Why would I work?

Ambition and the money provided by Government would/should be barely enough to keep you afloat. There have been several experiments with a system call the Universal Income System (Where everyone has a base income paid by the government) and there the people didn't have to work, since the money they got was enough to sustain them. Instead only about an average of 10% didn't work while the rest still worked.... So while there are people who'll mooch off the Government. There are people who actually use their help for their own betterment, and these people seem to Outnumber the lazy people 10-1. So I hope that explains my position on why I think you are being unfair with this Meme

I don't believe I am being unfair. It has been tried many times and always fails. I also believe your numbers are backward.

Finland tried for two years to have a "Basic Income Guarantee". It failed and they are ending it. Less than 10% in the program went to work.

Human nature will never change. If you don't have to work why work.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/finnish-failure-guaranteed-basic-income-punishes-work-subsidizes-sloth/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/business/finland-universal-basic-income.html

"I don't believe I am being unfair. It has been tried many times and always fails."

"Finland tried for two years to have a "Basic Income Guarantee". It failed"

Actually:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/2193136-universal-income-study-finds-money-for-nothing-wont-make-us-work-less/amp/

https://medium.com/basic-income/what-is-there-to-learn-from-finlands-basic-income-experiment-did-it-succeed-or-fail-54b8e5051f60

Calling the Finnish experiment a Failure would be quite Harsh wouldn't it? Still, its got a long way to go.

Well, the Finns are canceling the program, so I don't think saying it failed is harsh.

Canada also tried it and it also failed.
https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/commentary/canadian-experiment-quickly-shows-failures-universal-basic

While Basic Income Guarantee is being discussed worldwide, the underlining problem always comes down to human nature. How do you fill the less undesirable low paying jobs, what about people who don't want to work, and my favorite, where do you get the money to pay for it.

"Well, the Finns are canceling the program, so I don't think saying it failed is harsh."

The entire thing wasn't meant to last longer than two years. Its less them cancelling it and more them finishing the experiment

"Canada also tried it and it also failed."

Oh no that was just Politics. The thing got cancelled when that Conservative Prime Minister was elected. I think you can see how the story went. The Canadian experiment was showing promise and then it was killed.

"How do you fill the less undesirable low paying jobs,"

Easy. Automation.

"what about people who don't want to work"

Its always been shown that these type of people remian fairly outnumbered

"where do you get the money to pay for it."

Easy. Cancel some Social Programs that foucs on giving some sort of income to poor people and use their funds. That is an issue that has to be adressed on an individual bases.

First, I want to thank you for a good discussion. I don't always get people who want to discuss, but just argue.

I don't think it is as easy as you say.

There are many jobs that do not lend well to automation or we don't yet have the technology to do them.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine that a guaranteed basic income would cost more than the welfare programs we have today.

The other problem is once again, you are forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving to someone who didn't earn it. I always have a problem with that. If I decide to donate to charity, that is my decision. What right does someone else have to tell me that I have to give my money to someone else, for no benefit to me? Who determines how much is "fair", 50%, 70%, 90%?

The problem with taxing the wealthy at high rates is that in today's world the rich have options. Look at NY and Calif. The wealthy are leaving and now these states are in financial trouble. In Calif. even the middle class is leaving.

Andrew Yang is suggesting basic income of $1000/mo paid for by a 10% VAT tax as well as a tax on highly polluting corps, but is against(at least he claims) a wealth tax. Whether that's enough to cover it or not I have my doubts, but it's refreshing to see a democratic candidate that isn't basing their campaign on sticking it to the rich or insulting conservatives. Might be worth taking a look at.

I don't know much about Yang or Gabbard. I need to do some more research on both of them. I understand they are more moderate than any of the others.