Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3cdma2 wrote

lol

And now ask ChatGPT to find money for all this.

30

AnneBancroftsGhost OP t1_j3chw2k wrote

Ok I gave it this prompt

> Propose a source of funding for worldwide universal basic income.

And it returned this:

> There are several potential sources of funding for a universal basic income program that could be implemented on a global scale. Some options could include:

> Taxes on wealth: One option could be to implement a progressive wealth tax on individuals or corporations with large financial assets. This could be used to fund a universal basic income program for all citizens.

> Taxes on carbon emissions: Another possibility could be to implement a tax on carbon emissions, with the revenue generated used to fund a universal basic income. This would have the added benefit of incentivizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

> National budgets: Governments could also allocate a portion of their national budgets towards funding a universal basic income program. This could involve reallocating existing government spending or increasing overall government spending.

> International cooperation: Funding for a universal basic income program could also be secured through international cooperation and aid. This could involve contributions from wealthier countries or international organizations such as the United Nations.

> Private sector donations: It is also possible that private sector organizations and philanthropic individuals could contribute funding towards a universal basic income program.

54

daarthvaader t1_j3ck8ta wrote

That is great chatGPT found a solution for funds. I have a very dumb question , if everybody or most of the people are getting basic income , who would work for the corporations and if those companies don’t have work force , how would they make money and pay into the system ? I fail to comprehend this part of the equation

17

katsumojo t1_j3ckyv4 wrote

My understanding is that universal basic income would be enough to cover the essentials: food, housing, heat, clothing, maybe internet, etc... There wouldn't be enough in the funding to do much more than that. If you wanted things like vacations, restaurant outings, extracurricular activities, to have enough money to buy a house instead of rent, nice clothes, etc.. you would have to work to create that kind of income. The idea is most people want those things and would be willing to work for them.

25

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3cotxy wrote

lol

The only issue with this is that the people who came up with this "idea" had no prior work experience, no relevant education, and no relevant background.

−9

minotaur05 t1_j3cpfwt wrote

Any source for that statement?

2

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3cty4n wrote

lol

My mind. I understand, you aren't used to thinking, but you are more than welcome to try and prove me wrong.

I'll wait.

−3

TricksterWolf t1_j3cwvzq wrote

you forgot to add the "lol" this time, which makes it less likely that people will realize your insult is due to low self-esteem and rage at opinions which differ from yours

2

MiserableTonight5370 t1_j3crysz wrote

You are wildly incorrect. My only question is whether you made this up or read/heard it somewhere.

2

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3ctolx wrote

lol

Care to prove me wrong?

−4

MiserableTonight5370 t1_j3cwgy7 wrote

First: you are the one who made the claim, if we're being rational it's on you to support your claim.

But since it's so incredibly easy to demonstrate how wrong you are, I'll take a few seconds to educate you in front of the rest of the thread. A few seconds of review on the UBI wikipedia page shows:

Julius Caesar implemented a 100 denarii UBI for common roman citizens (https://books.google.com/books?id=aSmr_bVR2-kC).

He had a full-time job I think. May have had a bit of education.

Saint Thomas More wrote about a fictional society that explored the concept in Utopia (What Money Can Buy: The promise of a universal basic income – and its limitations, The Nation magazine). He had some education: he was a lawyer, judge and statesman.

Juan Luis Vive's, who was advocating a municipal -level UBI in Spain before Thomas Paine and others picked up the theme was educated at the university of Paris, and worked as a professor at some of the most distinguished universities in Europe at the time.

Most of the modern thinkers like Bertrand Russel and C.H. Douglass who publicly advocates for something like UBI had degrees.

If you'd like to take the time to see the magnitude of your wrongness, you can peruse this list too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_advocates_of_universal_basic_income . There are a lot of people with jobs and letters after their names on that list.

If I've sounded a little bit harsh here, it's because I want to emphasize your intellectual laziness, and try to encourage you and others not to make unsupported claims then incorrectly place the burden of proof on people who rightly call them out. If society operated the way you're operating, we would be in a lot of trouble.

Do better.

2

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3czeww wrote

>First: you are the one who made the claim, if we're being rational it's on you to support your claim.

Proving negative is kinda hard, have to come up with loads of examples.

​

>But since it's so incredibly easy to demonstrate how wrong you are, I'll take a few seconds to educate you in front of the rest of the thread. A few seconds of review on the UBI wikipedia page shows:

Beautiful.

​

>Julius Caesar implemented a 100 denarii UBI for common roman citizens (https://books.google.com/books?id=aSmr_bVR2-kC).
>
>He had a full-time job I think. May have had a bit of education.

Indeed. And also he had a huge empire, all of which worked very hard to allow roman citizens, who comprised maybe 1% of population, their UBI.

lol

Great example - millions enslaved to provide for a few.

Also, worked really well.

​

>Saint Thomas More wrote about a fictional society that explored the concept in Utopia (What Money Can Buy: The promise of a universal basic income – and its limitations, The Nation magazine). He had some education: he was a lawyer, judge and statesman.

No relevant education or experience whatsoever. If he was digging ditches, his opinion could've been more relevant.

​

>Juan Luis Vive's who was advocating a municipal -level UBI in Spain before Thomas Paine and others picked up the theme was educated at the university of Paris, and worked as a professor at some of the most distinguished universities in Europe at the time.

Wow. A whole professor. I'm almost impressed. But how good was he at constructing bridges? Huh?

​

>Most of the modern thinkers like Bertrand Russel and C.H. Douglass who publicly advocates for something like UBI had degrees.

lol

Again: no work experience, no relevant education, and no relevant background.

​

>If you'd like to take the time to see the magnitude of your wrongness, you can peruse this list too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_advocates_of_universal_basic_income . There are a lot of people with jobs and letters after their names on that list.

A lot of people, none of which ever held a hammer in their hands. Their opinions are simply worthless.

​

>If I've sounded a little bit harsh here, it's because I want to emphasize your intellectual laziness, and try to encourage you and others not to make unsupported claims then incorrectly place the burden of proof on people who rightly call them out. If society operated the way you're operating, we would be in a lot of trouble.
>
>Do better.

Thanks, I'm fine.

1

MiserableTonight5370 t1_j3d2f2t wrote

The fact that you can't back up an over-broad negative claim is a clue that you should not make it. That's exactly my point.

And I'm confused by your approach to intellectual gatekeeping. Does discussing the economics of universal basic income require expertise at economics and all other types of expertise don't provide any credibility at all, or do you need to be a hammer-wielding bridge builder? I'd wager that the number of economics PhDs that have sizeable construction experience is low enough that if we let only them discuss economic policy we'd have a pretty short discussion. More directly, it feels like you're moving the goalposts though: you said that the people who came up with 'the idea' had no work experience or relevant education. You didn't say that they had no 'construction' experience or 'economics' education, you said work experience or relevant education. Someone with public policy education who works in government has both relevant education and relevant work experience to discuss the idea of public policy like UBI. If you disagree, I'd love to know what criteria exactly you were implying when you made your over-broad, negative, impossible to support claim.

1

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3d8pv9 wrote

>The fact that you can't back up an over-broad negative claim is a clue that you should not make it. That's exactly my point.

I don't think so.

​

>Does discussing the economics of universal basic income require expertise at economics and all other types of expertise don't provide any credibility at all, or do you need to be a hammer-wielding bridge builder?

Discussing the economics of UBI requires very solid understanding of how the real world is working, and obtaining such knowledge without working in fields that physically create all the wealth is not possible.

​

>I'd wager that the number of economics PhDs that have sizeable construction experience is low enough that if we let only them discuss economic policy we'd have a pretty short discussion.

And this is one of the main causes of the weak state of the global economy.

​

> More directly, it feels like you're moving the goalposts though: you said that the people who came up with 'the idea' had no work experience or relevant education. You didn't say that they had no 'construction' experience or 'economics' education, you said work experience or relevant education.

Yeah, my bad, should've formulated it better.

​

>Someone with public policy education who works in government has both relevant education and relevant work experience to discuss the idea of public policy like UBI. If you disagree, I'd love to know what criteria exactly you were implying when you made your over-broad, negative, impossible to support claim.

Well, to be precise, everybody have a right to discuss ideas. The question is whose opinions should have more value that others.

In my opinion someone with public policy education who works in government is concerned by their career only. In my opinion government employees should not have a right to vote, let alone make decisions like these, also because they never bear any responsibility.

Criteria?

Hmmm.... Lemme see...

Intelligent humans that have experience either directly managing large masses of other humans or have studied human intelligence, human evolution and human history.

Oh, and no, no politicians and no gov. employees.

1

MiserableTonight5370 t1_j3dc65b wrote

Well, your revised position is much more reasonable. Score one for discourse.

I still completely disagree with your insistence that making a claim you can't support well is a good idea. C'est la vie.

I think it would be better if only intelligent people made decisions for other people, but I have yet to hear any ethical, or maybe moral is the better word, ways to enforce any kind of such system in practice.

My last little quibble with your revised criteria is that there are very few types of management of large masses of people that can't be considered a form of government/politics. Seems like you're triangulating on the CEOs or owners of large companies. If that's the case, then I'll politely disagree with you - I would trust academics with less vested interest to provide more intelligent and more objective positions on economic policy. Important to note: I said LESS vested interest (than corporate magnates), not none at all. I would say that rank-and-file academia have less vested interest in economic policy than the average CEO, as an example.

Completely agree that politicians' opinions on economic policy are not worth repeating, much less forming one's own opinion on.

Edit: p3, 'little' => 'few'

1

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3dfrhx wrote

>Well, your revised position is much more reasonable. Score one for discourse.

Cheers :)

​

>I still completely disagree with your insistence that making a claim you can't support well is a good idea. C'est la vie.

That's completely fine. I'm not upset XDXD

​

>I think it would be better if only intelligent people made decisions for other people, but I have yet to hear any ethical, or maybe moral is the better word, ways to enforce any kind of such system in practice.

Which is precisely the reason why I haven't mentioned morals or ethics.

​

>My last little quibble with your revised criteria is that there are very few types of management of large masses of people that can't be considered a form of government/politics. Seems like you're triangulating on the CEOs or owners of large companies. If that's the case, then I'll politely disagree with you - I would trust academics with less vested interest to provide more intelligent and more objective positions on economic policy. Important to note: I said LESS vested interest (than corporate magnates), not none at all. I would say that rank-and-file academia have less vested interest in economic policy than the average CEO, as an example.

Which is why I mentioned direct management. I should've clarified - people who know by name all who they manage. Owners of successful hitech startups (leave alone Musk - he's tad too big XDXD), operations managers in corporations and such.

Why do I tend to trust this kind of people? Because they tend to be very rational and they know people. Academia are too detached, they live in their academic world and tend to believe that everybody else is just like them, maybe less educated.

Also, academia is very interested in ensuring their own employment. Contrary to businessmen, who can just make money out of thin air, literally buying lemons and selling lemonade if there's nothing better, academia isn't really capable of surviving in the wild and depends on government donations.

1

katsumojo t1_j3cygxb wrote

The most famous proponent of this idea, Andrew Yang, went to Columbia University and Brown University. Seems pretty educated to me. And you can do a quick Google search on his work experience, he has it.

The point of universal basic income is multifold- give people a safety net so we have fewer homeless people, recognize and make possible the work of stay-at-home parents, invest money in the masses because we know that when the masses have money it is the most liquid; in other words, poor people spend their money more quickly than rich people--> when people spend money business does well--> when business does well there are more jobs available and the economy does well.

There is real thought and strategy behind the approach, the problem is it offends the American notion of "work for everything you have." The real problem is hard work alone barely pays for people's basic needs.

My grandfather was a Culligan salesmen..yes, he sold the giant tanks of water door to door. My grandmother was a homemaker. They were also parents to 7 children that all were cared for enough that they could grow to adulthood and live lives of their own. CAN YOU IMAGINE, someone working ANY modern day job and supporting a family of 9 on their own? The game has changed and the rules need to follow suit.

1

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3d11eu wrote

"Andrew Yang is American businessman, attorney, lobbyist, and politician"

Are you fucking kidding me?

>The point of universal basic income is multifold

The problem that the math just doesn't work.

>My grandfather was a Culligan salesmen..yes, he sold the giant tanks of water door to door. My grandmother was a homemaker. They were also parents to 7 children that all were cared for enough that they could grow to adulthood and live lives of their own. CAN YOU IMAGINE, someone working ANY modern day job and supporting a family of 9 on their own? The game has changed and the rules need to follow suit.

It depends where you live.

Back in the day US was the industrial powerhouse of the planet, today it is not.

In China, however, it is entirely possible, or in Vietnam. Planet isn't limited to US of A.

0

beereinherjar t1_j3cl26z wrote

Most people would want to work in order to get more than the basic income. Point is that it would give people a choice to live differently than we do today.

14

penguinino t1_j3ckt3r wrote

This assumes greater automation than we have today, obviating work for most. Those who choose to work would be paid in addition to UBI, incentivizing learning any remaining in-demand skills.

13

ianitic t1_j3cojr9 wrote

Also, as this is futurology and we see things studies/research that extend lifespans, the life extension could be something they price out of reach for non workers.

1

nrfx t1_j3cm6hh wrote

The goal of a basic income isn't to replace doing jobs.

Its to provide for the bare necessities for life.

The vast majority would continue to work to improve their station.

10

ChainmailleAddict t1_j3cl2qv wrote

Jobs would still exist and people would still work them, it's not as though UBI gives everyone enough to do nothing. This being said, jobs are disappearing and being automated away. Things stack up that one day, we won't need to work any more, and this should be a good thing if we make the ultra-wealthy stop hoarding our excess labor.

8

Tech-Teacher t1_j3clbn7 wrote

I mean. If you get a basic income of 16,000$ a year.. do you plan to just stop working? Would it help with the basics. Yep. Does it help you achieve all of your goals and dreams. Nope. Most people will still work. Some people will work less.

8

borderlineidiot t1_j3clwwk wrote

The basic income would be spent by the recipients which trickles up through the economy back into the pockets of the super wealthy people and corporations. Money trickles up not down.

2

Hydra57 t1_j3cn3k4 wrote

One city did this as an experiment with a sample of families willing to participate. Everyone still worked, it just made their lives more comfortable and stress free, especially those who were so close to broke that missing work meant losing their place of residence.

2

DropsTheMic t1_j3cp5mo wrote

People are largely incentivized by things above and beyond basic subsistence which is all UBI promises. Where is the carrot if there is no stick? That's pretty much the summation of your question I think. Vacations, nicer vehicles, money to spend on private ventures and passion projects, art, music, etc. Essentially everything that already incentivizes people beyond keeping their rent paid and alive in reasonably good health.

1

MiserableTonight5370 t1_j3csqw2 wrote

The fundamental problem of economics is that human wants are infinite and resources are not. If you accept the most fundamental concept of economics, then you understand that the economy is not driven by the finite requirements of the needs of individual humans to live, but the infinite demands of human wants.

I have never seen a UBI proposal that suggests the amount of income should be more than a reasonable estimate of the needs of a person for basic subsistence, health care, and in some cases postsecondary education.

This is the underlying principle behind all of the other answers here, like 'people won't just stop working because they have $16k/year', etc...

1

jdith123 t1_j3ct7x2 wrote

People who wanted a little more than just basic food and shelter.

I’d still do my job. Basically, I teach reading to kids. The systems that pay me to do that would probably change dramatically, but I wouldn’t want to stop doing that work. It’s a job, so parts of it suck, but it’s also a really great thing to do, and it makes me feel good.

Also, I like my nice things. I like my expensive hobbies and fancy vacations and travel. I want to buy a bottle of wine and go out to dinner. I want to pay for extra stuff.

1

sergpepper t1_j3gfhpm wrote

It would be good if this AI could manage the entire financial system of all the nations of the world, so that there would be no wars, greedy dictators and state crooks. I think there was a book by William Gibson about this.

1

SuggestionSuperb1443 t1_j3cfehx wrote

I vote for taxing the rich, or closing the loopholes that let rich people stay rich because they "don't have an income. "

41

liltime78 t1_j3cglwa wrote

It’s so simple, but brainwashed plebs won’t go for it because “what if they got rich?”

11

Senpapij t1_j3chio3 wrote

Taxing the rich always sounds like a good idea until you realize the rich will never be taxed and it'll fall on the middle class. The rich have the resources to find loopholes, or just move their money some place else avoiding taxation.

−3

Enderkr t1_j3cj9wx wrote

Then you make laws against them moving the money...?

Like seriously, we haven't even ATTEMPTED to reign in the rich and people like you come in and say "well they'll just find a way around it, anyway!" Good, fuck them. If you can pass UBI, you can pass a set of laws that either guarantee you pay into it or you get the fuck out of the country. Rich people who hide their wealth overseas can lose their citizenship and be deported.

10

bluegrassbarman t1_j3cplye wrote

>Then you make laws against them moving the money...?

Easier said than done when they own the politicians

0

Enderkr t1_j3d6byc wrote

You are missing the point, FFS. My post wasn't meant to be some bulletproof argument for UBI and the rich avoiding their taxes, its to say that people like the guy I replied to - and you I guess - are too busy making excuses for why it can't work to even try it. So good job, the rich don't even have to own the politicians because you're already convinced its a lost cause.

0

ChainmailleAddict t1_j3cl8bm wrote

Then close the damn loopholes that they CREATED in the first place! Sheesh. You're defeatist.

6

Simple_March_1741 t1_j3ckzug wrote

Loopholes exist because they were purposely created for them. Stop acting like we can't find ways to properly tax them. There are plenty but since they already have too much, buying politicians is as easy for them as buying a piece of candy.

A lot of people do not realise how much wealth they actually have.

I believe it's also worth noting that when a person hoards anything else but money - they are deemed sick. But when they hoard money they're to be looked up to. That's so crazy.

These people are sick and should be treated. They should also be taxed at a high rate until there are no billionaires on this earth.

I truly believe that they can survive on 800 or 900 million just fine, lol.

5

fiveswords t1_j3csdim wrote

You can choose to be the victim of our foreign OR our domestic policy but you can't have both.

0

GukkiSpace t1_j3ch8ij wrote

What’s the international definition of rich?

5

SuggestionSuperb1443 t1_j3ci5ln wrote

Someone with more money than me, duh

9

GukkiSpace t1_j3cjn36 wrote

“It’s really important we do this, but in a way my lifestyle doesn’t have to change-it needs to be improved!”

0

SuggestionSuperb1443 t1_j3cjukp wrote

My "lifestyle" affords me one meal a day plus housing. I don't think my demographic is being unreasonable

7

GukkiSpace t1_j3ckitj wrote

Ah, but you still can afford a meal. I’m saying if we average the whole planet out, my bet is most people would fall into a tax bracket that would nullify the basic income. Your case in particular, idk.

−4

expo1001 t1_j3cmb6h wrote

So your premise is that all those people alive today, surviving under unequal distribution of resources, will on average have less than they need if we equalize distribution?

With 95%+ of wealth currently sequestered by less than 1% of people?

Your math is wrong.

5

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3cnlzp wrote

lol

Can you math?

−3

TricksterWolf t1_j3ct89n wrote

once again: pretending to laugh is a big mistake here, especially when the rest of your comment fails to provide anything meaningful to the discussion--and in this case, doesn't even make sense as the burn that you seem to think you're delivering

0

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3czvc5 wrote

I'm not pretending - I'm laughing.

But the question is serious, because if they can not math, they could not possibly understand why they are wrong.

1

TricksterWolf t1_j3csupu wrote

"Ah, but you can still afford one, though very unlikely to be nutritious, meal per day! Checkmate, socialism!"

1

rapidtester t1_j3cj1cv wrote

Math says it doesn't work out to cover the cost, not even remotely. Unless you set the threshold of rich to the median income or so.

2

sewankambo t1_j3cjzyr wrote

That'll get you to like day 7 of funding.

−2

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3cngzc wrote

lol

I wonder, can you math?

−2

TricksterWolf t1_j3cu7tn wrote

This wasn't amusing, interesting, or useful the last time you posted this exact comment, and yet again, no reader here believes you're laughing as you type.

"lol" and laughing-while-crying emojis are universally used to project happiness and confidence when the exact opposite is true. You can't stop yourself from doing it because the main reason you engage in conversation is not to learn anything, but to convince yourself of your own superiority--which indicates low self-esteem as well as a set of beliefs that have been formed solely from sources that never challenge your viewpoint.

1

SuggestionSuperb1443 t1_j3cod4g wrote

Well, 1+1=2 and asking the question like that makes you an asshole, so how am I doing so far?

0

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3cubuu wrote

You're doing fantastic.

So, presumably, you can Google as well.

Excellent.

Look up total wealth of all billionaires on the planet, and divide it by all people on the Earth. You must be able to handle it, I'm sure.

1

QwertySomething t1_j3cigyj wrote

Tldr...its complicated..

ChatGPT had this to say: Funding Universal Basic Income



HOw can the United States generate funding for a universal basic income?

There are a few different ways that the United States could generate funding for a universal basic income (UBI) program. Some potential options include:

Taxes: The government could fund a UBI program through taxes on income, wealth, or consumption.

Government spending: The government could redirect existing spending on social welfare programs towards a UBI program.

Government borrowing: The government could fund a UBI program by borrowing money, either by issuing bonds or by increasing the national debt.

Private donations: Private individuals or organizations could donate money to support a UBI program.

Public-private partnerships: The government could partner with private companies or organizations to fund a UBI program.

It is worth noting that implementing a UBI program would likely involve trade-offs and difficult policy decisions. For example, increasing taxes or government borrowing could have unintended economic consequences, and redirecting existing government spending away from other programs could be politically controversial

5

ChainmailleAddict t1_j3clg0o wrote

UBI could probably replace several existing programs like food stamps or even social security, at least partially. It's also the only way forward if our jobs continue to be automated.

5

ButterflyCatastrophe t1_j3crag3 wrote

Most of the arguments I've seen for UBI replace ALL means-tested programs - Medicaid, EITC, Child tax credit, SNAP, etc - which come to around $800B. Some also propose it to replace non-means-tested programs - Social Security, Medicare - which add another $2,000B. $16,000 UBI for 250M adult Americans costs $4,000B/year, so it's kind of in the right ballpark, if you include SS/Medicare.

But this ignores that replacing current retiree benefits of ~$19,000 Social security plus $11,000 Medicare with just $16,000 UBI will be a huge burden on a very vulnerable population.

2

Dedjester0269 t1_j3cpbiw wrote

Great! "Government borrowing". Not like 30 trillion+ national debt is a thing.

0

gvictor808 t1_j3cizga wrote

Central Bank just prints it into existence. See COVID response. CBDC wallets will help here, too. Just add the UBI number. Also we can assign categories to the UBI dollars in CBDC wallets…must be spent by X date, can be spent only on food, can’t be spent on alcohol, can only go directly to retail vendor wallet in same geographic area, etc.

5

npete t1_j3cs6tt wrote

So you’re cool with government telling us how to live our lives? I’m not. Just because it’s “free money from the government, I don’t think that gives the government the right to determine what the money is used for. This reminds me of all the judgmental bullshit Fox News used to spout about “poor” people owning “expensive luxuries” like VCRs and refrigerators. In my mind it’s no longer a free country when the government dictates how you spend your money.

2

gvictor808 t1_j3cte2h wrote

Government can dictate how to spend the money they give away for free (UBI $, welfare, health care stipend, food stipend). The money I earn will be in BTC, and remains separate.

0

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3cq295 wrote

lol

Try multiplying, say, $1500 per month, by, say 120 000 000 Americans.

1

TricksterWolf t1_j3csbod wrote

"lol"

I don't believe you. Starting every message with "lol" suggests you're trying to convince yourself you're "winning" a discussion by projecting false confidence, even though you have provided no reliable sources, offered no cogent arguments, and in general have contributed nothing of value to the argument. This is remarkably common behavior for writers who think they sound smarter by tacking on a transparently fake "lol" or laughing-while-crying emoji. It really makes you look weak-minded so it'd be to your benefit to drop it.

It'd be even better if you self-censored and waited until you had something meaningful to contribute before replying.

(no need to thank me, just doing Thorax's work)

1

sergpepper t1_j3ck3w4 wrote

ask what would it take to make the billionaire 1% pay the poor. How do you get them to do that?

24

Magnetobama t1_j3cp3sc wrote

>What would it take to make the billionaire 1% pay the poor?

Answer:

>It is not possible or practical to make the billionaire 1% pay the poor directly. However, there are various ways in which governments and societies can reduce poverty and address income inequality. These can include policies such as progressive taxation, social welfare programs, and targeted initiatives to help disadvantaged groups. It is also important to address the underlying causes of poverty, such as lack of access to education, healthcare, and job opportunities. By addressing these issues and implementing effective policies, it may be possible to reduce poverty and improve the well-being of people who are struggling financially.

18

TricksterWolf t1_j3cqvt0 wrote

It's not bad, but it still kinda sounds like a high school C-average student vomiting up Wikipedia facts without understanding context or bothering to identify primary sources. It doesn't seem to discriminate well between fact and opinion.

5

Magnetobama t1_j3ctsxs wrote

I asked it again the same question, this time the answer is essentially "no fucking clue, let smart people figure it out":

>It's not clear exactly what you mean by "pay the poor," but there are various policies that have been proposed or implemented in an effort to address income inequality and provide support to low-income individuals and families. These can include things like progressive taxation, government assistance programs, and minimum wage laws, among others. However, there are also many complex political, social, and economic factors that can influence the feasibility and effectiveness of such policies. Ultimately, the specific steps needed to address income inequality and provide support to the poor would depend on a wide range of considerations and would require a thorough analysis of the specific context and circumstances.

3

hooplala822 t1_j3cru8c wrote

It was thought that it is lack of access to education, healthcare, and job opportunities and to some extent it is. The deciding factor turned out to be the amount of government corruption

3

sergpepper t1_j3gf0sz wrote

Everything is beautiful in theory, but in practice - they do not want to pay. politicians do not want to give away not their billions

1

scruffywarhorse t1_j3clbad wrote

Well, for one thing, you have access to chat gtp so you could just ask.

But the billionaires won’t even reasonably pay the workers who make them rich so asking them to pony up is not really how this will work.

8

ksharpie t1_j3cnjwq wrote

Well, technically that is how it would work because governments would have to impose taxes to redistribute the money from those who have it to those that have less of it. I am all for this by the way but in essence, somehow the money is redistributed either through wages or taxes.

4

Vaiiki t1_j3cp84y wrote

Yeah, don't ask Skynet that. Ask it about how to bake cakes or some shit.

3

lord_ma1cifer t1_j3d5e2h wrote

Good old fashioned extortion? Pay us a living wage or become supper. That's what it will take, for the rest of us to say enough is enough. You either give back your ill-gotten wealth or we re-enact the bloody terror all over the world. This isn't some fucking chess game its survival, and the 1% will never change willingly.

1

Trying_to_be_better2 t1_j3co173 wrote

Unfortunately the only true path to universal basic income is to make income obsolete. As long as we continue to use a monetary system there will never be basic equality let alone a sustainable way to provide income. I have no idea what we would replace it with, but instead of working towards universal basic income we should be working on universal basic human rights with rules set in place that require any leaders who break these rules to be severely punished. Remove the glamor of power completely. These rules would also apply to individuals. Good luck with that.

2

npete t1_j3ctdxt wrote

Dang—what happened to the text ChatGPT’s generated?

2

postart777 t1_j3cz9w3 wrote

Why was this removed? Post it again, somewhere else.

1

SpiderFarter t1_j3co2g0 wrote

So one has a universal right to another’s labor. I don’t think so.

−1

TricksterWolf t1_j3cv0gx wrote

I agree, corporations and the extremely wealthy who live exclusively of the underpaid labor of others should pay their low-level workers significantly more. Excellent observation.

1

SpiderFarter t1_j3davkd wrote

Your labor is only worth what someone will pay for it regardless of your whining.

0

chefcharliem t1_j3cnkxi wrote

There is a simpler way to do this... work harder for what you want. Set a goal, and you will achieve it if you don't give up.

−3

CodeHappyGilmore t1_j3d3zyn wrote

Boomer mindset. I guess every construction worker is a billionaire by now eh? So much hard work.

1

chefcharliem t1_j3dgfrc wrote

Construction workers are pretty wealthy these days. Trades pay VERY well, and you definitely would have a great life doing that for a living.....and I'm Gen X

1

CodeHappyGilmore t1_j3dgysq wrote

Weird, I make 6 figures and work a white collar job maybe working 20 works a week. I know many people that work overtime in their jobs and work 50 hour weeks, yet I make more. But they work harder. I don’t think it’s as simple as you say.

1

chefcharliem t1_j3di2hx wrote

Lol....good for you. I live by "to each his own"

1

chefcharliem t1_j3dgoch wrote

Do you have any other weak comments?

1

CodeHappyGilmore t1_j3dhm63 wrote

It’s not weak to point out how wrong you are. It’s weak of you to be this stubborn lol.

1

chefcharliem t1_j3diar5 wrote

I'm only wrong in your head and people like you. What you don't realize is simple.....everyone doesn't think the same

1

CodeHappyGilmore t1_j3difz9 wrote

Yeah, some people, like you, think they are right when they are wrong. But that’s fine because I’m right and you’re wrong. And that’s okay, you can’t always be right.

1

typicalnut t1_j3cn8u8 wrote

Sad that people don’t want to work, realize potential, achieve dreams, or change the world anymore. They just want to be paid for nothing. Begin the downfall of human society.

−9

jhjacobs81 t1_j3cog5x wrote

OR.. with a basic income they have TIME to achieve dreams, realize potential and what not. Not everyone wants to sit on their ass and do nothing all day.

I suddenly would have a lot more time for volunteer work.

6

kminola t1_j3cqaji wrote

Most of the people I know who have degrees in social services, education and the like are working in the service industry because their chosen industries don’t pay enough to live. Imagine if we suddenly had an influx of people who wanted to help others into much needed sectors because they could now pay their rent via UBI and the meager pay they get from their chosen professions was the bonus money to allow them to be people who are able to enjoy their lives?? It’d help society so so much. Imagine the positive impact on homelessness, in overall societal mental health, on kids education. And then add to that the artists who would be able to pursue creative careers, the innovators and inventors who could take years or lifetimes to invent things that technologically move us forward. I think UBI would be the beginning of a modern renaissance!

2

TricksterWolf t1_j3cuq2e wrote

say you don't understand the causes of poverty without saying you don't understand the causes of poverty

seriously I've done work in the projects with indigent families and every single one was doing everything they could to move up in the world for their children

1