Universal Basic Income (UBI) Will Soon Be Needed

Automation and AI is moving at breakneck speed. Within a few years, we will see lots of jobs disapear. Already there are McDonalds being trailed with no staff. There are driverless cabs, trucks and buses in operation. Factory jobs are increasingly being replaced by robots. During Covid we saw changes to retail, education and business that are still having effects. Retailers now no longer need huge stores and staff, Universities can offer on-line education in many areas without needed huge investments in land and staff, and traditional books are replaced with online versions. Businesses can have staff work from home, or even replace them with AI, and no longer need huge inner city offices. All of these changes have flow on effects, like cafes that now have less customers, bookstores that arent needed etc. So there will be a lot less jobs, and more people out of work.

But this will be so massive, that it will affect business. If there are less people with money to spend, this will impact business, who will then need to cut back, reduce staff etc. And governments will need to spend more on welfare, while recieving less taxes from income and purchases. It could be the start of a downward spiral that could destroy economies worldwide.

So what is the answer?

A Universal Basic Income (UBI). This is a social welfare payment that is made to every working age person. It is not income tested, and applies to every person in the nation. It has to be high enough for people to live and also have money left to spend. It has been trailed in some nations, and it works.

So why everyone?

Firstly, there will be no need for Centrelink. If everyone gets a payment, then this can be closed. People can decide to keep working full time, and have more money, cut back to part time, or not work at all. It gives people back a life. Humans did not always work. We work to enable ourselves to live. If we can work less, we can have time to persue other interests, like hobbies, gardening, education spending time with families etc. These can change over a lifetime, so people can decide when to work more and when to cut back. This will free up more casual and part time jobs. And yes, some people will decide that they want to sit around all day and watch TV. Thats fine. Its a choice.
Business will keep operating and have customers. So the economy keeps working.

How will we afford it? Aside from savings by not needing Centrelink etc, we only need to revise the way we tax. At present the largest businesses pay no tax, because they send it offshore. The only tax collected is from GST, which is a value added tax. One idea might be to instead tax on turnover, which could be a very small rate on top of the GST, or replace the GST. Another option might be to put a base rate on products, for example 10% on all mining products etc, even those exported. Income tax could be removed, and businesses could reduce wages paid (without a reduction to the worker of the Nett ammount) as incentives etc. There are plenty of options and governments have already started looking at it.

The biggest obstacle will be the people themselves. There will be a group who will not want it just because it will mean that some people might decide to do nothing. This envy and jealousy will be a major reason for them to oppose it. It will bring about a better distribution of wealth, and a happier society, but some people would rather see others live in poverty. This is real, and is the reason why we still have a war on drugs. Our governmen is aware of research and trials in other nations where all drugs were legalised, as long as they were obtained through doctors. Initially drug use went up, then dropped massively. Drug deaths dropped, because people were seeing doctors, and drugs came from pharmacies so were safer. But the best part was that drug related crime disappeared, so much that prisons strted to empty. So better all round. But we wont see it here in a hurry, because if a party introduces this today, people would oppose it and would vote them out. The majority of people want others to suffer and be punished for what they dont agree with. Envy and jealousy. So this require governments to educate people over time.

Some people have estimated that we will hit a crisis point in 10 years. Others say that the recent advancements in AI might make it 5.
What do you think?

Comments

  • +57

    This kind of economic and social thinking is why actual effective policies can never get up.

    Absolutely nuts.

    • +21

      TL;DR by ChatGPT

      Rapid advancements in automation and AI are expected to cause significant job displacement across various sectors, potentially leading to a downward economic spiral. A proposed solution is the implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all working-age individuals, which could eliminate the need for welfare agencies and give people the freedom to decide how much they want to work. Funding UBI could involve tax revisions and restructuring, but the primary obstacle is public opinion, with some individuals opposing the idea out of envy or jealousy. As experts predict a job crisis reaching a critical point within 5-10 years due to AI advancements, the future of work and the potential role of UBI in addressing these challenges remain uncertain.

      • +10

        You know you can feed ChatGPT it's own tail right?

        • +14

          Inhuman centipede

        • Our Chatgpt overlords, pls read this comment

      • +2

        TL;DR of your TL;DR (by ChatGPT4)

        The rapid progress of AI and automation may cause significant job losses, potentially leading to an economic downturn. A proposed solution is the implementation of Universal Basic Income (UBI), which could replace welfare agencies and provide work flexibility. However, public opinion and funding challenges pose significant hurdles. The looming job crisis due to AI advancements makes the future of work and the role of UBI uncertain.

        • +1

          still a bit too long for my attention span. So I ran it through again

          TL;DR: AI and automation may cause job losses, leading to economic downturn. UBI is proposed as a solution, but public opinion and funding challenges complicate its implementation.

      • +1

        Now ask it to count up to 35 from 289.

        • +1

          Here's the sequence of numbers starting from 289 and counting up to 35 numbers:

          289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323

          • @deme: Never gets old! 😁 I'm guessing they'll fix it one day.

          • -1

            @deme: John Oliver alerted me to a new one though:

            I asked for the arguments against youth transitioning by conservative commentator Alexander Sanchez Jackson the other night. Which it dutifully gave me. You guys know Alexander Sanchez Jackson right?

            But it was less forthcoming on the South Korean fighter jet incursion to Japanese airspace on the 6th of January, 1999.

            • +4

              @markathome:

              John Oliver
              conservative
              You guys know Alexander Sanchez Jackson right?

              Mate this is OzBargain, not a septic tank.

              I have no idea who Alexander Sanchez Jackson is.

              You also seem to be mistaking a transformer model trained on a large number of hyper parameters with an all knowing being.

              • +4

                @deme:

                I have no idea who Alexander Sanchez Jackson is.

                Which would have been the correct answer for ChatGPT. 😁

                The point is that in addition to being innumerate. Providing your question is leading enough (and probably with a few exceptions) ChatGPT will just whim into existence any individual you care to invent. John Oliver's example was notable Renaissance philosopher Elliot Bankston or something.

                • @markathome:

                  You still seem to be mistaking a transformer model trained on a large number of hyper parameters with an all knowing being.

                  It's just a bullshitting machine

                  • @deme: Wait, did you just quote your own comment and pretended it was someone else's?

                    Either you're a sociopath, or you're an AI.
                    Or both.

              • @deme:

                Mate this is OzBargain, not a septic tank.

                That was his point. The AI knew about that insignificant person but not the significant event on January 6th, 1999.

      • +1

        I feel like the essay above may have been ChatGPT as well. ;)

        • +1

          Nah, it has spelling and grammar errors

          • +1

            @Darkheartz: You can ask Chatgpt to make minor grammatical, spelling errors and typos and it will. Or even more obvious ones:

            Universal Basic Income (UIB) has many positivies. One of the biggest advantage is that it give people finacial security and allow them to cover they're basic needs, such as food, housing, and healthcare. This could lead to a decrease in povert and homlessness. Furthemore, it would reduce the stigam associated with recieving goverment assistence, as everyone would recieve the same amount regardless of their income or employment status. Additionally, UIB could stimulat the econmy by increesing consumer spending, which would benifit businesess and creat more jobs. Overall, UIB is a good idea becaues it would improve the lives of many people and make our society more equal and just.

    • +14

      So we had the industrial evoloution
      Machines took over from horses and hands

      Did we need UBI then?

      No the world adjusted, people became more educated and everyone earnt lots more.

      nothing new now

      • +2

        This is the answer. Technology has made many jobs redundant. People's skill sets will just have to change to meet the new revolution. Those with skills and mindsets stuck in the past will be unemployed or learn to adapt.

        • +5

          but isnt there a net reduction in the total job pool?

          • @ripesashimi: The population is set to decline an millions of boomers will retire in the next 5 years. Might help soften the fall…

            Also with that aging population is a number of jobs less at risk of automation / ai. Carers, nurses, hands on health care, etc.

            • -1

              @Oneguyinmelb: Actually you miss a very important point

              Baby booms go in predictable cycles every 25-35 years

              yes The baby boomers of the late 50s and 60s are retiring today.
              But those same baby boomers also had children some 25-35 years later (80s-95s)
              That created another baby boom.

              And if you look around today, the baby boomers of the 80s and 95s are having children today..there are mothers with babies absolutely everywhere!
              Hence we are in the middle of yet another baby boom

              The only reason we have an aging population is because modern medical treatmemts and medicines have imprived our health and longetivity

              • @HeWhoKnows: The global population is expected to peak at around 10 billion in 2050-60, then decline according to the UN last year.

                The baby boomers did have children, but they also had less (my mother had 6 siblings, for example, me - a millennial - had 3 siblings).

                https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-13/earths-population-rea…

                • -1

                  @Oneguyinmelb: Correct
                  And the Chinese have been limited to just one child for how long?
                  The government removed this cap recently but the Chinese people continue to have just 1 child anyway.

                  But still the baby boom cycle continues albeit maybe with less children per family.

                  We dont know what will happen in 5 or 10 years let alone in 30 years.
                  Predictions are just that and they get it wrong more often then not.
                  All it takes is for a government to incentivise having kids and BOOM!
                  So dont place too much faith in these predictions.
                  Just food for thought

          • +3

            @ripesashimi: I'm pretty sure the millions of IT jobs out there didn't exist 40 years ago before the internet revolution. When people need to eat they will find new niches to create jobs. Otherwise time to grow your man bun and start learning how to make coffee so you can open your own cafe.

            • @Blargman2001: and there is coal go back a couple hundred years, when consumption of coal went up and no new discovery leading alarmist predicting when we run out of coal that is the end of civilisation then we discovered oil and all sort of alternative energy now we are trying to get rid of coal LOL

            • @Blargman2001: And on the subject of food, look at all the jobs created by food deliveries.
              And all those online orders being delivered too
              And all those grocery orders as well.
              So much demand for delivery drivers and no job re-training required.
              Sometimes its not about technological advances but rather changes in lifestyles.

      • Agreed, OP needs to hold his horses. Until they manage to make robots cheaper and more accurate than a real human, this will never happen. As long as a human is cheaper or smarter/performs better than a robot, there will be a job for that human.

        Eventually survival of the fittest will reduce our population to nearly nothing as AI robots take over the world, however this is far into the future, definitely not in the next few years. If we are smart enough to live on new planets then this opens up potentially infinite possibilities and we can maintain our population, it'll just be spread across the galaxies.

        • Experimental AIs are increasingly scoring higher than humans on a lot of measurements across many fields. And it's still early days.

      • +4

        Yes, they replaced animal labor, guess what happened to the horses?

        Now they’re on the way to replacing human minds.

        There’s no doubt both revolutions did/will lead to increased productivity with fewer humans required for base tasks. The question is, when the human labour was replaced with machines, the following generations used their minds (the generations that had their physical labor replaced themselves rarely ever found new jobs.)

        What do people have left with both body and mind replaced?

        There doesn’t need to be a 100% replacement of human effort for there to be major societal unrest. Just a 20-30% improvement in productivity would leave a mass of people unemployed.

        What would happen in this circumstance? We’ve just had a preview in the pandemic, governments forced to increase jobseeker and suspend mutual obligations to save their own skin and quell protest.

        The mistake is in thinking that we will jump right to a UBI. The other mistake is thinking centrelink being scrapped would come anywhere near making any difference at all to the kinds of cash needed.

        The primary issue currently is simply profits being offshored to tax havens in a way that’s historically unprecedented. Fixing multinational tax is the priority, without that everything else is a fantasy and will eventually impoverish the country UBI or not.

        People that think an AI revolution will affect humans the same way the Industrial Revolution did are missing the lesson. Unless you can work for less than the cost of electricity it will affect humans the way it affected horses. We will just need a lot less to get everything done. The question is, who benefits from that reduced labour cost and increased productivity? Multinationals or everyone?

      • +1

        Indeed, making ourselves as a society more efficient is always a good thing as we can devote our efforts to improving quality of life, creativity (e.g. content creation), invention / improvement (researching new frontiers, space travel for example, medical research), professional sport, creating luxury services or experiences that just could never have existed once upon a time when we had to all manually churn butter and pick fruit. Creators can earn, other people can work on or optimise the systems, etc.

        It's a bit of a leap to think this efficiency gain means we need to jump into being useless un-incentivised lumps in a fully socialist economy wondering how best to spend our equal UBI rations.. it will mean we have more resources for welfare needs including the likes of NDIS though if we can achieve our goals more easily through technology advances.

        That would imply with done all the advancements we could possibly do, have discovered - which couldn't be further from the truth. There is so much in physics for example we don't understand.

        Same thing has been happening with luddites fearing change for a long time, even earlier than the industrial revolution.

    • +2

      actual effective policies

      Lol. Like what?

    • +17

      I actually agreed with everything he said. And what he said is backed up by data.

      1. Surveys have found that the majority of people would prefer poor people to exist, even if it means they themselves are worse off overall. So, they would prefer to take a pay cut to avoid economic equality.

      2. The AI/technology disruption of the workplace is real, and I've seen entire industries virtually obliterated (for example, local newspapers) and friends/family members experience great difficulty starting anew. No doubt you're aware of some industry that has been disrupted, affecting people who spent decades preparing for/working in it.

      3. A UBI doesn't cost anyone anything. It may be hard to visualise it, but that's how it works. It's essentially just a shifting around of numbers. Most people will continue to work. But they will feel like they have more control over their life. It is primarily a psychological benefit, where you do not have to spend the majority of your working life worrying that you will end up living on the street. It means people will be less reluctant to spend money. It means people will not feel like they have to scrooge and buy the cheap imported product. People will spend more on local goods, supporting the economy immediately around them. It will be great for the economy.

      4. UBIs actually work, according to several experiments.

      • +4

        A UBI doesn't cost anyone anything.

        lol, so where do you think the money will come from?

        • +1

          The money is already there. If it’s done smartly, nobody is going to get anymore money than they already do. It’s just shifting numbers around and then guaranteeing the UBI portion of their income forever.

          • +6

            @ForkSnorter: No amount of 'shifting numbers around' is going to give everyone extra money without costing anyone anything.

            • +3

              @trapper: It's not extra money. Income will be taxed a higher rate, but workers will still receive the same income, because the higher taxed portion will be replaced with UBI.

          • +3

            @ForkSnorter: "the money is already there" -that's not really how the economy and money really works…

            Some key points to really think about (you already will know them on face value, but you have to really deeply understand and think about what is actually happening)…:

            • Resources are limited, there are supply and demand for those resources, and we need a way to reward effort for people's creativity, expertise, and time - not everyone can have that Harbourside property with views of the bridge;
            • Money in a capitalist system is a made-up concept we designed to allow easier commerce / trade / payment for services for efforts and manage lumpy supply and demand;
            • The government/banks in cooperation invent money using a set of regulations to give confidence and validity to this system - whilst no longer backed by the gold standard as a tangible thing, it doesn't need to be as it is backed a different way - the most common way cash is injected into economy is through a loan in a double entry accounting standard (a matching credit and debit is entered) such as loaning money for a house, secured by a mortgage.
            • In the above scenario, the borrower is assessed as being able to go direct their efforts to earn an income worthy of repaying the value of the house loaned against. He/she can therefore commission the resources and efforts to outbid the other parties for the plot of land and have the house built, participates their energy/efforts in the economy for the requisite time, and repays the money, so the credit and debit (which were invented in the first place) cancels each other back out and the transaction is complete - cash was created, energy/resources directed both in the borrower's favour then they worked it off to repay society over their career, then it is netted back out and gone again! Magic - it's like it never existed! (Similarly at the next level, if that bank repays its debts to the government, that will net out and disappear too!).
            • However that is the point, essentially nothing tangible ever really existed except promises to direct resources based on assessment of the person's worth (it's not a tangible thing, it not just 'there' to divide up) against a set of rules we all play by backed by the government / laws.
            • That same cash is circulated around the economy for rewarding other people for their efforts and giving up resources they have gathered, the builder, painter, suppliers and their staff, back to miners, electricity bill, people who work at the next level supplying their needs - it all works back to energy and primary production for feeding everyone, whilst they pay off their loans for their place (or rent for someone paying it off etc) in a huge complicated web of debits and credits.
            • People can choose to prioritise what is important to them, how best they can derive wealth based on what people are interested to pay for - thus efficiently getting everyone what they want - naturally people progress to meet supply and demand.
            • It is essentially a way to direct energy.
            • If our energy is all directionless, because we can't incentivise people through a capitalist system to deliver the improvements, resources, gains important to us - we'd go back to fighting over resources and bartering. The capitalised system whilst not perfect, best tames human nature in a civilised way where resources are limited.
            • The notion that everything will be done for us by robots and AI implies supply and demand and limited resources will no longer exist, and there is nothing more to invent or be created using someone else's expertise - That is not true anytime in the foreseeable future.
            • Especially when you think someone has to develop and run those AI / robots, gathering resources and energy to do so - If they use robots for example to build cars, but there is no one with jobs to be able to buy those cars, there's nothing they can sell as you don't have anything they want - so it would never just make that for you in the first place because the supply and demand isn't there.
            • There is still plenty we can do to advance for a long time, as I said above, we can devote our efforts to improving quality of life, creativity (e.g. content creation), invention / improvement (researching new frontiers, space travel for example, medical research), professional sport, creating luxury services or experiences that just could never have existed once upon a time when we had to all manually churn butter and pick fruit.

            Similarly, the concept that UBIs work is not quite true if applied totally - whilst there could be a basic level of income, then ability for people to earn more on top, everyone can't just be paid (whether they work or not) as their total income with no opportunity to reward effort, energy and creativity - because otherwise we will stagnate advancing as a society, uninteresting jobs will go not done (unless AI / robots can do them, but not all can), and we'd have no neat way to sort out who gets the best blocks of land, who gets the more desirable resources (e.g. gold etc). It's working against human nature.

            However if it is a partial system, which may be justified at some point, then we aren't really talking about anything other than re-badging higher minimum wages and welfare fallbacks, raising taxes to redistribute wealth, which are always adjusted over time as required (and yes AI will result in uneven wealth to those that control it so some smoothing is required). The wealthy AI owners may have to fund it to avoid crime and violent or democratic overthrowing of the system.
            However, there's no more reason to throw out the capitalist system that has fostered our advancement than there was when the printing press was invented in the industrial revolution. Progress goes on almost limitless and we can continue to trade using currency for getting what we want most from those who can get it for us, and outbidding those people who don't want to spend quite so much on it… :)

        • +4

          I am hardly an expert, but with a UBI the payment is universal, you can eliminate the dole and pensions, and you can remove the tax-free threshold meaning every dollar earned gets taxed. A lot of it is shifting money in the margins. Also, UBI as an idea has been supported by capitalists to save capitalism, similar to Bismarck and the introduction of social insurance in Germany in the late 19th century - this was done to appease workers/veterans so they wouldn't become 'radical' socialists and to keep the economy ticking along.

        • +2

          lol, they literally change numbers on a spreadsheet to make money.

          Guess what happens when people who struggle to put food on the table, finally put food on the table and don't have to worry about it? Less crime, less healthcare costs, less social costs, less policing costs, improved social outcomes, better return on investment than removing funds for social intervention or increasing policing budgets.

      • Lol. How much do you think the ubi should be?

        • +1

          About $500/week.

          • +4

            @ForkSnorter: $500 * 21 million adults * 52 weeks = $546 billion

            Ok so now we have a number, now let's hear where it's coming from.

            • +9

              @trapper: Where does Welfare currently come from? It currently costs $200-$250 billion.

              The remainder $300 billion in your calculation is just a tax reshuffling. Income will be taxed a higher rate, but workers will still receive the same income, because the higher taxed portion will be replaced with UBI.

              It is really straightforward, and not scary, like conservatives like to pretend it is. The psychological boost of from knowing you are safe from homelessness for the rest of your life will provide an incentive to spend more money (or at least reduce your reluctance to spend money), boosting the local economy.

              • +2

                @ForkSnorter: There are people who make 1K+ a week and are living in tents in QLD, not sure how half that $ amount will help.

              • -2

                @ForkSnorter:

                Income will be taxed a higher rate.

                Well at least your being honest about who will be paying for this.

                We will still have to pay current welfare too btw, only part of it would be able to be replaced with the UBI. Let's call it half, so ~$125 billion. That leaves a shortfall of $421 billion to come from your extra taxes.

                We would almost need to double income tax revenue to cover this, so what new tax rates do you suggest?

            • @trapper: Bitcoin

          • +2

            @ForkSnorter: In that case, it's hardly the utopia OP seems to be going for. He could just work 2 days a week.

            Where would that money come from?

            How much would the average rent be increased knowing that everyone will be receiving $500 each week. Does inflation exist in OP's utopia?

            • +3

              @ozhunter: Every adult in Australia already receives at least $500 per week, whether through working, investments, pension, welfare, etc. A UBI just a reshuffling of numbers and a guarantee that you will always have enough money to avoid homelessness.

              • +1

                @ForkSnorter: Oh that's the new phrase used these days. It's like if 5 people go rob a rich person, they get more wealthy and more people are happy overall. Nothing wrong with that /s

                What's the right/fair amount to charge billionaires and companies is the big questions(assuming they have to pay tax according to the law here)

            • @ozhunter: Prices would drop for most stuff we buy, as labour costs are essentailly removed. At present housing costs are at some of the highest levels compared to income, and would no doubt drop as well.

      • Every place that has tried UBI has tried it at a level where people still need to work to make ends meet and also on a small scale .. all have been short lived trials.

        • But people who have disabilities, are unable to work, parents, could opt out of working, instead of being forced to work.

          People still worked, but less hours, and they felt less stressed, meaning less strain on health systems, and better social outcomes.

          • +5

            @Vanceer: Lets say we make up a figure of 45K per year is how much someone needs to be able to live.
            Lets also say they come up with UBI of 45K per year ..
            This gets unleased and all of a sudden either you cant find people to work or have to pay them alot more than their existing wage. The barrista's earning say $25 per hour will demand $35 or $40 per hour .. the $6 coffee now becomes $12 .. Inflation goes through the roof because you need to pay the people more to stay employed

            Only after a short period of time no-one can afford to live for 45K .. the old 45K now becomes 75K …

            We end up in the same situation where people can't afford to live from the UBI and have to work in order to make ends meet .. but now there are less jobs available due to automation and the only people that can make a reasonable living are those with the skills that are still in heavy demand and can't be easily replaced with technology (or even the new jobs that technology advancements creates)

            After a short period of time you end up in the same situation .. inflation goes through the rooft .. UBI doesn't cut it so they decide to lift it higher .. and higher we go.

            • @jazinger23:

              After a short period of time you end up in the same situation .. inflation goes through the rooft .. UBI doesn't cut it so they decide to lift it higher .. and higher we go.

              lol welcome to our current economy! Where people have taken pay/social security cuts in real terms for decades because profiteering capital owners get away with it in our neoliberal hive mind.

              • @Techie4066: So it really does nothing to solve the problem .. it just causes inflation quicker…

            • @jazinger23: $6 dollar coffee
              $2 ingredients (milk, beans, sugar)
              $1 utilities (power, water, insurance)
              $1 capital (machine, rent / owned building)
              $1 profit
              $1 wages

              doubling wages does not make it a $12 coffee.

              • +2

                @Antikythera: It would be increased costs for every process that still has human involvement in the supply chain too ..

            • @jazinger23: I think you are missing 2 points. Firstly, never underestimate human greed. People will work. Not everyone can sit around all day. But they will be able to decide how much to work. And Secondly, the growth of AI and automation wont be a slow steading thing. It will be be rapid exponential growth. The barista job will no doubt be replaced, because the combination of AI and technology will be able to make a far better coffee, cheaper. Already we have AI designing AI.

              • @thesilverstarman: History is filled with examples of why you should never underestimate human greed.

                You put a group of 18 to 32 year old males together with all of their basic food and clothing catered for and you watch the level of increased risk taking unfold.

                AI will create different jobs and options for people to make money (look at what the internet has done in the last 30 years)

                If people have their basic needs met yet you still need to employ them do to work that is needed .. then you will need to employ them at higher rates than before UBI.

    • +2

      If OP's UBI doesn't comes with "social credit scores" likes China, then I wont take it. Cant just lets everyone do nothing & get free stuff from government, bad mouth hard working public servant and get negative scores. I want the government can make life's a living hell for any individual that they deems not worthy. Long live the party's leader

      /end sarcasm

    • +1

      Always good to tax other people so you can redirect it to your pockets.

      Check the unemployment figures, many businesses are crying out for workers. This will only get worse as baby boomers retire reducing the number of tax paying workers. And long term population demographics do not help.
      As boomers retire they will shift money into pension funds => less venture cap => less automation research, less risk and better returns on medical devices etc.

      Many of the larger businesses do pay tax as well as wealthier individuals. Bear in mind approx 50% of income tax is contributed by top 10% of tax payers, who tend to be highly skilled, highly sought and the most mobile. And the current welfare budget is largely covered by income tax receipts. Tripling the welfare budget for UBI is laughable.

    • Yerp. I always take advice from random people on the internet like OP who have real degrees and years of well rounded experience in the fields of economics, finance, leadership, business, healthcare, astrophysics, farming, politics and psychology.

      It will all be fine, everyone relax.

      AI will help speed up shitty tasks no one wants to do, but it cannot change human behaviour, so not much is going to change.

    • Greens will be a major party in a few decades, it'll turn Australia as we know it on its head. Impossible policy like legal weed and UBI will all be on the table.

  • -1

    Uh so you just pull money out of thin air and give it to everyone????

    • +93

      Isn't that what they did for Qantas?

      • +55

        Or Harvey Norman/other retailers who cried poor during the pandemic?

        • +1

          Most of this money went to Franchise owners and not Harvey Norman themselves. If I recall Harvey Norman returned all the money they got, but the franchises kept it.

      • +25

        Corporate welfare is ok to conservatives - it's the free market working its magic.

    • +8

      Robot tax.

      AI tax.

    • +6

      We are not on a gold standard, money is imaginary. Money printer goes brrrrr ….

    • +8

      It's called tax.

      If you put aside capitalist nonsense for a minute, the ideal would be that AI + robotics means humans basically don't have to work any more. But if you set it up so that only a few percent of humans own the AI and robots, then that doesn't work. Once production is almost 'free' due to massive efficiencies from technology, it's not unreasonable to look to distribute the benefits of that production more evenly rather than clinging to an outdated system based around human labour being valuable.

      • The benefits of almost free production will be distributed as much lower prices.

        That is how competition works.

        • +3

          Except competition doesn't work. Look at the US healthcare market. An insane level of collusion resulting in ridiculous prices for patients when things happen to them that aren't their fault.

          • @MessyG: I'm no fan of the US healthcare system, but do seriously you think the cost of providing US healthcare is free or almost free. Is that what you're saying?

            If AI reduces the costs of providing healthcare to almost nothing, then I would expect it to be much more affordable than it currently is.

            Across the board, not just in the US.

            • +4

              @trapper: You really think the theoretically free production carried out by AI/robots won't fall into the hands of a few monopolists?

              • -2

                @Techie4066: There is no reason to believe that will happen.

                Also, the government can regulate any monopolies that may arise.

                • +3

                  @trapper:

                  Also, the government can regulate any monopolies that may arise.

                  Because they do that so well.

                  • +1

                    @Techie4066: Probably just as well as they would run a UBI lol

      • +1

        For a future to exist where work is outsourced to machines and computer programs we need communism, the collective ownership of the means of production. Our system of private property would other wise create a society where 1% of people are ultra-rich and the other 99% paupers living in tents and under bridges.

        • No, there will always be competition.

          As production costs drop, so do prices. Even the machines to make things will get so cheap that anyone can afford one.

          In the coming decades, an inexpensive domestic 3D printer will have the capability to produce extraordinary items.

          • @trapper: Wealth inequality is growing rapidly so I'm not sure where your touching faith in 'competition' is coming from.

            • +1

              @caitsith01: And you think that everyone sitting at home on the dole is going to help? interesting theory

              • +1

                @trapper: UBI isn't the dole, not even close to it. More like dividends distributed to the whole of society.

  • +3

    Who should I vote for LNP? Greens? What do I do to support this, OP?

  • +26

    everyone gets $600 a week UBI, prices inflate to cater for the additional 30k a year in people pockets.
    no one any better off.

    maybe other jobs just come to be made up, prices of things go down due to manufactoring decreases.

    who knows.

    id love 600 a week for nothing, id stop working enough for me to cruise on for a while

    • +32

      everyone gets $600 a week UBI, prices inflate to cater for the additional 30k a year in people pockets. no one any better off.

      id love 600 a week for nothing, id stop working enough for me to cruise on for a while

      You managed to contradict yourself in the span of 2 sentences

      • for the short term i'd love it then.
        long term think make no diff

        best way may be UBI, but then higher more aggressive tax brackets from $0 onwards

      • +2

        If they were the only one getting the money, it would be great, for them. If everyone gets the money, it's pointless. No contradiction.

    • +1

      Unfortunately you are correct, whenever free money comes in, prices are always jacked up to remove any value.

Login or Join to leave a comment