ArthurD.Howland February 20, 2017 11:37 PM I think the UBI is a great idea. Current welfare allocates resources inefficiently. For example, in Arlington Va we taxpayers spent $133M to build a shelter for 80 people. It would have literally been cheaper to buy a house for these people in another city in the same state. More ironically the shelter is attached to the same building my job is in, so I commute an hour to get to work because I can't afford to live in that area but homeless people get it for free? Example 2, DC mayor's real estate friends do deals to house the homeless for $4K/month... is that an efficient use of DC Taxpayer funds? No it is not. UBI will help get the corruption out. JohnReaves February 21, 2017 12:18 AM It's a real issue but a narrow perspective. The history of civilization for thousands of years is about the destruction of work; there is still somehow plenty of work to do. In fact, reducing quantities of an input (e.g. work) to a production process seldom reduces demand for that input, it usually increases it because we always want more ... the question for the future is, more of what? What will we want that's worth working for? AG4000 February 21, 2017 02:12 AM People need to start thinking of UBI as a potential solution to a lot of global issues. The argument for global security easily outweighs the concern that there will be a bunch of freeloaders, especially now that robots are in the mix. What I mean can be summed up by looking at 3 recent TED Talks that have nothing to do with UBI. 1) Sarah Parcak - Help discover ancient ruins, she says world heritage sites are getting looted, the reason is people need money more than ever. Her solution, spend millions on a crowdsource project to look at sites via satellite. 2) Deeyah Khan - What We Don't Know About Europe's Muslim Kids, she interviewed convicted terrorists and didn't find 'monsters' she found broken people, torn between their culture and their country. Other talks have also highlighted that extremists draw on broken down people with few other options. 3) Caleb Barlow - Where is Cybercrime really coming from? He talks of a huge underground economy, a Deep Web full of people willing to do whatever terrible thing you want as long as you pay.Do you think people would be looting the pyramids, joining extremists groups, or hacking for money if they had a UBI allowing them to follow their dreams? Here's a bonus TED talk to think about, Paul Knoepfler - The ethical dilemma of designer babies, he talks about CRISPR and how much of a game changer it is, and the widespread impacts it can have. Think of this like hacking the living world, UBI could help prevent bio-hackers for money like we already have for computers.I feel the same way about healthcare, not having it is a huge risk. Everyone loves 'Breaking Bad' but no one seems to realize it wouldn't have happened if the character had healthcare. Without these universal programs we are creating the problems we are willing to spend billions to try to fight. Look at cyber crime, can the governments ever hope to stay ahead of that? If you want to get really worried watch Sugata Mitra's TED talks showing kids teaching themselves to use computers, and think about where we send all of our e-waste. UBI is not about altruism it's about global security but only if we can apply it across the world. How to implement this will be the trick to figure out but the first step is to see the potential, and to agree we need it. AG February 21, 2017 02:33 AM It should be an automation tax. Automation has been going on for decades but with the exception of few countries like Canada, there is no focus on re-training the unemployed. Moreover, the current benefit system in most countries motivates to continue to be un-employed. UBI for all with focused re-training of un-employed would a whole new world of opportunities for the workforce motivating a higher level of output resulting from an unconditional income security, re-training options and Happiness. Why would anyone not want to increase their income if given the opportunity to better one self. PabloMartin February 21, 2017 08:36 AM I'd also like to recommend any TED talks with Yuval Noha Harari the author of Sapiens and Homo Deus. The problem with UBI is what's actually Universal? and Basic? is it only clothes, food and shelter? Medical healthcare to what degree?and if everything costs the same as today how's that transition going to happen?...In the short term I'd love to see new technologies lowering the usual homeowner costs that people have (You know, solar panels and your own electricity, automated cars driving around you can just hop on and lab food that comes cheap). Very exciting times ahead! Sieg February 21, 2017 09:10 AM Hi, My view is rather simplistic. By 2050 or earlier there will be virtually no jobs that robots, including the designing of them, can not do better. With the advent of quantum computing the rate of progress will increase. What then? Our governments, including all the ones that are on the election path or just have come in, promise to increase the number of jobs, a promise they cannot possibly keep and the world population is still growing. To illustrate just take a look at UBER. Presently they have lot of drivers under contract but they are also spending millions on autonomous cars both passemger and commercial. In the next few years thousands and thousands of drivers will be out of a job, but the company will be carring on making money for the benefit of a few. So my way in Ubers case would be that at least they should allow each driver to invest in one of these cars to keep on earning a living. Either the government and the top 5% and their companies provide for the millions that will be out of work or there will be huge social upraisings. EUbrainwashing February 21, 2017 09:49 AM Do the sums. Robot tax is an unnecessary nonsense. So too is Assuming robots reduce human-labour costs, (else why employ them), either the company employing them will then be more profitable (and they will pay tax pro rata on their extra profits) or the cost of the goods or service provided, with the use of robotic labour, will fall pro rata, (and very likely a mix of the both). If the company pays tax on the additional profit it should soon equate to being 'one and the same' as some complex method of judging and calculating how much work is robotic. If the price of the goods/service falls, due to robotic cost savings, then the net benefit to the wider-economy of reduced costs will either reduce the cost of living (for example) or allow higher levels of consumer taxation.If we have robotic hospital staff, for example, then taxation or health insurance costs can be reduced. If human workers have less work opportunity, and as a result less gross salary goes into the economy, the cost of living, amortised across the wider economy, will ultimately fall pro rata too. People will need less money to live just as well or better. People will work less perhaps but adapt their skills to provide more and more specialised services that are not economic or possible for robotic labour to usefully provide.It has already happened. This effect is what has taken place with the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the technological revolution, globalisation and so on. The economy adapts, the economy is a self-regulating system. The two things that are necessary for a burgeoning robotic revolution is 1). for government to keep away and let market forces do their 'self-regulating' work untainted, and 2). not take any notice of people like Bill Gates who always have nothing to hide but a hidden agenda.The same too with a universal basic income (UBI) and moves towards a cashless society. These are very dangerous ideas for the continued freedom of people and for restraining the leviathan of 'the state' and its big money/power corporate masters. Aross February 21, 2017 12:10 PM The problem is one of too much control by the people who benefit most from automation. It is not the general public but the one percent. Every solution put forward these days are what I like to call rich man's solutions for poor man's problems. Every time there is an innovation in business it benefits the producer not the consumer. In my opinion we need to reduce automation down to only jobs that would be hazardous to human health and safety, reduce part time jobs to full time jobs and structure the tax systems so that people are able to retain enough of their earnings to live. In many countries with a minimum wage set up people with a minimum wage actually pay income tax on that money. I feel that if we get everybody back working and earning a livable wage it would restore dignity and reduce crime and yes even terrorism. Programs like UBI, welfare and minimum wages don't do this. Lets face it people with too much free time on their hands and too little resources tend to resort to other not always legal means to survive. piperTom February 21, 2017 12:44 PM Ned Ludd would be so proud. We're just about to eliminate work, just like in 1800. But, instead of breaking the machines, we'll tax them. The article goes off the rails at the very start, asking "how will we manage..." That 'we' is, of course, politicians and bureaucrats, whose historic performance is... is... is pitiful. The question should have been "should 'we' manage..." or even better "CAN we manage..." The answer is NO. You cannot and you shouldn't try. If the busybodies and the do-gooders will stay out of the way, people will deal with it. Bob Stuart February 21, 2017 12:51 PM If the robots are not taxed for the UBI, they should be owned only by displaced workers, not corporations. Capitalism only operates for fairness where the players are substantially equal economically.