[Skybird]

I fail to see why somebody who deliberately rejects to contribute to society through his labour nevertheless must be, in your words, "protected", which means, I assume, he must be carried. He is not disabled, he rejects to give bacvk by his labour, but he should have claim for as much as somebody who is willing to much more? Sorry, no.

Somebody has to do the dirty, the unwanted, the stressful work. As long as this work needs to be done by humans, I oppose this financial model. It betrays those who do much more and rewards those who do not deserve it.

I also have a deep trust in human laziness and desire to pick the easy way. I also think it will destroy sense of realism even more and shredder market understanding.

And no, I do not expect that robots will take over all the unwanted jobs in the next decades. Robots will take over where their use is financially efficient. Which will cost more low-ranking employments and jobs, most likely. Theoretically, in a widely "robotized" job environment a society model where you need to work for a wage to make your living is no longer sustainable, since the vital precondition for individual survival - jobs bein available - is no more fulfilled. Taxation model will probably be needed to massively chnaged here, too. Robot jobs need to pay taxes, of you want to stick to the current model of states and societies and political party oligarchies. There is plenty of potential for conflict, but I have not read anyone so far who has a realistic solution that goes beyond socialist proclamation of paradise of Earth, all for free, no costs involved. As it is now, it always resaults in just making more debts, let the state pay for it (whioch means in the end we all pay for it), and those who are artificially labelled as being "rich" get plundered even more intensively. Germany already now is a high-taxation country.

So far utopic escapism and ideologically ambitioned plundering involved in all this talking about national wages.

But also this: in many places where such models are beign tested, they are meant to simplify the overly complex bureaucracy in the social systems and their administrations, which may mean in the end the benefitting citizens have no net gains, only are given back the responsibility to care for their future and health insurrance and social isnurrance all themselves, by their own choices and decisions. In this regard, I accept to talk about this model: to get the state out and to battle the mentality of so many people that the state shall nanny them, shall pay for them, shall nurse them. As long this chnage of paradigm does not mean the whole system costs even more and plunders employees and workers even more than it already is the case.

The many simplifications in the discussions about these new general income models, is breathtaking. The shamelessness as well.

There aint no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody gotta pay the bill. Allways. Personally, I think products and service mist cost, and better products and better services must cost more. This simple truth is elemental. People have no claim to be rewarded the same like somebody who deserves more due to his better or more work, success, cleverness. I do not like socialist equalization of all. I want justice, but for that ther eust be causal link between cause and effect, ammount or quzlaity of work, and reward. Kill this elemental mechanism, and you take the major incentive for people to work and especially do unattractive work out of the forumla. I do not believe that if all people have all freedom and choice, it magically turns out their best and most noble qualities and altruism trumps egoism of of a sudden. The only main effect that all this will trigger, is this: that demands skyrocket high into the air, and many start to claim even more, perversely calling that"justice" and "solidarity".

Why should I do my best if it does not reward me much more than him who lives a lazy life and refuses to do like I do? Am I his servant? Am I his?

Not just rights. Also duties. Who makes no contributions in taxes, has no claim for sharing decision making. Who does not donate to society, has no claim for society providing him a life, even less alife as comfortable as that of others who finances their lives by their own means, may it be savings, job wages, or wealth. Give and take, dude.

(Disabled and old people excluded from this debate until here. But even there I do not accept to hand out a card blanche).

Nobody shall have the right to demand others to live for his sake and to afford him a living. Thats just another form of slavery.