Over the past few years, the topic of a universal basic income has come up incessantly. Would this destroy enlistment numbers?

SFC Michael Bryant — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 22:07:03 -0500

Finland is implementing a basic income for every citizen of 800 Euros. This is in addition to employment money. Canada has one on the drawing board, as well. There are several cities across the world experimenting with it right now.

The issue is becoming a hot button topic as jobs become increasingly automated. It is estimated that 7.8 million jobs will be lost from sellf-driving cars alone. Artificial intelligence, automated warehousing, automated factories, even automated fast-food cooks... This will logically lead to some sort of basic income, universal healthcare and free state college.

How will this affect military readiness?

Response by LTC Trent Klug made Dec 5 at 2015 10:56 PM

LTC Trent Klug — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 22:56:58 -0500

Socialism is really great until that government runs out of other people's money.

How will it affect military readiness? I don't think it will. I think the progressive socialist movement is making itself very unwelcome in the US, again. Just like it did in the late 1910's & 1920's.

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Dec 5 at 2015 11:12 PM

SSG Michael Hartsfield — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 23:12:26 -0500

SFC Michael Bryant I think the answer you are looking for is "yes." Let's be upfront about this. Many join the military for the money ( such as it is) and the possibility of getting more as you go through the ranks. If the US did switch to a "one size fits all" pay system, some sort of program needs to be implemented to make up for it. I'm pretty sure no CSM or LTC wants to get the same pay as a Day One Private

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Dec 6 at 2015 12:09 AM

COL Jon Thompson — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 00:09:38 -0500

I have never heard of universal basic income before. Is that what everyone gets from the government? Or is that the minimum that people working must get (like a minimum wage)? I am not sure how that will lead to universal healthcare, free tuition, etc. Somehow someone is still paying for it and that would mean taxpayers and consumers. And if automation is putting people out of work, there will be less of both. How would it affect readiness? Fewer jobs available usually means plenty of people who want to join the military. So people-wise, I do not think it will but funding of the military may be affected, again if there are fewer taxpayers.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Dec 6 at 2015 2:38 AM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 02:38:22 -0500

SFC Michael Bryant As crazy as it sounds, it would seem that as jobs become increasingly automated, the government would have to start paying its people to not work... I guess in a sense, we're kinda doing it anyway... Military readiness, is just that, and I don't think it would be affected as all aspects of war cannot be automated... At least, I don't think so... StarNet hasn't been activated... Yet... ;)

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2015 2:40 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 02:40:54 -0500

This has come up before. Karl Marx had similar ideas.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Dec 6 at 2015 8:12 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 08:12:35 -0500

Automation, ultimately does not cost jobs. Instead, it redirects those jobs to other manufacturing, production, and service jobs. Someone has to design the new machines, create the assembly line to build them, construct the building for the assembly line, warehouses, and sales offices... There are jobs created to maintain those facilities, and to keep them clean. There are jobs added to mine, refine, and fabricate, the raw materials for the products, the buildings, the transport vehicles.... I could go on.... So long as we don't abandon market principles light many of the Scandinavian countries have done we will not be lacking of productive jobs

Response by COL Ted Mc made Dec 7 at 2015 3:57 AM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 03:57:54 -0500

SFC Michael Bryant - Without commenting on how it would bne implemented, a "Basic Annual Income" has one BIG advantage, it is incredibly easy to administer. A second advantage is "reverse tax farming".

[In "tax farming" the government doesn't collect the taxes. Rather private enterprise contracts to pay the government the net amount of money that would be collected from taxes in return for the right to collect and keep the taxes. The profit comes from the private company being more efficient in collecting the taxes than the government would be.]

[In "reverse tax farming" private enterprise contract with the government to pay out the designated level of benefits in return for the government paying it a set amount of money to do so. The profit comes from the private enterprising having the use of the money from the date it receives it until the date it actually pays it out (in the case of a bank, that means the day that the money is withdrawn and not until the money is deposited to the payee's account.)]

[ASIDE - In order to have a "flat tax" that would cover all of the government's expenses as well as paying out a "Basic Annual Income" that tax would have to be approximately 50% on every dollar of 'income' (for companies that would NOT mean 'profits' because that money would remain untaxed until it was either paid out as dividends or paid out of the country {in which case it would be deemed to be 'income'}). The "Basic Annual Income would be set so that a family of four with an income of $65,000 would be "tax neutral". Families of four with incomes lower than $65,000 would have MORE to spend while those with incomes of more than $65,000 would have less. Additionally there would be no "Welfare", "Social Assistance", "Unemployment Insurance" or any other "social safety net" programs (thus cutting out all the bureaucracy associated with them.]