Not once the robots take over.

I don't see why it would affect housing so disproportionately. Housing is just one of many things people would spend the money on. Stafford Loans are spent only on college education. Meanwhile, there's still quite a few empty houses out there to cushion the effects of introducing the program.

Perhaps if we could get rid of that unemployment thing.

That's a fair point.

And as for the shadow outside- you kinda make my point there. You don't' sit outside of theaters for hours missing any potential calls. And there are many other causes of cell phone shadow areas.

I think it should be easy and legal for theaters to say, "If you want to enter this theater, you won't get a cell signal while watching a film". Past there, I say let the free market decide. Make some theaters cell phone proof and see if people prefer them or not.

It could be that lots of people want their cell phones to work and they will avoid the deadened theaters. However, in my experience it's about 1% of people who are the problem in the theater. Most people do NOT get calls, do NOT call their friends and tell them about the movie while it's showing, do NOT play video games, etc.

I'm saying that it is extremely doubtful that those are the best use of resources. Are you actually trying to argue that the world is better off overall with gold plated doggie bowls in it? That it wouldn't be better to allocate the needed resources (including the labor) elsewhere?

But the nudie scanners aren't going away, they're being altered for another hefty pricetag rather than going away as so many want. The groping isn't going away even though only a very few want to be groped.

If income tax is gone, why does everyone's paycheck still show a deduction? Originally, it was meant to apply only to the very wealthy but it bracket crept on down.

The basic income isn't just about wealth equality (though it helps that). It also allows us to abolish minimum wage, social security, welfare, food stamps, etc since it becomes the safety net. It offers would-be entrepreneurs a way to feed their family while they get a business bootstrapped on a shoestring (including helping them to afford hiring people). It gives those wanting to further their education a decent way to do so without having to invent the 48 hour day.

I do expect that it will cause some inflation. Even that is good to an extent. It will help balance trade without destroying the middle and lower class, ESPECIALLY if we control our dependence on foreign oil.

So you're saying 70 foot yachts and gold plated doggie bowls are the best use of resources?

Too bad it's been slipping for the 99%.

I'm all for raising standards in other countries. We can do that intelligently where nobody gets hurt, or the way we are doing it where a few get super rich, and many suffer while the 3rd world barely inches up.

Too bad it doesn't align that way. We end up with DVD players that cost $40 instead of $100 but food, clothing, and shelter remain stubbornly high. So we end up with naked starving homeless people who have a nice cellphone. Not a good trade at all.

The problem is corporations charging 1st world prices but paying 3rd world wages.

protectionism took my jerb, killed my dog and gave me smelly feet! It's true, I swear!

Immigration is fine. if a company needs to hire a foreign worker who plans to immigrate, let them help with the green card and get that process started.

Given how some employers scream for more H1-Bs, you'd think they'd be sponsoring a ton of immigrants and green cards, but for some reason they are only interested in more H1-B.

The problem with the safety net is that it isn't terribly safe and does nothing to address wealth disparity. Sure, no polititian would campaign on a reduce the income plan, but no politician campaigned on the nudie scanner platform either.

Nobody likes paying income tax, but I note it's not down to zero yet, even for people who barely make the house payment.

Generally, yes. If they did not embrace it, they would question it's validity.

We would have to nail it down fairly tight, but it's really no different than now where we have forces on one side trying to vote taxes on the wealthy and corporate taxes down and on the other trying to vote minimum wage up. I'm sure we can count on the 1% to apply plenty of back pressure against raising the basic income.

Since nothing will fully stop that process and any proposed solution will face exactly the same political abuses from both sides, I don't see it as a reason not to move forward. It might help to tie it to economic indicators that actually reflect reality in order to reduce excuses to change it at all.