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

There's no need to outlaw robots or artificial intelligence. That's just silly.

I think you're greatly over-exaggerating. The worse case scenario is that US GDP flat-lines or contracts permanently due to a decrease in Consumer Spending.

They said the same thing when the computer was invented.

 

There won't be any riots, but thanks for the fear-mongering just the same. People will become adjusted as things progress ever so slowly. What happens is households with two wage-earners become households with one wage-earner. As household income decreases, expenditures decrease. A new "normal" is created and people slowly adjust to it over time.

 

You did. The purpose of Universal Basic Income is to eliminate the myriad Welfare Programs to ostensibly generate cost-savings at government level. HUD Section 8 is one such Welfare Program.

So are you admitting that Universal Basic Income would fail from the start?

There's no Straw Man, there's only your obtuse claims.

The figure $1,341 is the average monthly payment for Social Security Retirement Benefits.

Since Social Security is in and of itself a Welfare Program, Universal Basic Income should eliminate the need for a separate retirement program.

You missed the entire point, not to mention you don't understand the meaning of "Universal."

The adult population over 18 years is ~245,178,000 * $1,341 = $3,945,404,376,000 or $3.9 TRILLION annually.

That's what you'd have to spend to achieve Universal Basic Income, which replaces all Welfare Programs including Social Security.

Current Welfare Spending (less Social Security) is $1.3 TRILLION for 89 separate programs or $5,300 annually -- $441/monthly.

 

There'll be plenty of waste and abuse.

Giving cash in lieu of Food Stamp EBT Cards only leaves children hungry as the parent(s) get high, spend the money on tobacco and tattoos and other wasteful useless things.

 

That makes no since, as just because collage is free does not make it easy...hell look at all the Gibill drop outs.

If anything it would weed out the poeple whom dont like money and are lazy to begin with...would you hire a babysitter that hates children?
Let us that that want to work get paid to do just that...work, if the lazy qanna quit an sit on their ass, more incentive to look more employable and get paid more.
No better tool to argue then id make more sitting on my ass.

 

Sounds like an investment too me.

 

Stealing from Peter to pay Paul is not a good idea. I don't feel justified in taking people's money against their will in order to provide financial assistance. I have no right to forcibly take my neighbor's property.

 

I must always respond to your first comment. Let me state emphatically that I was never an Army Ranger. Rangers Lead the Way! I did serve on active duty for ten years. Now that we have cleared that up please describe your own military experience.

I love this

 

I have every right to vote for people that will do it for me

 

Again nobody believes that nor does anyone care about what I've done. You're being ridiculous.

 

This guy nailed it. Some might say it's only an opinion piece. I would say a great opinion piece based entirely on facts. It completely exposes Zuckerberg as just another rich hypocrite who would like to experiment with someone else money (usually middle-class (disappearing fast) or lower middle class tax payer).

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
The Real Reason Zuckerberg Supports A Universal Basic Income

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-an...zuckerberg-supports-a-universal-basic-income/


Mark Zuckerberg’s ideas represent the old style method of control. A universal basic income would only preserve the old power structure by keeping the masses from participating in this revolution of technology and innovation.

Zuckerberg represents this generation’s white liberal elite identified by Malcolm X who want to keep the poor dependent and helpless. Every government program, bill, and regulation that they support is sold as a help to the poor masses when in reality those championing the government control build their power on the backs of those they claim to help.

What Zuckerberg champions will not free the masses, it will exploit them for political gain. It will make them satiated pawns to do the bidding of the elite, while Zuckerberg consolidates his control over the future.

 

The guy is just a programmer and people act like his opinions should be followed.

I implore all of you to learn how to write code. Then, if you have a good idea for a program or website you can make it reality.

That is exactly what he did. If he thought of the idea of Facebook but didn't know how to write code, you wouldn't know who he is.

And writing code is not as hard as you think.

 

Yes, yes, yes. We all know that you're a huge proponent of initiating force against the person and property of your neighbors in order to get what you want. You must be so proud of yourself.

 

Yes I am proud to be a supporter of the most successful government on earth

 

Zuckerberg is attempting to insulate himself against the wolves at the gate he perceives is a very plausible future. He's a liberal, so he wants to play the "haves/have nots" game - but he's a "haves", so he wants to appear as though he's just got this huge heart, and wants everyone to have a piece.

Except he's not giving any pieces.

He spouts to the Harvard graduating class about how UNFAIR it is that he could leave Harvard and make billions, while other students cannot even pay their debt. He says this...to graduates of focking Harvard.



So how come he didn't just offer to pay off the entire graduating class' debt?

He bloviates about how there is such a lack of opportunity in this day and age.

So how come he didn't provide each Harvard grad with $250,000 each in seed money?

He's a hypocrite.

We, BTW, already have a "minimum income". It's called EITC, and Child Tax Credit. Regardless of income.

Liberals are hypocritical piles of sh!t.

 

A new Trump fan is born.

 

I have never been a fan of the fat cheeto and never will

 

Then you don't understand economics. You may as well grant each person a pile of hay - because that's the equivalent value you've deeded.

You cannot simply 'give' everyone a lump sum. All you're doing is screwing with the balance between elastic and inelastic variables in the economy, and it will result in increased unemployment, a temporary crisis of supply, and an rather instant and severe increase in inflation - both wage and price.

 

You just said you love our Government. He is the head of it.

 

Wait.....you said we already had a basic minimum income....so which is it? LOL

 

:facepalm:

I realize that you are in the top three most stupid posters on this forum, but nowhere in my post did I explain that these harmful economic factors aren't already ALSO happening as a consequence of the stupidity of our current actions.

 

We cannot even have this conversation without knowing how much money exactly (per-person/per-year) we're talking about. And if it's just universal welfare (for everyone, including the already wealthy) then I don't know how its supposed to cut welfare costs. As of 2012 52.2 million people (21.3% of the US population) was on government assistance programs. As of 2016 the cost for federal, state, and local was estimated to be around $1,084,000,000,000. And now you want to multiply that by 5 times as many covered and think that getting rid of those other services are going to cost less? Not unless you cut it down to less than $3,000 a year per individual and tell them that all they now get to pay for food, medical, and housing. It would only harm those that need the assistance most and be an extra couple grand for those that already have excessive disposable incomes. And what's the new tax-plan that's supposed to cover this cost, are the poor going to be exempt or will they be required just to give their cut back with nothing to show for it and in a new world without social assistance programs? This makes absolutely no common sense. It sounds to me like Mark Zuckerburg is depending on the stupidity of people that cannot do math.

Instead of just focusing on driving down outrageous medical and education costs and raising the minimum wage to a living wage, he just wants to play a shuffle game with the money and get rid of a trillion dollars in social assistance programs that give back to taxpayers. Maybe we should just raise the minimum wage to $50/hour, cut the medical and education costs (I mentioned earlier), cut the Foreign Aid spending, dump $500 billion a year out of our DoD spending, and cut taxes back 50% across the board while granting people that earn less than $50,000 tax-free exemptions (because then we won't need social assistance programs). End the guest worker programs and the out-sourcing, problem solved, good paying jobs for everyone. And for those that are physically unable to work their loved ones can afford to take care of those dependents (just like any parent takes care of their child). And if we stopped running off to war for everyone but ourselves we'd have a surplus again.

 

Canada's province of Ontario, which includes Toronto, started a pilot program in April that provides 4,000 citizens with an unconditional income of about $12,600 a year. Applicants must be between ages 18 and 64 and living on a limited income.

 

What? Is this actually your logic?

1. one purpose of the UBI is to generate cost savings for government
2. HUD Section 8 is supposed to generate cost savings for the goverment
3. HUD Section 8 doesn't generate cost savings for the goverment
4. Therefore, UBI is doomed to fail

? That's not even logic. On it's most basic form it's hogwash.

"I think UBI should need to at least do x, which is more than it's proposed to do, therefore it could never work."

This isn't even logic. This is nonsense. $1,341 isn't "what is needed for the basic necessities", it's simply the average for SS retirement. Holy false equivalence, mate.

"What Mircea would like universal basic income to be" ≠ "what is necessary for a universal basic income".

You rejected the proposal, then in its place suggested something different, then said that something different wouldn't work because it'd be too expensive. Have you seen the definition of a straw man?

 

Didn't zuck already promise to give away the vast majority of his wealth?

Not a fan of his, but maybe the movie made me biased, but I'm totally behind him giving away the massive pile of his money

I'm not behind ubi in general, I think people Ned to work and be productive just for simple sake of pride, and knowing the faults of human nature, we need incentives to work not incentives to sloth.