Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "Universal Basic Income Explained – Free Money for Everybody? UBI" video.

  1. 1) You ARE rich and privileged you fucking hypocrite. If you make $32,000 you are the top 1% of the world economy. 2) The fact that poor people's position in life is so rough is precisely what motivates them to leave poverty, which means earning more money, which means providing a more valuable service to society. The poor are not some fixed fucking social class, only 2.4% of people stay in poverty for more than 3 years according to the US Census Bureau. If being in poverty was comfortable, not only would the poor be more comfortable staying poor, but those born into wealth would be less interested in avoiding it. Your parents can be billionaires but if you don't bother learning skills you'll still end up at McDonalds.
    4
  2. Conservatives on UBI: A way help the needy without creating perverse incentives. Liberals on UBI: MOAR FREE MONEYZ LOLOLOLOL PAID VACATION LOLOLOLOL NO MOAR STRESS LOLOLOLOL
    2
  3. It all depends on how much you make it. "Basic necessities" is an arbitrary, meaningless term. Your great great grandfather lived on about $2.00 a day in modern Purchasing Power Parity. It also depends greatly on where you live (a studio apartment in Detroit is $300 a month, but in Manhattan its about $3000 a month). Once liberals stop thinking with the mentality of five year olds when it comes to economics, it's an idea worth discussing.
    2
  4.  @TheCompleteMental  If leftists understood the correlation between making money and contributing to society, they wouldn't be leftists.
    2
  5. Giving up war won't even come CLOSE to covering that. Unless you define food as a loaf of bread a day, and shelter as a tinshack.
    2
  6.  @thebustosfamily  SS doesn't scale to how hard you worked.
    1
  7.  @TheCompleteMental  I'm sure saying that makes you feel like a badass who's sticking it to the man, but that doesn't hold up statistically. 56% of Americans end up in the top 10% in their life time. 10% end up in the top 1%. And only 2.4% stay in poverty for more than 3 years.
    1
  8. I'm assuming if we implemented UBI every other social program would be axed. At least everything invented from FDR onwards.
    1
  9. The studies in this video don't take into account how many people might have avoided better paying but otherwise less desirable jobs because of UBI. If I knew I could make twice as much working construction as I could working at McDonalds (say $1200 a month vs $2400 a month), I would almost certainly chose construction. But if it was rather making $2200 vs $3400 a week, I might stick with McDonalds. Communism didn't fail because people didn't work (that was called social parasitism and it was illegal), it was because people didn't direct their labor where it was most useful, which in the free market is the highest paying job.
    1
  10.  Kate Bee  The US was able to afford an even better military without its citizens wiping their asses with the pages of their textbooks.
    1
  11.  @naruii5160  Ugh, I think I'm going to be sick. What are you comparing it to? You have no idea how good you have it.
    1
  12. That's how all other programs work. The difference is UBI doesn't create perverse incentives like programs specifically designed to help "the poor." It doesn't favor those who are less productive, and provide disincentives to get a better job. Many people avoid working full time to keep their benefits under the current system. I knew one personally.
    1
  13. I know being cynical makes you feel like a badass, but people have been saying that for over 200 years. The Luddites were crying about how automation would take everyone's jobs as far back as 1811.
    1
  14. It doesn't surprise me people would keep working even with UBI. Boredom is a terrible thing. BUT remember Communism did not fail because people did not work (that was called social parasitism and it was illegal). It failed because people did not direct their labor where it was most valuable, as varied wages naturally cause people to do. People in the comments are already enthusiastically admitting UBI would allow them to avoid working jobs they hated and stick with jobs they loved. THAT is what would come back to bite us in the ass.
    1
  15. No, in Communism all your money is UBI. Under this system, you can still rise and fall in the free market.
    1
  16. I hate Marxism but UBI is attractive to me because it doesn't create perverse incentives. People avoid working full time or avoid marrying to keep their government benefits. With UBI no one would do that.
    1
  17. Economics is never that fucking simple. The more you tax earnings past a certain point, the less interested people are in earning past that point. Higher taxes doesn't mean higher revenues anymore than a higher prices at a store mean higher profits. Further, it would cost 3.5 trillion A MONTH to give everyone $1000. Billionaire income would come no where close to cover that.
    1
  18. Jesus Herbert Walker Christ, I - I'm honestly at a lost for words. Money doesn't get its value out of thin air. It's only worth what the population's labor produces. You can give someone free money but only a hard-working population can ensure that money will actually buy anything.
    1
  19.  @caidenbond1988  Right in other words people will have no motive to go where their labor is most valuable. Communism didn't fail because people stopped working (that would get you thrown in jail) but because people weren't directed where their labor was most needed.
    1
  20.  @seanpol9863  Any cost a business saves with automation is passed down to consumers in a competitive market. Your "robot tax" would raise the price of all goods produced by machines making everyone's money worth less.
    1
  21.  @davidhenningson4782  This "trend in automation" has been happening for over 200 years. You need to look up the Luddites.
    1
  22. That creates a perverse incentive to stay lower middle class.
    1
  23. Communism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is "to each $1000 whether they need it or not" which, while it sounds stupid on the surface, eliminates perverse incentives.
    1
  24. $1000 per person would cost about 3.5 trillion a year. The government currently spends about 2.5 trillion on social services (welfare, social security, etc.) and collects 4.8 trillion in taxes total. Abolish all other social services (welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security) and we could go this by increasing taxes only about 20%. However keep in mind raising taxes raises the price of everything. Reduce it to $700 a month, and we could do it without raising taxes at all.
    1
  25.  @naruii5160  Saying you can add revenue by taxing the rich more is as simple-minded as saying a store can increase its revenues by just raising prices. The more the rich are taxed, the less people are interested in earning in those brackets. This isn't a theory, this happened in reverse with Reagan's tax cuts. Also military spending is not nearly as much as you think it is.
    1
  26. If you make more than $32,000 a year you are in the top 1% of the world economy you fucking hypocrite.
    1
  27.  @seanpol9863  I'd like to see those papers. People in the comments are actually gleefully admitting UBI would make them work less, or stop working a job they don't like, and getting showered in upvotes. By your logic we could go outright Communist and divide up all cash unconditionally, and not have any down turn in productivity. Also, studies show most wealth is not inherited. Hell, Jeff Bezos was the son of a bike shop owner and a 17 year old high school girl.
    1
  28. You're right...sort of. But society has become more dependent on education as technology has increased.
    1
  29. Cost of living is a meaningless term. Your great grandfather probably lived on about $2.00 a day, adjusted for purchasing power parity.
    1
  30.  @TheCompleteMental  Yes they do. Not everyone is ashamed of living off of social programs. How can you be ashamed of taking what the left tells you is your human right? A perfect example of the perverse incentive caused by social programs is the skyrocketing single-motherhood among the poor since the birth of LBJ's welfare state.
    1
  31. No, it's not like collecting social security. You start working, you lose your Social Security.
    1
  32.  @TheCompleteMental  In 1964 5% of children were born out of wedlock. This is the year the so-called "War on Poverty" began. Now its about 40%. It's increased most significantly in the poorest populations, which is a historical reversal (for 99% of human history the rich gave birth to more illegitimate children).
    1
  33. "We just don't like being forced to devote our lives..." So you admit UBI will make people less hard working, and less motivated to be productive. Which leads to more scarcity and lower PPP per dollar, which leads to needing more UBI for the same effect.
    1
  34. How this would play out in real-life: Government : Good news everyone! UBI has come to America. $1000 a month for everyone! Liberals : What!? $1000 a month!? Who would want to live on that!? Conservatives : Erm, that's the poi- Liberals : OMG! WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSIONZ! Government : Okay, fine $1300 a month! Liberals : Yay! people work less, being more comfortable on UBI. This leads to less goods and services, resulting in scarcity that increases prices Liberals : OMG! THE GREEDY CORPORATIONZ ARE RAISING PRICES! Conservatives : That's not greed, that's yo- Liberals : RAISE UBI! Government : Ugh, fine! cycle repeats ad infinitum
    1
  35. The government doesn't pay you not to bake under UBI. In current system we pay you not to bake. Work part time, you get welfare. Work full time, you lose your benefits. Retire at 65, you get benefits. Keep working, you lose your benefits. That's what's attractive about UBI. It makes it easier to be lazy, but it doesn't REWARD laziness like conventional socialism.
    1
  36.  @emilsinclair4190  It would cause inflation for the poor, though. For example, apartments in Bridgeport CT are much cheaper than those in Stamford CT because people in Bridgeport have less money.
    1
  37.  @emilsinclair4190  Connecticut.
    1
  38. That is a meaningless gobbledygook statement. Any government is wealthy enough for UBI, because it just means redistributing money that already exists. The question is would it be worth the reduced incentives for productivity.
    1
  39.  Kanha the third  You can make a living doing something as simple as parking at an HEB, letting someone put groceries in your trunk, and then driving to their house. What the hell do you think this is, Detroit: Become Human?
    1
  40.  Kanha the third  Well enjoy them while they're still around. I met a woman yesterday who made $4000 a month working for Favor. Even the "low skilled" jobs that a ten year old could do get net you huge bucks once you gain experience.
    1
  41.  Kanha the third  In theory we could build robots smart enough to be doctors sometime in the future. So what? This is now.
    1
  42. If you felt UBI could enable you to go to college, a lot of other people would feel it could enable them to stay home from work.
    1
  43. The government doesn't pay all your expenses. Just "basic necessities". You can still move up or down in the world. Under the current system, we pay people NOT to work. Not only is there no point in working full time when you receive welfare, you literally have a reason not to.
    1
  44.  @TheCompleteMental  Free education is still paying people not to work. Stop plugging away at your useless liberal arts degree, you lose the money.
    1
  45. UBI makes sense in principle: its a way to help people without creating a perverse incentive. But we all know liberals would jack it up to a point that a lot of people would get lazy and suck off the system, due to their fake compassion, and then it would have to be abolished.
    1
  46.  @sw1tch327  $1000 is a fuckton of money when you consider people could save up their UBI when they are not working. Life is not as simple as MOAR FREE MONEYZ LOLOLOLOLOL. The less people are motivated to work, the less they work. They less they work, the less each dollar is worth.
    1
  47. So you're admitting it would make people comfortable doing less work...what's even sadder is you probably don't see the problem with that, so I'll spell it out for you: The less people work, the less goods and services are produced. The less goods and services are around, the less each dollar is worth. So your UBI of $1000 suddenly has the purchasing power of $500. UBI is an idea worth entertaining, but Christ alive people here keep endorsing it on the grounds it would allow people to work less or work jobs they liked over jobs they didn't. THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM YOU FOOLS! That's the goddamn downside!
    1
  48. Wow, okay, I just lost all my faith in UBI after reading these comments. Totally confirms my last comment. People just want to use it as a free ride in life. Half these comments just amount to "yeah, I'd love to have UBI because I like free moneyz". Yep. We are screwed. 100 million people died under Communism for nothing.
    1
  49.  @TheCompleteMental  Economics is never that damn simple. Higher wages means higher prices. Why do you think crab costs more than rice? Because you have to pay people a lot more to go crab fishing than to farm rice. Higher taxes require higher wages. If a take $100,000 of a surgeon's income through taxation, he'll need another $100,000 from me to feel his job is worth it. That, again, would lead to higher prices. Progressive taxes put negative pressure and productivity, and negative pressure on productivity is precisely the reason anyone even considers UBI in the first place.
    1
  50. Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there. UBI is not just MOAR FREE MONEYZ LOLOLOLOLOL. If people are comfortable living off UBI that's a serious problem, because it means a lot of people would just suck off the system (which would eventually make all money worthless).
    1
  51. Jesus Herbert Walker Christ, do you know how little of our money is actually spent on foreign aid?
    1
  52.  Kate Bee  Like Bernie Sanders calling Walmart's salaries "starvation wages" while 80% of the planet lives on less than $10 a day?
    1
  53. No it means the polar opposite. There are no strings attached. That means no perverse incentives, no misguided government oversight over what's a "necessity", etc.
    1
  54. People like you are why this would never work. It's supposed to be a way to help the poor without creating a perverse incentive, not a government paid vacation. If there is any significant decrease in will to work its a failure. Giving someone a free slice of the pie doesn't mean much when no pie is getting baked.
    1
  55.  @blankblank5409  What system has worked better?
    1
  56. Depends on how much it is.
    1
  57. If it wasn't paying well enough, that means you're more useful to the economy in your new job. So that's not a good thing.
    1