Give your best argument has to why negative income tax is better than universal basic income.NIT: any work shif must pay more $ than the state pays someone to do nothing; small businesses can't hire someone, no matter how quick or easy the job is, unless they can beat the state's offer; big businesses have great incentives to lobby to keep the NIT value low enough that their pay is attractive enough to potential workers, but high enough that small businesses can't afford to offer competitive pay; the state must keep tabs on everybody's income.UBI: in the end, working always gets you more $ than not working, UBI isn't something you get for not working enough unlike the NIT, it is something you get on top of the $ you get from working; small businesses can employ anyone that thinks the pay is worth their time, they aren't competing with the state; big businesses have less incentives to lobby for lower UBI (could relive tax burden but would also lower demand for their products because consumers would have less $ to spend) and raising UBI wouldn't push small businesses out of the market (the small businesspersons can put $ from their own UBIs into the paychecks of her employees); the state only needs to keep tabs on who is alive (since that is the only requirement for UBI) and would only have to concern itself with the income of the super-wealthy (who, in theory, could still keep most of their profits as long as there was still enough $ going into the state to pay UBI to everyone).
Could you give more reading on UBI?I always thought it was shitty govt handouts but this is a conpelling argument
If the productivity pay gap is fixed, there's no need for any of that.
>>3811102Universal Basic Income is more fair than negative income tax, although more expensive as well. Personally I support UBI over NIT.
Free market is the best alternative.
>>3811161Less money goes to managing a byzantine bureaucracy which is what both NIT and the current systems require. I'd argue that UBI is a better use of the tax-payers' money.The $ difference between UBI and living expenses could, instead of being blown off on movie tickets, be saved to start new private businesses by individuals or pooled by a large collective to start a new private business by a cooperative. Researchers could do something like this too, reducing influence of corporations and political parties on scientific research. People that already have their businesses can invest their UBI on those, to keep up with market trends. Hard-working parents wouldn't be burdened by their NEET children. UBI could massively reduce private debt and actually make the market more dynamic.
>>3811563That's true. Before we implement either though, we have to make sure that we can survive off of almost entirely automation alone, because I don't know about you but as soon as either is implemented I'm embracing full NEET-life.
>>3811563Sounds too good to be true. What about inflation though? There's no way people would always agree to increase the amount every five years or so, in order to adjust with the inflation.
what about just paying workers more
>>3811102You could always meet half way and have the gub/biz go 50/50 up until a certain point.
I heard distributism was a nice third way ideology, does it even work?
>>3812438Stop with your distributism meme. It's just a stupid oxymoronic dialectical synthesis or capitalism and socialism that attempts to appease capitalist ideological sensibilities while trying to accomplish what socialism aims to accomplish.There's nothing special about distributism except that it doesn't make sense because it tries to take only the "good" from both ideologies without actually being a coherent system.
>>3812419>What about inflation though?>Implying inflation has non-monetary causes
>>38124191. If needed, and you think 5 years is a good time block, instead of voting on UBI every five years, UBI could be indexed to quinquenal inflation.2. Central bank doesn't need to emit as much money because there is less need to ease debt (you get enough to get by without borrowing) or lowering unemployment by depreciating wages (UBI is supposed to make up for the loss of jobs to automation, after all).What think?
I used to be in favor of UBI, but came to realize it would just be a way to put capitalism on life support.Corporate lobbying would be used to keep the UBI as low as they possibly could, meaning a massive amount of people would still live shitty lives, and be under constant pressure. So, the revolution needs to happen before a UBI is implemented, otherwise it will, honest to god, lead to the eventual undoing of society.
>>3813808Why should someone living under UBI have anything other than a shitty life? As soon as UBI is implemented I'm never going to work ever again, so why should I be expected to have a comfortable life?
