anticon

It's extremely funny how every argument for Basic Income completely ignores the fact you will have to centrally plan how you're going to get all this endless money to give people. You're going to decide where to raise taxes.

The other problem is that if implemented, any future elections would boil down to which party is going to raise basic income the most (Bribing the electorate).

Because there is no free money. We would all have to pay for it. We would be subsidising laziness.

If we redistributed wealth around the world, everyone would be poor, unable to start companies, etc etc. Does that really solve anything useful?

You do realise that if you redistributed wealth over the world, you would be drastically worse off don't you...

The level of koolaid here is just too large a mountain to attempt to scale.

Automation will just move a few jobs around, like it always has done. And yes - we don't need jobs. But no - that doesn't mean the state should give everyone free money.

The UK government currently spends around £120b on welfare (Including pensions) a year. Please don't pluck false information out of thin air.

Yeah I'm sure you could find that missing £85bn down the back of a sofa in whitehall.

Sorry, but the whole idea is laughable. Not to mention the fact that it's another incentive to have more children and bigger families because the state will give you more money.

So you want to spend £240 billion pounds, twice the NHS budget in the UK, on helping struggling artists?

How would they take more from the billionaire? Means test them? What if they're asset rich, cash poor... or if they have no income? The whole idea is unworkable. It's like it's been dreamed up by a 5 year old.

You don't mention the fact it's completely unworkable mathematically. In the UK I believe it'd cost £240 billion a year. Where the hell would anyone be able to find that money from? (Tackling tax avoidance from Starbucks isn't a credible answer).

Just to put it in context, that's twice the entire NHS's budget, or 5 times our defence spending.

So in effect Basic Income is even worse as it doesn't means test recipients. If you're a billionaire, the state is still going to give you money.

Seriously? Do you not think you're in a bubble of 1%ers? Most people aren't itching to start a company you know... Most want to watch American Idol and do nothing.

People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create things.

The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. (Step outside the startup bubble for a while). Most people are also selfish. The idea that they'll all start doing things to benefit others is a bit far fetched.

Communism (Which is what this is), has failed. Why this generation seems determined to try it again is beyond me.

This is about stealing money from the successful, and giving it to everyone, regardless of merit. It's a fantastic way to reward failure and penalise success, and society will suffer because of it. The numbers are also staggering - it just doesn't work mathematically unless you can magic up billions from somewhere each year.

Also be under no illusion - if a basic income was implemented, the chances are (Assuming you're better off than the average person) you would have to reduce your quality of life substantially to pay for it.

Yes. I had to fax them something (I forget what) to prove it was my email address. It took about a week to get it sorted.

I'd echo others though - Google is awful at support. They're awful at communication. They decide to shut down products at the drop of a hat without telling people. Avoid Google if you can.

This worked for me. My account was suspended in error years ago (Suspect logins or something), and the only way I got it back was by calling up an adwords representative and telling them I couldn't login to adwords and spend money until they unsuspend my email account.

It's going to be great when these cars are around a bit more. You could have some pretty good fun trying to get one of the self driving cars to crash into you. Won't be that hard to do I'm sure.

There's a lot of examples. Just watch Back To The Future Part II for some obvious examples.

When they landed on the moon, do you think they thought we'd still be faffing about doing not much in space 50 years later? I'm betting they thought we'd be colonising mars by now.

A lot of taxi drivers grew up when London was part of England, before it became a "global city". It's unsurprising that they miss those days when it was still culturally part of England.

Never had a bad black cab ride. I'd trust any black cab driver over software/GPS etc.

Making them available in California isn't the same as making them available in a). Countries that have weather, and b). Countries that have curved roads.

As another poster comments, it's as close as several other science fiction things that are always "A few years away!".

Perhaps in 100 years some of the easiest roads will be driven by self driving cars. I doubt any of these drivers are too worried.

Why do you think it won't save them? Uber has been banned and ruled illegal. I doubt that'll be overturned.

The strike is just to raise public awareness of multinational companies coming in and not following regulations to make more profit.

You get what you pay for. If you're happy to entrust your life into a random untrained uninsured stranger, then go ahead and get the cheaper unregulated taxi.