Silicon Valley Elitists- Let’s Give “Universal Basic Income” a Try

Posted by Tina

They may have genius, in a liberal nerdy kinda way, but they sure as hell can’t think straight when it comes to individual human beings living in America. I’m talking about Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg who recently told Harvard grads that we need to consider “universal basic income.” He’s joined by others who’ve made millions and millions of dollars. They actually think this is a way to redefine equality:

“Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it’s time for our generation to define a new social contract,” Zuckerberg said during his speech. “We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”

Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don’t have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.

Altman’s view is similar. A year ago, Altman said he thinks “everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs—no matter what, especially if there are enough resources to make it possible. We don’t yet know how it should look or how to pay for it, but basic income seems a promising way to do this.” Altman believes basic income will be possible as technological advancements “generate an abundance of resources” that help decrease the cost of living.

Geez…talk about killing incentives in life…one of the most basic incentives! The need to eat! The need to be warm and dry…the need to follow urges and interests in order to improve ones circumstances.

Instead, lets just pay people to sit on their butts and play video games all day. The nerdy guys don’t get that people will take the path of least resistance. People will take the easy way out. We can’t organize success in another person’s life. We can’t squeeze inventiveness or creativity with handouts. There is no single path to success. Many people have become successful without a “safety net.” Human nature dudes…do some investigating!

This entry was posted in Business, Industry and Finance, Constitution and Law. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Silicon Valley Elitists- Let’s Give “Universal Basic Income” a Try

  1. J. Soden says:

    FakeBook and Suckerberg’s ideas from his ivory tower aren’t worth your attention. Read/Listen At Your Own Risk!
    Why anyone still has a FakeBook account is beyond me.

    • Tina says:

      I did for about two minutes when it first came out but soon lost interest.

      Universal Basic Income my not be worth our time but it will become another front for the aggressive progressive push. Ugh…they never stop.

      • Harold says:

        Boy do I agree with that comment Tina.

        “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re going to be better off […] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so “pinched” that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
        Obama was asked this question about his plans to increase taxes on small business owners. His response was laughable, and Pure BS, and we all should recognize it was Obama’s policies that helped create the “Pinch”

        The phrase “spread the wealth around” instantly reminds me of how a Liberal socialist wants control of America’s economy, using misinformation toward the naïveté core of their voters who lack the understanding of basic economics and only depend on government handouts called entitlements.

        Wealth is already spread around, and American businesses have been spreading it around for over 200 years. We, as a nation, have done so in a productive manner, and without support or any direction from the government.

        Wealth is redistributed every time a business makes a payroll, or pays an invoice for its inventory.

        Every charitable donation spreads wealth from one person to another who is in need.

        Wealth redistributed is a result of employment, and employed people are called self-reliance.

        Employment labor is exchanged for a share of those dollars generated by employer’s investments in the work place. When Government gets involved, it just takes those dollars (that could expand employment) from those employers and reduces job growth through excessive taxation.

        Also there’s charity, which offers no compensating benefit to the giver, other than a feeling of having done something good, moral and principled.

        Mark Zuckerberg needs to answer this question: When you hire someone or pay your taxes, do you feel good, moral or principled? Or does your wealth, say verse your ideology cause you to feel something more akin to guilt? Isn’t providing productive income for others through growing a business enough, or is it just you feel guilty about the billions you have retained for yourself?

        Zuckerberg should give his concept of “spreading the wealth” a bit more clarity to those just starting out.

        Does he consider “spreading the wealth” verse creating wealth to only occur if the government is involved in wealth’s distribution?

        Does this socialistic concept of Zuckerberg’s only work if the government decides who will be the recipients of our efforts and financial success?

        Or does he just lump governmental outlays into the “charity” category, never expecting any value in exchange for this redistribution of someone else’s wealth?

        It appears to me, his Liberal ideology hope is to grow the liberal largess of voters so his current preferred party can recover from their waning base.

        My thoughts are, the best approach to “spreading the wealth” is by removing government from the process, since the government itself is the largest single impediment to efficient and effective allocation of private resources.

        And before anyone’s head explodes from reading the words “self-reliant”, verse misusing the term “government, efficiently and economically” as beneficial to the people in the same sentence, please remember the actual ineffectual results of governments use of the dollars we create is deplorable.

        More to the point, the reality of additional taxes was once summed up rather nicely by Mr. Jeff Daiell (the Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Texas), who said:

        “When the Barbary Pirates demanded a fee for allowing you to do business, it was called ‘tribute money.’ When the Mafia demands a fee for allowing you to do business, it’s called ‘the protection racket.’ When the state demands a fee for allowing you to earn a living, it’s called “taxes.”

  2. Chris says:

    Actually, a universal basic income has been supported by American thinkers as diverse as MLK, Jr., Thomas Paine, and Milton Friedman. It isn’t just some crackpot liberal idea; a lot of libertarians are warming up to it as a more efficient and less beuracratic alternative to the welfare state we have now. I don’t know if I’m sold on it, but the idea deserves more than an easy dismissal.

  3. Tina says:

    Milton Freidman and MLK favored this idea at a time when it might have been a better alternative to what we got, the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson.

    I don’t know what they would think about it today. All of the detrimental effects that Daniel Patrick Moynahan warned about have happened. The amount of redistribution that goes on now would shock them. People today don’t have the strong work ethic of former generations or the aversion to handouts they once had. Too many of our citizens have been trained into dependency.

    Zuckerberg actually thinks he was able to create Facebook because he “had a cushion.” I think that’s ridiculous. The idea is there or it isn’t. A person grabs that idea and runs with it or they don’t. Plenty of people started with nothing and went into hock to get their idea off the ground. I wonder, is it guilt about his tremendous wealth that makes him think this way?

    An article from Mises, “Fallacies of the Negative Income Tax,” is worth a read and includes:

    Trick names of this sort corrupt the language and confuse thought. It would hardly clarify matters to call a handout a “negative deprivation” or having your pocket picked “receiving a negative gift.”

    The problem that the NIT (negative income tax) evades or glosses over is the problem of the individual or family with zero income. If an individual were given only $300 (the figure suggested in Professor Friedman’s original proposal in 1962), nobody would regard this as nearly adequate — particularly if, as Professor Friedman also proposed, NIT were made a complete substitute for all other forms of relief and welfare. If the NIT payment for a family of zero income is set at $1,700, no advocate of the guaranteed income would regard it as adequate to live on in “decency and dignity.” So if the NIT were ever adopted, the political pressure would be irresistible to make it provide the minimum “poverty-line” income of $3,400 even to families with zero earned income.

    The basic subsidy would therefore be as great as under the straight guaranteed income. But if the basic subsidy under NIT to a family with zero income were $3,400, then under the NIT 50% “incentive” formula that family would continue to get some government subsidy until its annual income reached $6,800. But this is higher than the median family income for the whole country in 1963 ($6,637). In brief, this would be fantastically expensive.

    In addition, it would raise serious problems of equity. When the subsidized family was earning $6,798 income it would still be getting a $1 subsidy. When it earned $6,802 would it fall off the gravy train entirely, and have to wait until its income fell below $3,400 before it could get on again? And what about the family that had been earning $3,402 all along, and had never got on the gravy train?

    The arithmetical dilemma of the NIT has received so little attention from its advocates that I hope I may be forgiven another illustration to show the paradoxical way in which it would work out.

    I can’t see the left in Congress replacing the entire welfare system for a negative tax system. There are Rhino’s that wouldn’t repeal and replace the welfare system.

    I can see them adding another layer of assistance, adding more to our debt.

  4. Joe says:

    The feral (yes, feral…it’s in a wild state) gooberment is 20 trillion in debt and adding to that at hundreds of billions a year. It has unfunded liabilities in the hundreds of trillions. (That is, the paraticians (parasites/politicians) have promised way, way more than can ever possibly deliver.) Where does the money come from for a universal basic income? Maybe Libby can pull it out of her magic carpet.

  5. Joe says:

    Here’s the scoop on Suckerburg and the basic income…great article.

    The Real Reason Zuckerberg Supports A Universal Basic Income

  6. Joe says:

    GOOD FOR TRUMP! Smirkel and Macrony can shove it.

    Trump Defies G7, Refuses To Back Climate Deal After “Controversial” Debate

  7. TruthToPower says:


    Everything out of your very narrow Heritage Foundation Koch ideology is Liberal.
    That simply is not reality………………..

    Robotics and what do we do with the humans on earth?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.