• Fat Tony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The only way I can see this working is maybe with some sort of robo-tax (The more robots/AI a company uses, the higher their taxes). But right now it feels like chasing cars.

      • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well if UBI is indeed a safety net, than it’s really just extended wellfare at that point. Seeing how wellfare is already a quite controversial topic. I do not see this going through political-wise. Unless there is an absolute massive wave of unemployment by the effects of automisation. Which could unify both ends of the political spectrum on this topic.

        I am on your side. But I just don’t see this realistically happening (right now).

        • superguy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          People already arguing for UBI specifically mention how taxes are already paying for them, through welfare systems.

          Their argument is that it’s actually cheaper to pay people a lump sum than to go through traditional welfare services.

          • lesinge@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            True, which is why this framework is doomed for failure:

            “…participation in education, training or the labour market” is not required to receive UBI, and that funding for other social services are not cut.”

            Other services must be cut to finance this. Pretending otherwise provides ammo to the nay-sayers.

        • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          We are currently spending the same amount of money (possibly more due to fraudulent claims) on things like AISH, EI, special credits, etc. THAT money will turn into a UBI and streamline everything through less hoops and agencies, saving taxpayers even more money.

          It’s cheaper to do it this way but people slap a “welfare” tag on it and hand wave it away because I’d that stigma, much like you just did.

          There have been a handful of studies done around the world already if you’re actually interested in it. Almost all of them are positive outcomes.

          • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s my point though. Justly or unjustly so, it is a controversial topic. So you need to convince conservatives otherwise. And boy oh boy, I think that task is even above UBI’s paygrade 🙃.

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m just expanding the conversation a little bit, I’m not necessarily trying to contradict or disapprove anything you said.

            • superguy@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Plenty of younger conservatives already accept the benefits of UBI on the rationale that they’re already paying for welfare.

    • superguy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It works by redistributing wealth from those who have more to those who have less.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Taxing robots is dumb because it creates artificial incentive for companies to avoid anything labeled as a “robot”. Tax people on the ridiculous amount of money they get from belonging to the ownership class, not the specific mechanisms they use to harvest their income.