[9wzYQbTYsAIc]

> Sure but unless you bring down capitalism people will still need to work to eat and most will want to use their hard-earned creative skills to make a living.

The concept of a UBI (universal basic income) isn’t inherently in conflict with capitalism. I believe that it is actually in coherence with the idea of Universal Human Rights, as defined by the UN in the 1940s.

Perhaps that would be the culmination of anything good about capitalism.

[nine_k]

The problem is that UBI is in conflict with arithmetics. Short of near-total redistribution, it's impossible to provide a decent level of UBI for everyone. Total redistribution doesn't work, because economy needs markers as ways of price / demand discovery, and markets apparently lead to power-law distribution, not flat.

IMHO, the realistic option is a thick enough safety net for those who is going through a rough spot, for the disabled, etc, via both taxes and charity. But the vast majority will have to work, in one way or another, until machines completely take over, like in the Culture books by Ian Banks.

[9wzYQbTYsAIc]

I’m not an economist, but I would suggest that human ingenuity can find a way to make something along those lines work.

In the United States, for example, there are so many different welfare programs, might there not be a way to consolidate under a new set of rules?

Similarly, with regards to charity, has any economist modeled a hypothetical of transiting charity into voluntary taxes for welfare?

[boppo1]

The sum of all welfare isn't half of what UBI would cost.

[9wzYQbTYsAIc]

Perhaps, as the parent commenter suggested, we need a Universal Safety Net, then, instead of a strict UBI.

[int_19h]

Between unemployment insurance and minimum wage, we already have something like UBI, just mismanaged and with a lot of overhead.

Full-fledged UBI that provides decent living would require highly progressive taxes with the top bracket being in the ballpark of 70%. We could deal that down quite a bit if we start taxing capital gains properly, but even without that, it's neither impossible nor unprecedented.

[authpor]

just make sure basic necessities (housing, education, medicine) stay out of the market economy.

the 'market economy' (capitalism) is good at some things, but terrible at others. we need to stop collectively using this social-technology (a kind of market super optimizer) in the wrong places.

[dleslie]

Housing will always be a competitive market so long as location matters. Access to education and health care are themselves some of reasons why location matters, and a home in an urban core is priced higher than one in a far remote community.

Even in communist countries you find competition for housing as a result of the intrinsic value of location.