[mercer]

> If I had a shitty, dead-end job, and someone offered me (eg.) 80% of an average paycheck in my country, FOREVER(!), i'd probably quit, and live off UBI, and do other stuff (fun for me, but litle of value to to wider society, and with probably zero tax money to feed the UBI system). ...or, probably move somewhere, where I can get more for that amount of money.

While I do think this might be what some people will do, I think that over time, as we get used to such a thing, this is not at all what most people will do.

I've had periods of years in my life where I didn't have to think about money. After a short period of faffing off, I started doing all sorts of stuff. Some of it of direct value to society (volunteering) and some of it perhaps indirectly so (teaching myself new skills, working on 'products' that could be useful). I mean, even just spending time with others who themselves had it in short supply and valued my company could be considered 'useful to society'.

What I do know is that all of this time spent was generally more useful than a number of years of inane bullshit I worked on for various companies (getting paid well, but not really feeling satisfied with the result). So many projects that just stopped because of some decision higher up. So much work poured into websites that offer no value to society either. And the stress and depressions that goes with it leading to me being a 'burden' on society by using my health care bux on mental health care. I'm not a rare case.

Of course, this is anecdotal. But the assumption that people will just be lazy and offer nothing to society if they can is equally anecdotal, and honestly goes against everything I see in about 99% of the people around me.

People want to be useful. People want to be valued and needed. People want to be creative.

I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else).

[ajsnigrutin]

> I've had periods of years in my life where I didn't have to think about money. After a short period of faffing off, I started doing all sorts of stuff. Some of it of direct value to society (volunteering) and some of it perhaps indirectly so (teaching myself new skills, working on 'products' that could be useful). I mean, even just spending time with others who themselves had it in short supply and valued my company could be considered 'useful to society'.

Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society.

> People want to be useful. People want to be valued and needed. People want to be creative.

Of course people want to be useful and creative. But peoples usefullness and creativeness has to create atlest 2xUBI of taxes (one that goes back to the worker and one that goes to someone who get UBI but doesnt work) + all the other costs.

If you're capable of doing stuff you like, being creative, liking that work, and creating that much income, why are you not doing it now?

> I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else).

Problem with this society is, that it also requires people who are working, to cover the cost of the poeple who are not working. Curretnly most countries do that for a very small percentage of unemployed (welfare), and most people in those countries are already complaining about the high taxes. If you raise the taxes on the people left working, and let others live relatively normal lives without working, you'll get less and less of the former and more of the later. Yes, non-workers will create music, art, will travel, write blogs, etc., but none of that generates enough income to cover even their own cost.

[Shish2k]

> If you're capable of doing stuff you like, being creative, liking that work, and creating that much income, why are you not doing it now?

Because it’s a huge risk with no safety net - even if I’m 95% confident that I could support myself as a freelancer, that’s 5% odds of ending up without health insurance / homeless / unable to support my family / dead / etc; so I stick with my FacelessMegaCorp(tm) job for now, and maybe I’ll freelance for entertainment after I retire :P

[bryanlarsen]

> Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society.

The median person on UBI would probably be a net burden on society.

The mean? Probably not. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a side project. It'd only take a couple of similar projects to make all of UBI worth it.

[fragmede]

Framing people as possibly being "net burden" on society presumes that "the market", and economics, perfectly encodes the value of an activity to society, and that taxes are omnipotently levied against the activity. Conmen (Enron; Bernie Madoff) and people who squander inherited wealth (trust-fund babies; Paris Hilton) arguably have a negative contribution to society, but pay plenty in taxes. Does their existence as high-value tax base truly outweigh a kind, loving person who had the misfortune to born poor, and not get the same opportunities in life as someone who's family donated a building to Harvard?

Capitalism is unable to recognize the value of lots of kinds of work (that is often done by women), especially when those performing the work aren't the kind to charge for it. Just because work is being given away for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Capitalism has some shortcomings and one of them is that it's unable to support certain business models that provide value to the world.

Wikipedia manages to exist on the largess of wealthy benefactors, and a ton of volunteer labor. Are those volunteers a "net burden" on society?

[quotemstr]

> Framing people as possibly being "net burden" on society presumes that "the market", and economics, perfectly encodes the value of an activity to society,

If not the market, then what? Why do you think resource allocation scheme X would be better than the market overall? Without prices, we're left with the people best at being loud demagogues deciding the application of society's limited resources. Is that really better? Has it ever worked to produce prosperity or happiness?

Yes, economic value reflects social value, and chasing profit produces social good. Every time somebody's rejected this principle, he's produced poverty and death.

[cortic]

UBI would be cheaper than the current system (in the UK at least, but likely other countries as well).

First off, those that are currently entitled to most benefits would be getting UBI instead, and those that are not currently entitled to (most) benefits would be getting UBI and paying it back in tax.. so in theory its the same cost, less the administration and means testing.

Its also high return as its mostly spent on the basics when it isn't directly taxed back, so the money changes hands (taxed) several times within weeks. But also savings from the health service (10 billion spent each year in UK on preventable poverty related disease) and on courts and police (another 5 billion spent on petty crime directly related to poverty -likely not the full figure). Or as mentioned; the massive possibility for profit as you free up millions from demeaning repetitive low tax jobs to chase their dreams and entrepreneurial ambitions or higher education, as well as a permanent stimulus to the economy replacing much of the bailouts currently needed.

IMO we also really need an automation tax, as more and more jobs are automated the extra profit can't/shouldn't be focused on the few, though this wouldn't be necessary for UBI.

edit; I also want to add that back in the 80s early 90s, the UK welfare system was basically a guaranteed lifelong income. People were still falling over themselves to get work, i remember 10K applicants for 50 ICI jobs (low wage long hours).

[ajsnigrutin]

> First off, those that are currently entitled to most benefits would be getting UBI instead, and those that are not currently entitled to (most) benefits would be getting UBI and paying it back in tax.. so in theory its the same cost, less the administration and means testing.

How many workers does britain have (percentage)?

In slovenia, a bit less than half of people work (we have a huge amount of pensioners, kids, students, and also some unemployed) + a huge public sector.

With UBI, an average worker would have to pay for two UBIs in taxes, to get one UBI back. And that's not counting the people quittin their jobs due to UBI (and moving to cheaper countries, where that money is worth more).

[cortic]

>an average worker would have to pay for two UBIs in taxes

An average worker would be paying less tax (in real terms) if we moved to UBI than they are paying for the current system.

Its also true that this isn't just going to be payed for in income tax. VAT and corporate tax will contribute as well, meaning people on UBI will be paying for it in part as they spend it(VAT), and as they don't claim some of their other allowances in benefits, healthcare and law enforcement we will save even more.

Try to stop thinking about this as 'the average worker' the country is a good deal more complex than that. systems will pay for themselves in a host of ways if they are needed and efficient; UBI is a more efficient income support system than the one we have.

[shkkmo]

> Problem with this society is, that it also requires people who are working, to cover the cost of the poeple who are not working. Curretnly most countries do that for a very small percentage of unemployed (welfare), and most people in those countries are already complaining about the high taxes.

You seem hung up on the idea that "working" is equivalent to "producing value".

We live in a society where the system is frequently optimized to employ as many people as possible. This creates incentives to encourage a lot of work being done to win zero-sum games rather than producing value for the economy as a whole. I would argue that we are already in a situation where the majority of the population can be supported by a minority of the workers. We have long been living in a world where the limits on economic growth is consumption, not production.

If we instead have the need to encourage people to find what motivates them and provide tools to the motivated to maximize that productivity I think you will see very different social structures arise.

Beyond that, I think the removal of the lazy from the work force is actually a net positive. Employers can spend less time filtering the mostly useless to find good workers. The 10x producers among us don't have to spend as much working around the lazy coworkers and managers. Even the "lazy" among us have the freedom to discover their passions and find ways to contribute more to society than they would as a low end wage slave.

> Yes, non-workers will create music, art, will travel, write blogs, etc., but none of that generates enough income to cover even their own cost.

I think you are selling people short here, or perhaps projecting your dreams on others. There is also a great deal of work that people want to do but the value of which is not easily captureable by an employer.

> If you raise the taxes on the people left working, and let others live relatively normal lives without working, you'll get less and less of the former and more of the later.

This is actually a good thing as long as you maintain sufficient production. As production declines, the standard of living provided by basic income declines which increases the incentives of the semi-lazy to work, which then leads to increased production. As long as UBI is carefully phased in, the system should equilibrilize.

Most of these dynamics aren't possible to explore in limited studies like this one. All these types of studies can do is dispell common myths about individual bevaior and the only way to really find out what will happen is to gradually phase in a UBI.

[mercer]

> Of course people want to be useful and creative. But peoples usefullness and creativeness has to create atlest 2xUBI of taxes (one that goes back to the worker and one that goes to someone who get UBI but doesnt work) + all the other costs.

> If you're capable of doing stuff you like, being creative, liking that work, and creating that much income, why are you not doing it now?

I dunno, it's all speculation of course, but I'd say my 'usefulness' has gone up once I didn't have to bow to my bosses' whims. It's hard to quantify that, of course, but even if I go for a quantifiable measure, I'm probably more of a benefit to society than otherwise: I've been working on various business ideas that could improve the efficiency of other businesses, my volunteering reduced the burden I put on my country's health care system (on account of needing less therapy), and possibly reduced the effect on others around me. The money I make doing 'extra' work, that I wouldn't have to do, has benefitted my younger siblings who in turn might benefit society.

Personally I don't like this kind of thinking though. I'm convinced that a decent chunk of the population is just driven to do and create in a way that is valuable to other parts of the population. Trying to reduce this to 2xUBI is somewhat futile, and honestly not a society I want to actively encourage. In fact, engaging with this thought strikes me as already a bit of a needless capitulation. How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that? At least for a significant experiment I suspect it's not much.

> I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else).

>> Problem with this society is, that it also requires people who are working, to cover the cost of the poeple who are not working. Curretnly most countries do that for a very small percentage of unemployed (welfare), and most people in those countries are already complaining about the high taxes. If you raise the taxes on the people left working, and let others live relatively normal lives without working, you'll get less and less of the former and more of the later. Yes, non-workers will create music, art, will travel, write blogs, etc., but none of that generates enough income to cover even their own cost.

I think what I'm driving at is that this 'working' and 'not working' would be redefined. So much work is busiwork. So much 'work' is very tenuously measurably good for society. And, conversely, so much 'work' is not really considered work, but crucial to a functioning society.

In the same way that we (many Western nations) already got rid of having to worry (generally) about some of the most basic needs, UBI is one option to reduce that even further. I think, with the recent decades of insane progress when it comes to automation, that this is possible. And I'd rather see what happens and roll back the changes than just not do it because we can't fully predict the outcome.

[ajsnigrutin]

> I dunno, it's all speculation of course, but I'd say my 'usefulness' has gone up once I didn't have to bow to my bosses' whims. It's hard to quantify that, of course, but even if I go for a quantifiable measure, I'm probably more of a benefit to society than otherwise: I've been working on various business ideas that could improve the efficiency of other businesses, my volunteering reduced the burden I put on my country's health care system (on account of needing less therapy), and possibly reduced the effect on others around me. The money I make doing 'extra' work, that I wouldn't have to do, has benefitted my younger siblings who in turn might benefit society.

Why can't you do that now, by starting your own business and being your own boss?

> Personally I don't like this kind of thinking though. I'm convinced that a decent chunk of the population is just driven to do and create in a way that is valuable to other parts of the population. Trying to reduce this to 2xUBI is somewhat futile, and honestly not a society I want to actively encourage. In fact, engaging with this thought strikes me as already a bit of a needless capitulation. How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that? At least for a significant experiment I suspect it's not much.

We can verify this by observing people who are currently not working and are getting welfare. Somehow, very few of them do so. Some even avoid doing real work (you have to actively look for a job here if you want to receive welfare), by literally coming to interviews and saying that they're there just for the 'stamp' (proof they were there).

> I think what I'm driving at is that this 'working' and 'not working' would be redefined. So much work is busiwork. So much 'work' is very tenuously measurably good for society. And, conversely, so much 'work' is not really considered work, but crucial to a functioning society.

But stuff we deem "crucial" (by our own, individual standards), we're also willing to pay for. Water, food, entertainment, cars, gadget, clothes, vacations, travel, books, music, perfumes, etc. Is something really crucial, if noone wants to pay for that? If someone is willing to pay 100euros for a stinky alcohol-water mix (perfume), and they're not willing to pay for your work, is your work crucial?

> How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that?

Corporations are paying their own money for that work... they'd be the one saving, not you. Military spending can still be lowered, and workers would get to keep more of their own money, why does it have to be given to non-workers? (i'm not talking bout disabled people, etc, i'm talking about able-bodied people, who are able to work, but would choose not to).

[mercer]

>> I dunno, it's all speculation of course, but I'd say my 'usefulness' has gone up once I didn't have to bow to my bosses' whims. It's hard to quantify that, of course, but even if I go for a quantifiable measure, I'm probably more of a benefit to society than otherwise: I've been working on various business ideas that could improve the efficiency of other businesses, my volunteering reduced the burden I put on my country's health care system (on account of needing less therapy), and possibly reduced the effect on others around me. The money I make doing 'extra' work, that I wouldn't have to do, has benefitted my younger siblings who in turn might benefit society.

> Why can't you do that now, by starting your own business and being your own boss?

I can, because I ended up in a situation where I basically have the equivalent of UBI. My point is that it is indeed what I'm doing, and I believe others would too, given the opportunity.

>> Personally I don't like this kind of thinking though. I'm convinced that a decent chunk of the population is just driven to do and create in a way that is valuable to other parts of the population. Trying to reduce this to 2xUBI is somewhat futile, and honestly not a society I want to actively encourage. In fact, engaging with this thought strikes me as already a bit of a needless capitulation. How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that? At least for a significant experiment I suspect it's not much.

> We can verify this by observing people who are currently not working and are getting welfare. Somehow, very few of them do so. Some even avoid doing real work (you have to actively look for a job here if you want to receive welfare), by literally coming to interviews and saying that they're there just for the 'stamp' (proof they were there).

As I said before/elsewhere, I think this is transitional effect. Not only is welfare avoided by those who would be productive anyways, the very stigma and context of welfare can encourage 'doing nothing'. It's a bit like your employer allowing you to work from home: at first, it's quite likely you'll abuse this freedom to not wear pants all day and pretend to work. I truly believe that changing this to a 'default', over time, makes it less common for the majority of people to actively do nothing. People hate doing nothing by nature.

>> I think what I'm driving at is that this 'working' and 'not working' would be redefined. So much work is busiwork. So much 'work' is very tenuously measurably good for society. And, conversely, so much 'work' is not really considered work, but crucial to a functioning society.

> But stuff we deem "crucial" (by our own, individual standards), we're also willing to pay for. Water, food, entertainment, cars, gadget, clothes, vacations, travel, books, music, perfumes, etc. Is something really crucial, if noone wants to pay for that? If someone is willing to pay 100euros for a stinky alcohol-water mix (perfume), and they're not willing to pay for your work, is your work crucial?

Most people don't want to pay for love, and yet here we are. Most people don't want to pay for a (good) family, and here we are.

Reducing crucial to 'what people are willing to pay for' is, even on a cursory inspection, complete bullshit that nobody who isn't extremely dysfunctional actually lives by.

>> How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that?

> Corporations are paying their own money for that work... they'd be the one saving, not you. Military spending can still be lowered, and workers would get to keep more of their own money, why does it have to be given to non-workers? (i'm not talking bout disabled people, etc, i'm talking about able-bodied people, who are able to work, but would choose not to).

I'm saying the difference between workers and non-workers is something we need to re-assess. You're sort of getting there by making a distinction between 'disabled' and 'able-bodied'. Those are not clear distinctions. Is someone with mental health issues that prevent them from being able to deal with workplace stress 'able-bodied'? Or 'disabled'? What if we experimentally try to do away with that distinction and provide UBI and see how things go?

[bluntfang]

>Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society.

I challenge your assumption that someone's worth to society can be accounted for by tax revenue.

[ajsnigrutin]

If you provide something that the society wants, they're willing to pay for it. If you make good beer, people will buy it, if you make good music, people will pay for tickets to listen to your shows, if you make great art, people will buy it,...

Tax revenue is just a percentage of the income you make.

Is your work/activity/service really worth anything, if noone is willing to pay for it?

[mercer]

Nobody paid my mother to raise me well. Nobody pays me to call her, or visit her. Nobody pays me to coach my younger siblings. Nobody paid that one great teacher to cultivate a love for programming in me, when just doing okay was enough. Nobody paid that one guitar player/singer who left a lasting impression on me with his song.

Nobody pays for my girlfriend to show affection to me, or spend time with me. Nobody pays... you get the point.

So many of the best things in my experience have not been quantifiable, or in fact even actively hostile to commerce. That guitar player was not getting paid, but he wanted to play because he liked the vibe of the bar. For all I know he was good enough that he usually gets played. I know that some of the top performers in my country (stadium-level audiences) would do so at no cost at this bar, randomly, and if you were lucky it was when you went there for a beer.

I do hope you don't really see the world as a matter of finances and payment. It's depressingly reductive.

[ajsnigrutin]

But how much food can you buy with all the things you've listed as something you didn't get paid for? How much rent can you pay? How many plumbers, electricians can you call with your mothers love? You can strike a deal with an electrician, to call them or visit them, if they want, but if they don't, you have to offer them something they want - usually that's money.

You can still do all that, but you're expecting other people to do paid work, the government to take away a huge chunk of that money, and then give it to you, so you don't have to do paid work, and call your mom.

You can still play your guitar (or do whatever) for free, just for the love of doing that. But if you didn't get people to give you money (food, services,...) for your music then, or for you calling your mom, etc., you cannot expect the government to force them to do it on regular basis, if you play/call, or even if you don't.

[bluntfang]

>But how much food can you buy...

All the things GP listed were things that enabled him to make money and buy all the things, yet no one got paid for it.

[bluntfang]

>Is your work/activity/service really worth anything, if noone is willing to pay for it?

people pay for sex, yet sex workers aren't legally able to report their income and pay taxes.

[jonkho]

Fair enough, but I’m more concerned if UBI turned out to be a bad policy, would it be repealed? Practically speaking, the government has a poor track record of back pedaling on bad policies once they are in place.

[mercer]

Possibly. it's an interesting point.

I'd say no, though. My experience so far has been that my government has had no problems repealing (to various degrees) things like health care, education/student loans, or public ownership of various things. From my limited knowledge this has been similar in much of the Western world, at least.

[ajsnigrutin]

Better question is, after they took away/shrunk down the service, did they lower the taxes because of that cost saving?

In slovenia, we still have the "financial crisis" (2008) 22% VAT, which we "temporary" increased back then (from 20%).

[mercer]

To a degree I feel discussing this is a distraction of my basic point (we have become productive enough even in just a few decades to indulge in these experiments).

But honestly I think it's a great point. Our taxes did not go down, as far as I know. I'll check in one of the coming days, but I'd be shocked to find out it did...

[ajsnigrutin]

I'm skeptical about this too.... especialy if the UBI was the 'thing' that got them elected in the first place. And people would be protesting because they'd be losing 'free money'.

[golf3]

This program has to work for the least common denominator. I think a common pitfall is intelligent people designing systems in a bubble of intelligent friends then wondering why it fails spectacularly in public.