my UBI (Universal Basic Income) suggestion v.28c

I believe that the presence of human beings are presence of Justice, by just being there you contributed to the interest of all of us. Maybe you were sitting outside your home with friends at night, that might have prevented a passerby being assaulted, maybe you were sleeping on the streets, you might noticed how dirty the streets are or how bad the weather has become, maybe you accompanied others who were also sleeping on the streets and improved their sense of security/company. Maybe you were talking with your friends inside a public transportation, and people who listened understood some stuffs that are important for them. Maybe you were living in an obscure place that people usually threw their trash at, now because of your presence they rethought on whether they should change their dirty habits. Maybe there are injustice happening in your city, and if it were not for your presence, people wouldn't had enough people to resisted the injustice, and because you guys resisted the problem didn't spread to other areas. 

We as human beings have common needs and common interests and that's what make us all friends with each other, creatures of justice where we are all vested interested in increasing the level of availability of mutual solutions for all (materially, mentally, sustainably). Scarcity might made us enemies, but through ingenuity we are together in overcoming it. 

Having said that I therefore presented how I'm a supporter of UBI (Universal Basic Income), I think it is capitalistic (meritocratic), and that it is fair. However due to scarcity we need stages on how we would begin the UBI:

1. Start from the oldest groups of populations because they are the longest in being there for everybody else. 

2. As the country increased their prosperity, proceed to younger and younger groups but at smaller amounts. There should be inequality in the amounts. This also should prevented the abuse of the system, increasing pregnancy in the family (just for the sake of money), because minors tend to not get portions of UBI. 

3. Take away UBI from crime doers or perpetrators. 

We don't have to make sure that the amounts suffice for basic needs at start, we just have to do it so that the society would be incentivized more in participating positively for the economy. 

-------------------------------

Edit: the reason why capitalism is meritocracy is people who accumulated wealth just for the sake of buying assets deserve all the profits by the virtue of merit. Do you realize how much they've contributed in sacrificing their consumption of their rightful earnings in order to buy capital goods? Firstly capital goods can't be eaten, can't be consumed (because they must be used for the business), and there's a high high chance that entrepreneurs might not be profitable. So it is not just postponing rewards, it is sacrificing rewards, and that is why capitalists deserve all the profit. Not mentioning the work they put after acquiring and running the asset. 

But by just suffering in order to punch the wall or the stone is not going to solve the world's hunger, the suffering. Sleeping while your robot was planting crops and make the most out of it would. The true value of meritocracy lied behind the ingenuity not the sufferings. If a lot of entrepreneurs failed, some of them failed due to lack of ingenuity. I'm not saying that I celebrate that, but the value of meritocracy, capitalism supposedly is not in the sacrifice, not in the sufferings, but in the appropriateness and the ingenuity of the solutions. How would we ever going to encourage entrepreneurs if we won't incentivize them strategically? After all, labors always negotiate using hardships as their leverage (please stop doing this and start using ingenuity instead, it's just infuriating and came across as extorting). 

---------------------------------

Are hassle worthless? Of course no, consider these two:

1. What's the minimum hassle required to deliver the solution? More than that it's supposed to be worthless. (So if there were available robots that could deliver more than a human being, the human's hassle is worthless already)

2. How rare was the availability of the hassle? Minimum salary is the government's attempt to increase the rarity of the hassle or to prevent the overabundance of the hassle. The purpose was to prevent companies or entrepreneurs from unfairly switch to another person who offered cheaper price that's inhumane. 

Here is what's not being monitored, are the minimum payments prevented the solutions from being delivered into the world? Are the severance payments prevented the employment of excellence? Are the requirements created barriers against new entrepreneurs from growing their ventures?

To answer this, test it with this question; Would the lowering of the restrictions ended up stifling the growth of entrepreneurship because it would favor monopoly? If yes then the lowering of the restrictions were pointless, but if it would favor the growth and the sustainability of entrepreneurship then it must be done. 

In the end, if UBI was thoroughly implemented, then we could lower the restrictions. The ultimate achievement of the restrictions were giving people sustainable income. When UBI was able to achieve this, then businesses would thrive because they would no longer be the ones who were gratisly employed with the worrying about the responsibility of the government. 

Inhumane salaries are unfair salaries given the contribution. But the sustainability of life, is the problem faced by everyone of us for everyone of us. Businesses should be just about businesses which is just about delivering the solution into the world, other than that are inhibitions. 

--------------------------------------------

Declining vs Increasing population:

This UBI, if I'm smart enough, This UBI is going to be the answer for both;

1. It would decrease people's initiative to have children as pension funds

2. It would decrease workplace intricacies in big corporations. Where entrepreneurship thrives, entrepreneurs would acquire a sense of self actualization other than financial stability. They would also blessed with time. These are preconditions to wanting to have kids. 

If you have a workplace that's politically unstable for you, unstable position, unstable minimal income, unstable time of work required... it would be a daredevil thing to have kids then. (Again employment regulations are more of an illusion in terms of this as it is not positively correlated with the level of availability of mutual solutions in reality. Independence or Entrepreneurship is more grounded in reality). 

---------------------------------------------

An honest government will be honest about their real sustainable power to provide UBI... to reinforce this, lies in political campaigns should not be favored. This is another problem that's also important

---------------------------------------------

Edit: 

This is hard, this is really hard not to make it ended up like a communistic failed economy. GDP per capita at least have to be in the equation (not as a measure of what a person deserves, but a measure of what the country could afford). Taxes would be very high... 

Diversified industry management tax (Monopoly/Oligopoly Tax)

If there were less than 7 companies controlling 75% of the market share in the industry (in a broad sense, defined based on the significance of the total revenues), eligible.

If there were less than 3 companies controlling 65% of the market share in the industry, extra eligible

If there were only 1 company controlling >45% of the market share, extra extra eligible.

All needs to be at relatively equal proportions

Something like that, but I'm not an economist, in this case empirical assessments is needed. In this whole thing, empirical assessments are needed. 

---------------------------------------------

If you are a government and implemented 0,5% transaction tax (within every fiat transactions there's a presence of good governance / contribution of the government there), then within 200 transactions the currency would've completed its cycle. Then you'd have the power to distribute more money without devaluing the currency. 

With the distribution of UBI or NI (national income) in my case, if the people were mostly blue collar, basic needs entrepreneurs would've thrived earlier/first. As the country became richer, the focus would be shifting gradually more towards secondary and tertiary goods and services. Such development is rational or healthy in my opinion, more stable/sustainable compared to if the secondary goods businesses were prioritized too early by the economy. 

So NI also acted to make sure this kind of pyramid or, as I prefer to call it, "ship" to grew strategically, aerodynamically, lowering the chance for the country to lost balance out of irrational consumptions.

Edit: If the people's buying power was too low, while the distribution of wealth of the economy was disproportionately in favor of secondary and tertiary goods due to monopoly/oligopoly, huge wealth gap, basic needs entrepreneurs wouldn't thrive early and secondary or tertiary goods would've thrived before most of the people could've grasped the appropriateness of them in the final analysis. The marketing world also would've leaned more towards selling these goods before basic needs goods and the bridging goods, goods that bridged income differences such as educational goods or cheap investment goods, or cost savings - utility goods. It is an increased risk of bad unsustainable spending. (If you played dota this is like your team didn't buy starting items and went straight mom/midas, daedalus, divine rapier... no bkb - herald countries). 

-------------------------------------------------

03/01/2022

Since the basis of this UBI is meritocracy we should pay attention also to the state of the economy in order to judge the magnitude of the positive presence. Therefore now I think that this UBI is better to be local rather than nationwide / global in terms of how much the amounts should be. Still if we want to be even more precise we would make layers of UBI, global, nationwide, province, city/village, district, families. 

If the economy was growing then their presence were positive, the magnitude of growth should scale the UBI also. 

By just being alive one would contribute to Justice. So don't let anyone say you deserve not what you have (unless it's illegal). 

Your life is relative to everything else, from there Justice. 

Your death leave memories of your presence, there from Justice. 

Your birth was standing on the shoulders of those before you, creatures of Justice. Your cuteness speaks of their legacy, your dawn is a celebration, your presence is the fruit of love of God. 

-------------------------------------------------

(at this point our economy probably could only afford 1000 rupiah at the end age group... and likely it would be 25. So we got to do about 1000 times better than this to make this matter. It could be done, and it could be done early because evil is just that disgusting and humans are really just that full of potentials).