Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg supports an idea called universal basic income.

Not as sensitive as you. Lol

 

Leftists will never understand that there are no such thing as a free lunch - someone always have to pay!

An universal basic income will obviously have to be tax-funded and when all comes around, there really is no difference between this and a "normal" welfare-system. None of the two gives any incentives to work and none of the two solves nor poverty neither unemployment. Probably it would even make things worse.

 

To the point though, I'm ok with a universal income for people incapable of working in a robotic society, but they lose their voting rights to do so.

If they could vote, it would lead to chaos.

 

How does this reduce welfare when it actually expands it....

What's the incentive for people to do entry level jobs and gain skills again?

Its about as smart as giving everyone free college. They won't need to learn anything or apply themselves and the degrees themselves would be worthless.

This is just more of the participation trophy mindset.

 

No trial?

 

I'm about as sensitive as novacaine

 

No, they were simple.

 

Sure honey

 

It would lead to politicians whose entire platform is raising the universal income, and thus raising taxes on the people producing.

I know that gives boners to leftists but it's a recipe for disaster.

 

I do try to make things easy.

 

I think the difference is that giving money at a certain rate reduces administrative costs (and usually ends up being less then actual welfare) thereby reducing the cost of the social assistance system in total.

 

And pretend they are complex...

 

I have never known democrats to reduce the cost of administration.

 

No not really but ok.

 

Yes, a fast one. Just no appeals=) Don't like it, get a job or simply don't kill anyone. Not very difficult...kind of like breathing.

 

Google might help?

 

Ignore him. He is just a liberal troll playing up conservative stereo types.

 

There will always have to be net givers for there to be net recievers. In other words, not everyone will be a reciever, the people who have jobs will infact be losers and once a "reciever" manages to enter the labour-market, they will become givers too.

It is a system that depends on progressive tax which, of course, means that people will be disincentiviced to work as the more they work, the more they have to pay (ie the less they earn).

 

I'm not sure I understand how this would de-incentivize people on welfare. It seems to me like it would have the opposite effect.

 

I guess it will have to approach a Star Trek like utopian society where people work for the joy and challenge of the work as opposed to the monetary compensation. It would require computers and automation to do the mundane task that no one wants to do. Probably a bit more than 10 years in the future but maybe a hybrid system with monetary compensation could be reached sooner.

 

Why work?

 

Who do we kill if we end up killing an innocent person?

 

Only thing that can help people on welfare is fewer regulations and lower taxes (preferably 0%).

 

Ok, 4.5

 

Onward Christian soldier! Lol