, people on basic income don't deserve to drive cars.

Need == else there is starvation

>The number of people required to feed everyone fell from ~85% to 3%.
> Argument goes that if one is not penalized for ones mistakes at any level then the dregs multiply out of bounds because their expenses pile on others who actually work and these people themselves end up reproducing less often

Which side are you on?

>In fact, I don't see how it changes the dynamics of selection.

It's free resources, as free as they could possibly get. No conditions or qualifications for acquisition and certainly no effort.

You don't think that rich, attractive, and intelligent people would not generally be more popular? You don't think that poor people will generally still die at higher rates?

I think people on the right who bash basic income misunderstand it. They see it as an end. But really it is just a possibly politically viable MEANS to achieve a society with less government intervention and where more people make independent economic choices.

>Which side are you on?

Human resistance. Are you with the globalists?

> Need == else there is starvation

No one has to work (for others) in order to avoid starvation. What about death through other means? And what about work, that may cease because of BI, that increases longevity?

>But really it is just a possibly politically viable MEANS to achieve a society with less government intervention

You expect more redistribution to cause lower government intervention?

It depends on what sort of program you're proposing.

For instance, if you're proposing a repeal of things such as federal medical benefits, welfare, EBT type programs, a negative tax or a univeral income's major benefit would be of simplicity for the government.

The major complications of universal income are situations where it is tacked onto an already existing structure. It is extremely hard to repeal social programs once in effect, thus poor decision making on what is livable and sustainable can backfire and hinder the state.

I would argue that the biggest issue against universal income is that it creates state dependence. Once an individual's meal ticket becomes completely dependent on the status quo, it cements current policies and parties in place. Likewise, the state could also effectively starve out agitators if universal income becomes wide spread.

>Human resistance. Are you with the globalists?

I am with neither the globalists nor the nationalists. I'm with the individual.

Yes. Because there you don't need a giant bureaucracy to keep tabs on who is eligible. Everyone would be.

You don't need wacky mechanisms to dictate what the recipients would spend their money on. They would be able spend it on whatever they choose. Wasted all your money for the month on booze and cigarettes? Too bad! No more for you.

Eventually I see it as a way to get rid of public education too. People have already tried to do this with "school vouchers" or whatever, but even that requires a lot of oversight and was never politically popular.

I suppose that the collection of taxes can also be avoided- can't expect tax fraud to not increase. Instead, simply print the money- there will be inflation, but markets can adjust for this.

What we already spend on entitlements and other welfare could provide a UMI of around $12k/year. If we ended money creation going to the fractional reserve banking system (literally billions in welfare going to kike bankers) and instead injected the same level of money generation into UMI it would provide around $17k/year.

There are a few things I consider requirements for UMI to work. A base tax rate of 25%, even if you earn just $1 a year everyone must pay that base tax rate (higher tax brackets would still exist for high end earners). If UMI where 10k/year someone earning $40k would have paid back there UMI and be considered a free citizen. You could also refuse the UMI to gain this status. Those who are not a free citizens are not permitted to have children. If you are not able to support yourself then you are not going to propagate more mistakes like yourself. Disabled persons needing special medical car or the like would still receive extra help but of coarse would be sterilized as well.

>I would argue that the biggest issue against universal income is that it creates state dependence

Americas labour force participation rate has already gone under 70%. How many people would need to be out of work until you reverse your opinion?

Higher taxes.
Taxes in the US are so little because we don't have all those faggoty social welfare programs that Europe does.

The participation rate is artificially low- as always, mostly due to taxes. But the recent drop is due to provisions of the ACA, aka ObamaCare.

>I would argue that the biggest issue against universal income is that it creates state dependence. Once an individual's meal ticket becomes completely dependent on the status quo, it cements current policies and parties in place.

This is a reasonable point, but I don't see it as being too different than the status quo where large swaths of the population will vote based on their desire to keep existing entitlement programs.

Unless you're willing to guarantee prices with strict controls, the purchasing power of a unit of money will just go down as a result.

Yeah, I'd hate to be a Eurocuck, where all the world's best and brightest are fleeing to.

No, the unemployment rate is the one artificially flattened. They rig the bureucratic rules so the statistics are cleaned up

You used to be able to buy a literal pound of silver with one british pound.

The value is already sunk pretty far

Wait, were the worlds best and brightest in Syria or something?

Oh, so you're a tool of the globalists. Got ya.

Yes, but it will sink faster.

True- and this has 2 features- one of them meaningless (but important to current economic 'thinking').

First, the only thing needed to be enforced is the use of the USD in transactions- no more finagling with tax dodgers.

Second, and this is only important to current economic 'thinking,' money is spent often- savings is low.

Non free persons (people who don't fully payback their UMI in taxes) would only receive 3/5ths of a vote.

They don't work now, the people who are incapable of existing in society would die out and we'd end up saving money in the long run.

The goal here is to prevent bleeding hearts from reacting emitionally trying to save the dead weight from self destructing.

Honestly? It doesn't matter. I feel that complete and utter subjugation based on economic necessity is slavery. Even if 100% of the population was dependent on government income I would still feel that it is inherently wrong.

Like above, I don't believe people who create a negative net benefit to the state should be able to vote. It's very much a poor voting to eat the rich system, and the status quo feeding it to keep themselves out of the firing line.

Most globalists I imagine would be against basic income for the simple reason that it obligates them to share their resources with the majority.

They will shill for status quo and siphon resources to their own gain whereever they can

user:
> I would argue that the biggest issue against universal income is that it creates state dependence
you:
> Americas labour force participation rate has already gone under 70%. How many people would need to be out of work until you reverse your opinion?

Above you acknowledge the issue is low employment, but here you say that unemployment is artificially lowered.

Which side *are* you on?

Sounds like a conflict of interest.

Since the government is funded by those who work, the government should be controlled according to its funding- otherwise it's just a nation's plebs acting like the mob union.

So where are you going to come up with the money to give every single American a living wage? The government has money to shell out to those on welfare because other people still have jobs. When everyone is on welfare, there won't be enough to spread around.

Each of us a globalist who will only be a nationalist if our neighbors also agree to lower their SOL.

>but here you say that unemployment is artificially lowered.

The rate on paper, not actual unemployment.

First one is used by government to pretend everyone is OK and second one is the actual unemployed people

It's a compromise, a very old one that would apply well to this circumstance.

constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise

100 percent support from the government = 100 percent control by the government.

Never would work in the united States with the culture of the immigrants we receive.

Paco/LaJer'Tyrone and his family are already on benefits. Now they have a basic income they don't pay for at all. And the seven kids they have will inherit this culture from their parents. Now they're on basic income. You can't find your utopian welfare system on white guilt.

This, without motivation society will collapse until UBI can't even pay for a loaf of bread.

>constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise

When you legislate that personal property can be stolen *legally,* then those who are stolen from no longer feel guilty for reciprocation- and in the process a whole lot of value is lost- not just stolen, but destroyed- through economic miscalculation.

So actual laborers get extra benefits in proportion to time spent. Corporations and politicians get nothing.

Closing the fucking boarders goes without saying. And by closing I mean no net immigration, we should always have a trickle to let the truly best in but that trickle should be tied to the number of people immigrating out.

Checked.

I do think people want to work. Trump is very popular among NEETs and I think that is one reason why.

You could cut out so much bureaucracy if you get rid of all these programs and replaced it with a basic cost of living expense.

You will always have taxes, just deal with it.

Robots.

But if you eliminate savings, then those who can't work due to illness or age will become more and more dependent on the universal wage, even as its value shrinks.

This seems like a good idea to make an entire generation public wards.

Is that Taylor Swift?

Yes.

How much would this basic income even be? I'd still most likely be against it.

They would never allow existing benefits to be cut. No matter how beaux income is implemented. See Obama care for an example of doing things the worst conceivable way.

Giving money to poor people is harmful because it engenders dependency.

>How much would this basic income even be?

Enough to keep a roof over your head and kids fed.

Also, you already pay for subsidized poor worker income in form of corporate subsidies

Less would change than you think

Fuck you.

I don't give a shit about "corporate subsidies." The existing Internal Revenue Code keeps me employed as a tax accountant for corporations.

A guaranteed income sufficient to raise a family is a bit excessive.

>This seems like a good idea to make an entire generation public wards.

Funny how central banks are pushing for NIRP right this minute. We should tell them about the consequences of penalizing savings.

American taxpayer literally has to pay walmart employees out of their pocket because the company doesn't pay a living wage.

I have myself worked a taxpayer funded job for benefit of private entity

> The existing Internal Revenue Code keeps me employed as a tax accountant for corporations.

So YOU are the true leech here

retards in this thread saying nobody would work:

i can guarantee you living solely on basic income would be awful. your average joe is not going to give up almost everything he has so he can sit at home and become a neet.

most people live paycheck to paycheck, barely squeezing by. you cannot function as you should mentally when you are constantly trying to pinch pennies to make ends meet. you are a scavenger at that point and it takes it toll mentally. basic income would fix that. forget about the economics of it for a second and think about the wave of relief people would have knowing they wouldn't literally die of cold and starvation if they lost their job.

the amount of people ive seen freak out with joy over a found 20 is really depressing. wage cucking is nothing to be proud of

This is a still from one of the greatest television shows ever made.

It is about the worst kind of people out country has to offer.

It translates to: "if they'd raise our benefits, I wouldn't have to so much"
He is talking about stealing.

>Also, you already pay for subsidized poor worker income in form of corporate subsidies

Welfare isn't a corporate subsidy. It's not the prerogative of business to look after your life just because you sold them an arbitrary number of hours of your labor in a week.

Truly, working for a living is awful. One wonders how your ancestors managed to get along when they had to hunt and forage for their food and build their own shelter.

It may work in scandinavian countries because here it would actually reduce the cost because you could get rid of a lot of welfare institutions now used to determining who would get welfare. Those on welfare aren't going to work anyway so it won't matter. Most immigrants statistically won't get a job for the first 7 years for the fastest, while it's double that for a lot of them.

As an example every application for welfare costs around 2,5k SEK and the money paid in welfare may be around 3-4k, you'll cut almost half the cost if you just pay them monthly instead.

I don't believe it will work in america or any other non socialist country tho.

>arguing semantics instead of actual point

The point is that the taxpayer picks up the check anyway, as it is

Not a leech at all. If you actually studied tax, you'd understand the reasoning behind most of the allowable deductions and credits. It's all in compliance with the law.

>It's all in compliance with the law.

Fuck off shill this means shit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

You're a parasite no matter how legal it is.

Only place where legality is taken into consideration is the court and only then if you're rich

Really? Because it sounds like your actual point is that corporations should pay a "living wage", cf. .

The correct answer is to not pay any benefits of any type out of government (i.e., taxpayer) funds. Again, r-selection is a cancer upon civilization.

>Disabled persons needing special medical car or the like would still receive extra help but of coarse would be sterilized as well.
Christ
Good luck having anyone ever join the military ever.

>The correct answer is to not pay any benefits of any type out of government (i.e., taxpayer) funds

You're about 60 years late to that.

What is the military-industrial compex and 20 trillion debt?

Top kek, there's absolutely nothing parasitic about it. Obviously corporations are going to do what they can to lower the ridiculously high 35% corporate tax rate. I merely provide a service.

>only then if you're rich

Go suck Bernie's cock.

So basically, the few who will work are just doing slave labor for the benefit of other people.

They would get more. Because politicians would promise them more in exchange for their votes.

What kind of answer is that? Because our elders made mistakes, we should keep making them?

Understand, I want social and economic collapse, it's the only way to purge our society of the rabbits who have slowly killed it. But it's better late than never.

>Enough to keep a roof over your head and kids fed.

Fuck that, if you cant support your family you don't get to have kids. Eugenics will rise again.

>What kind of answer is that?

That you should first cut the big spenders before whining about the poor looking for vitamins

some 85% of americans lack vital nutrients, burgerbrain

With UMI we abolish the minimum wage. Everyone can find employment even if they work $1/hr.

You're a literal retard and amongst the first people offed by the Soros regime

Don't worry. Vote for me, and I will give back to the community by giving everyone free Jordans and doubling your basic income. Those 6 evil men who still work will pay for it.

>I merely provide a service.

Suck some more vampire cock why don't you

>That you should first cut the big spenders before whining about the poor looking for vitamins

I didn't say we shouldn't, but a simple glance at our expenditures would tell you that entitlements are just as large as the military budget.

Nice touch with the "vitamins" quip, though.

Your picture is fake, btw

Whatever side makes him feel intellectually and morally superior. People like that don't fucking care they just like to look down there noses and sneer at your inferiority.

No its not google it its in WSJ and other publications??

How much and where would we be drawing the funds from? If we were to take the funding we provide io section 8, food stamps and various other welfare programs and cut each and every one of "we the people" a check, I'd be cool with that.

It's clearly the first step towards a post-need society.

This won't be a problem once almost everything is automated.

4th dimension dude has a point youtube.com/watch?v=VBFvzRRwJCw

EPI cooked the numbers

>some 85% of americans lack vital nutrients
Not an argument.

And why should this be my problem?

>Not an argument.

This. I don't understand how we make the jump from "Americans don't eat right" to "Americans don't have enough money for food". We have less than 10 starvation deaths a year and all of them are from abuse or mental disorder cases. Googles going out and spending their obamabux on processed shit doesn't indicate a lack of welfare, it indicates a lack of intelligence.

Collapse would come quickly as the open borders political class brings in more immigrants to make up for the flight of capital and talent out of the country.

We already have it, its called welfare.

God op can you get any dumber? Seriously do you ride a small bus to school

>What are high-fructose corn syrup subsidies

Your taxes pay for the unhealhty shit.

Imagine if you could only get subsidies for cauliflower and spinach?

Dump everything.
Basic income.
All for it.

Inflation mostly

So rob peter to pay Paul? Great plan.

Negative income tax

Jarno plz

Or better yet, not get subsidies at all.

You're also making the assumption that price is a factor when it is not. Produce and meat here cost just as much as frozen dinners and other crap, not to mention fast food. It's convenience and by extension laziness, not economy.

>tfw cooking steak and steamed veggies before sportsball

>Jarno plz

So you'd rather keep shoveling corporate welfare money and add another 10 trillion to your debt?

Instead of actually spending it on something with tangible returns?

>tangible returns

Taking money from group of people to fund another group's sloth is tangible, but it's not a return. We're already functioning as a giant circlejerk that produces very little, we don't need to exacerbate that by removing the incentive to work. Again, r-selection kills civilization.

Are we just going to turn democracy off after implementing it? Because otherwise all of those programs are just going to come back and basic income will be simple redistubtion of wealth.

>removing the incentive to work.

No one is doing that

the whole point of this exercise is to make it possible for poor to accept jobs without fearing that their income would actually drop as a result because not qualifying for whatever if the job doesn't pan out in the long run

>also implying your current gibsmedat system isn't rigged for r-group at the expense of k as it is

>the whole point of this exercise is to make it possible for poor to accept jobs without fearing that their income would actually drop as a result because not qualifying for whatever if the job doesn't pan out in the long run

The quickest way to fix that is to not offer them "income" for not working.

>also implying your current gibsmedat system isn't rigged for r-group at the expense of k as it is

Again, just because it's already fucked isn't an excuse to not unfuck it.

You UBI fags don't get it, probably never will, because whether you know it or not you're as r as the rest of them. We absolutely cannot use a democratic state for these ends. The right to participate in representative government or the ability to collect welfare, pick fucking one.

The only way to avoid r-selected collapse is to abolish any form of state welfare. You don't like it, donate to charity. If people starve, then they starve. You may find that cruel but it's better a few at a time than millions at a time once the government inevitably collapses under the weight of googles demanding more and more for contributing nothing.

Also you made me overcook my steak so fuck you.

Why would it rapidly collapse? You didnt say why

The only way to pay for it would be to cut and shutter nearly all other forms of gov't entitlements and benefits and a big chunk of most services.

Not gonna happen buddy.

Even of those "others" are manufacturing robots with AI?

We need to determine whether a post-scarcity society even happens before we start instituting programs of this scale to fix it.

Every other technological advance throughout history has not resulted in a mass displacement of labor, there's no reason to assume this will be any different.

At the very least a better answer for you would be to use your existing capital to secure your own means for survival instead of expecting others to do it for you when/if the time comes.

Gene therapy will eventually get to a point where we can just modify people's genetics to make them more intelligent/less lazy. Purging them/sterilizing them is pointless and almost impossible to do.

Watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

As a NEET, sign me up. Climate change is going to wipe out most of humanity in the next century, anyway. No point in reproducing.

>Climate change is going to wipe out most of humanity in the next century, anyway
Sauce

Yes, we've all seen this. It's speculative. It doesn't change what I said. Pushing a UBI before we get to this point, or even before we know whether we need it, is stupid. You're just as likely to foster the collapse of the West and delay post-scarcity indefinitely if not eliminate the possibility of it occurring altogether, still assuming it is possible.

>sterilizing them is almost impossible
user, are you retarded? Sterilization is very very easy.

dailykos.com/story/2013/05/12/1208624/--W-CO2-400-PPM-It-is-increasingly-likely-that-hundreds-of-millions-of-people-will-be-displaced

>baxter is like computers
No high tech equipment survives interaction with the public.

Because if you give one level an arbitrary "raise" - you have to lift all the others as well. We also already have assisted living which disincentivizes actually working. My neighbor across the street is on it. He and his wife literally don't work, they sit home all day with the two kids and do nothing. Total neets. I get up everyday and see the dude out smoking a cigarette he bought with my wage-cuck tax dollars and it sickens me. Memes aside, it's no way to live.

Haha, good luck sterilizing people when you don't even believe in Abortion. Anyone who sterilizes a nonviolent nonretard in my country will get executed BY ME.

>wagecucking is better

>making assumptions about my beliefs
Oh. You are retarded then.

>Sterilization is very very easy

I'm talking about MASS sterilization. Even if the surgery itself isn't that complicated, trying to force-sterilize 100+ million people might result in a massive chimp out.

Hundreds of millions != most of humanity, and being displaced != being killed off.

the math doesnt work out.

you would have to increase business and upper class taxes to 80% or more just to get the math to work.

If you want your gibs you gotta get the treatment, that simple. There are both male and female birth control options that last years and are reversible.

wired.com/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/
nexplanon.com/en/consumer/

It's from the 'Turn, Turn, Turn' episode of CSI from 2009

There is only one argument regarding 'basic income'.

Why should I work to support you?

This is false, if you count all the gibs we already gib it would be about $12k for every man woman and child in america. If you only count adult citizens its closer to $15k.

In a UMI setting almost all gibs we currently gib would be replaced completely with UMI.

she looks like taylor

>Every other technological advance throughout history has not resulted in a mass displacement of labor, there's no reason to assume this will be any different.

The difference is that, in the past, machines had nowhere near the capability of humans. In the near future, robots will be able to take over for all of the menial labor jobs, and AI will eventually be able to take over for the intellectual/creative jobs. The human brain is just an evolutionary designed, meat-based computer that could be replaced by better computers. What human jobs are there that couldn't be replaced by machines?

Because it cheaper than working to support the army of bureaucrats that soak up tax money.

I name so many to you stupid commie faggots every time and you don't respond because yall are useful idiots.

WE ARE NOT AN AGRARIAN SOCIETY ANYMORE IF WE HAVE ROBOTS DOING THE WORK.

>HURR WE RISE UP IF THEY START KILLING US

good luck with that because you don't actually produce anything they need anymore. the elite won't need you.

>IT GETS RID OF WELFARE

PEOPLE ARE ON FUCKING WELFARE BECAUSE THEY ARE TERRIBLE AT SPENDING MONEY FOR THE MOST PART

>le daddy gubment will keep me around as a human pet out of the goodness of their hearts

sad yall believe this but it's actually the best possible outcome you could achieve with UBI. so if you want to live in a world like THX-1138 where humans are kept around as a living genetic stock for mankind then keep on shilling

More speculative bullshit. You don't think people had this same conversation before?

>The difference is that, in the past, printing presses had nowhere near the capability of scribes.
>The difference is that, in the past, harvesters had nowhere near the capability of farmhands.
>The difference is that, in the past, steam ships had nowhere near the capability of sailors.