If machines are laboring in our stead, and aren’t buying any of the fruits of that labor, should we not receive the paychecks that aren’t going to them or us, so as to buy those fruits?
What if you got $1,000 a month, just for being alive? I decided to find out.
Scott Santens

Ahhhh. That is the question!

And the problem is that whoever creates the machine gets to keep all the fruit of their labor (minus taxes)!

So the only way we can get basic income from the machines is to force the owners to transfer that wealth to us.

Wealth transfer.

Isn’t that what all the arguments are about today? Democrats want to transfer wealth from the rich to the masses (because the majority of the masses are Democratic voters, e.g., Clinton 52%-Trump 47%)

Republicans are the rich (the haves) and don’t want to give up that hard earned wealth. And we all know that all of those Wall Street transactions are hard earned.

So we could have basic income now for 300,000,000 people at $1,000 a month for only $300,000,000,000 a month. That’s $3.6 trillion a year. Trillion with a T.

So Bill Gates creates a machine and he has $92 billion. The Steve Jobs estate creates a machine and that has billions. Amazon, Walmart and Warren Buffett, Trump, Wilbur Ross, well, they didn’t create squat but they have billions.

My point is that you have to adopt communism or some radical socialism to ever get this off the ground.

Because those of us who worked hard and created products and services want to keep that fruit for our families and our future generations.